BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"assault weapons" should NOT be prohibited

Ok, I'd like to first point out one thing. You needed to be more specific on what types of rounds should be restricted. Standard hunting rifle rounds typically have almost twice the power of your standard "assault weapon" cartridge. Here's the issue with a pistol. A pistol lacks power, thus making ineffective for a multiple home intruder invasion. Believe it or not, a woman once shot a home intruder SIX times with a handgun and the burglar did NOT die. He was able to run out of the house and almost got away until police got him. Now, if it took 6 rounds for a woman to shoot ONE man, and the six bullets didn't even kill him, what would she have done if there were 3 or 4 home intruders? (multiple home intrusions are common by the way) That is why a semi automatic long gun is necessary. My choice of weapon would be an AR 15 because they are semi automatic and look nice. Now, you haven't actually mentioned anything about "assault weapons". I don't have a clear understanding of what kind of gun control you feel is necessary. You didn't state what a "powerful" rifle round is, and you didn't say what kinds of firearms should be prohibited. Either way, my question for you is why don't you support alternative solutions to prevent mass shootings and the number of people killed? There are 3 things you should be aware of. 1. 75% of gun murder victims are criminals in the first place. Often I get "well just because they are criminals, they don't deserve to die. " Well, do gun owners deserve to lose their gun rights because gang bangers and street thugs don't know how to properly behave? 2. Over 90% of mass shooters were on psychiatric drugs. Doctors are even saying that these drugs motivate these killers to go on these killing sprees. So, rather than implementing gun control which restricts mentally SANE and law abiding citizens, why not create psychiatric drug laws? 3. nearly all mass shooters were previously mentally ill. if we know this, why not work harder to restrict these people from owning guns rather than making everyone pay. Homicides by "assault weapons" The strange thing is that people advocate for a ban on "assault weapons", meanwhile they disregard how many people are killed by them. According to the FBI, 3.7% of homicides involve rifles IN GENERAL. That most likely means less than 2% of gun homicides are committed by "assault weapons" (majority of the victims being criminals) I actually have more stats to say, but because I don't understand your exact viewpoints on the topic, I don't feel I am ready to present you my other arguments. Please be VERY detailed in what kind of firearms should be prohibited and explain how a ban on these types of weapons would "make a benefit' for society. I also said high capacity magazines would be for a different debate if you wanted to discuss it.
"assault weapons" should NOT be prohibited

I assume you mean the one comment on the "Big issues"that I posted. Yes I certainly think they should restrict the type of guns allowed. For example self defense weapons like small pistols should be allowed to those with a license, permit, and background check. Also I believe that guns overall should be less damaging, like less firepower and smaller caliber so if a person does decide to shoot, the gun would have a less likely chance to kill some one. They should also sell less damaging bullets, like hard rubber pellets like the use in prisons to the public instead of a metal bullet. High capacity magazines should also be banned I also believe people with mental instabilities, like sudden anger or rage should not have possession of a gun for obvious reasons as they could shoot up a store with people in it for no reason. Military grade weapons should stay in the military and police guns should stay with the police. Even the police's guns should be down graded since there was that cop that shot a person in a movie theater for texting.
Electric Vehicles are better than Gas Vehicles.

I believe Electric Vehicles are better than Gas Vehicles in a number of categories. I would like to hear good arguments for the other side because all I get from most people is that they love the roar of the engine. Thank you for having a debate with me. Some categories I have thought of. -Efficiency -Strength (Towing capacity) -Cool factor (Optional because it is opinion based.) -Price -Range and Reliability -How well it works in winter -Pollution I believe electric vehicles are the same if not better in each of the above areas. For most of my arguments I will use The Model S/X/1 from Tesla Motors as my electric vehicle of choice. Please cite your sources, no made up facts, no "because I said so" "because it just is" etc. And finally this is meant to be enjoyable so no insults. I have used round one to set up this debate, whoever accepts can use round one to introduce yourself and your points OR jump right in.Thank you again! May the best debater win.
Electric Vehicles are better than Gas Vehicles.

Sorry for the late response, my district still has school. First, I'd like to refute your points on "Pollution" and "Accessibility". Pollution: As of December 2014, over 10,000 highway-capable plug-in electric cars have been sold in Canada since January 2011 (www.greencarreports.com). As of September 2015, the United States has 373,007 highway-capable plug-in electric cars sold since 2008. Even though the US' statistics were measured in a much larger period of time, a total of 81,675 plug-in electric cars were sold during the first nine months of 2015 (HybridCars.com and Baum and Associates)! So in fact, most of electric cars, by the thousands, don't have this renewable energy. The majority of electricity is powered by non renewable energy, like natural gas and coal- which as previously stated makes up 39 percent. Only 13 percent of electricity is powered by renewable energy. The argument must deal with reality and facts, not speculation. Accessibility: Once again, gas wins by far. Even though in 2 years, the number of EV charging stations has increased by 5,00 between 2011 and 2013. However, the number of EV charging stations is in a decline! "The number of new electric charging stations for which opening dates were available fell by two thirds in 2014, to 685 new stations from 2,003 in 2013 and 1,347 in 2012. That slowdown will be a concern for the electric vehicle industry, given that poor charging infrastructure is cited by drivers as a top reason for not buying an electric car" (Climate Home). The argument continues to provide supposed examples of the accessibility of electric cars with the "electric highway". Once again, this may sound like a solution, but there are thousands upon thousands of highways in the US. What will be the cost of this expansive project? At this period of time this is totally unrealistic. Also, outlets at home? Not only would that greatly lengthen the time of charging, since the technology to quickly charge cars is expensive today, but what if you are at work, or on a road trip? In addition, the house's electricity bill would greatly increase. So let me update my list. -More Efficient/Range (Electric) -Strength (Tied, as in electric boasts just as much power) -"The Cool Factor" (Gas- Opinion- BUT the majority of people consider electric cars ugly-except Tesla) -Price (Tied): Many point to the cheap price of the Leaf and Prius. However, the decrease in price is because of the engines being replaced by expensive batteries, and these cars lack in power and comfort) -Reliability (Tied) -Pollution (Tied, if not gas) -Accessibility (Gas) My point is, because gas cars are easier, more accessible, possibly better for the environment, and more realistic, that they are better than electric vehicles. (AT least for now) ----------------------------------------- Thank you for this insightful, entertaining, and informational debate- I enjoyed it
Human augmentation is morally permissible

Pro gave a very clear and logical response. He clarified his definition's consent issue, but I find fault with his clarfifcation. The fault is that it's not morally permissible to let someone do something for which no one knows the consequences. For example, we often test certain practices on animals to test whether they are safe. However, Pro's resolution and definition do not prohibit skipping this step and just testing things on people. Pro accuses me of begging the question in my logic. I request that he clarifies why he thinks this, because I think that my logic is sound (or at least free of this type of fallacy.) Pro also asserts that laws can be put in place to ensure that unsafe and harmful practices do not happen. The problem with this is that there are certain types of augmentation that are inherently dangerous and/or harmful. For example, using cancer-causing compounds in breast augmentation. Banning such practices would interfere with the resolution.Pro's main argument is that human augmentation has the potential to transcend the current limitations of the human body. I don't argue against this, and I feel that some sacrifices can justifiably be made for the sake of curing diseases, repairing bodies, etc. However, much of human augmenation is done for cosmetic purposes. How can one justify taking huge risks for the sole purpose of giving someone bigger breasts or smaller feet or longer legs? Pro does a great job arguing his points and I cannot wait for him to post his argument for round 4.
Human augmentation is morally permissible

Thank-you for the response. The con does a great job of explaining his points even if they are somewhat vague at times. The con states that the large part of the reason why human enhancement is not morally permissible is because of the risks associated with such practices. He notes that the human potential to cause unintentional (or even intentional) destruction through ariticical means is rather great. Another critical point he makes as well is the idea that the definition given above does not imply human consent. In this debate however I will clarify immediately that all human augmentation (regarding all manner of practices associated with it) must indeed be met with absolute consent so as to not muddle the issue further.The con states assertively that,"But should we really let people destroy their bodies like that when they and the researchers don't know the consequences? One could make the argument that we should let people screw up their bodies however they please, but when the government is paying to fix their bodies through state-funded health insurance, should we really sacrifice taxpayer dollars for the purpose of fixing the effects of a research team trying to give a news anchor wider hips? Although you beg the question here I will respond to it anyway. The problem with a statement like that is that human enhancement technology would indeed be governed by government agencies to ensure ethical and sound augmentation practices. Unsafe or even outright harmful practices would therefore be banned in order to ensure that issue does not reach any potential hazard and also who says taxpayers have to compensate for a patients poor choice in augmentation? Laws that prohibit such irrational decisions can easily be put in place by legislation. The biggest problem with the arguments you make is the fact that society and government does indeed evolve with the growth and adaption of new and beneficial technologies. Proper legislation with efficient regulatory practices would make this issue non existent and as the technology becomes more and more available the issue of this technology adapting to our bodies and fitting in with society will become more and more commonplace. I will not lie or avoid the issue that risks are involved with such enhancement technologies however the incredible potential to transcend our biology and other limitations make this something that humanity can only benefit from in the end.
Human augmentation is morally permissible

In this debate I will argue that human augmentation (enhancement) is not only morally acceptable but beneficial to the human race. For the sake of time and sanity human enhancement will be defined as, "Human enhancement refers to any attempt to temporarily or permanently overcome the current limitations of the human body through natural or artificial means. The term is sometimes applied to the use of technological means to select or alter human characteristics and capacities, whether or not the alteration results in characteristics and capacities that lie beyond the existing human range." The only request I have is that conduct be kept peaceful and free of rudeness and or profanity.
Atheism is problematic

First of all, I would like to mention that I am an agnostic and not an atheist. I agree with your atheism definitions, but I disagree with your concept of what you call "moral atheism", for it is not a different atheism category than the scientific. The claim that a loving being would not allow evil to exist is an argument of scientific and philosophical atheism and not a category on its own. Therefore, being an argument against God through philosophical logic, it does not contradict the belief that God does not exist. To be more exact, the fault in your statements is to say that the above claim requires God's existence to be valid as an argument. Contrary to that, it does not. It simply implies that if a loving and powerful being did exist, it would not let evil exist too, thus, since evil does exist, such a being must not exist. Concerning ethical standards, I agree that the matter is kind of subjective, depending on what one may consider "the goal of humanity", to put it simply. Despite that, though, the ethical standards always remain pretty much the same, for humans are able to figure out what benefits them most. Having read the book "The future of an illusion" by Sigmund Freud on religion [1], I believe that the moral standards are set on a human society with the sole purposes of the settlement of the relations among the people and the proper distribution of the available goods. Religion, too, is an aggregation of moral rules that humans created and ascribed the bestowal of justice to a higher and powerful being. If you think about it, in every example of society people have come to realise that to maintain their civilisation they would need to create such regulations. This may have not been achieved yet because, just like humans, humanity itself gradually evolves. But it is apparent that, as time passes, human societies all lean towards that direction. The atheists' argument that God is immoral is based on these standards. Evil and immoral is something that goes against these regulations in any way (on a certain scale, of course). God is not necessary for the creation of ethical principles. The evolution of humanity is the one which creates these. As for your statement that something that does not exist cannot be labelled as immoral (I prefer the use of this term instead of "evil", for it is more accurate in our conversation), you are wrong. By saying that God is immoral one refers to the concept of the God and not to a necessarily existing God. It is just like saying that whitches, ghosts or lord Voldemort are evil and immoral. And all these certainly do not make atheism a far more irrational belief than a religious one. If you would like to hear my opinion, though, both theism and atheism are delusional beliefs to the same point, for there is no proof or evidence to support either of these. But this is a topic to argue on in a different debate. Conclusion: you should not rush to conclusions before your opponent presents their arguments. Thank you. [1] . http://firmitas.org...
Atheism is problematic

For the purposes of this debate "Atheism" will be defined in two categories: Moral Atheism- objections to the existence of God when relating to moral issues i. e. , gay rights, women's rights, all things therein related to the problem of evil Scientific Atheism- objections to God when relating to scientific evidence. My argument is predicated one one point with several sub points. 1. One cannot be both a moral and scientific atheist. This is because: A. Moral Atheism doesn't actually exist. Moral atheists like to cast blame on God for evil in the world. "Why would a loving and just God allow evil into the world? " This question supposes that God does exist. Atheism is the denial of God's existence. Moral Atheism is therefore contradictory. A1. The moral atheist cannot define evil Moral Atheism supposes that morality is subjective, yet often condemns people with a different set of moral codes. In order to blame God for evil, there must be a consensus on what is defined as evil yet the moral atheist cannot adequately define evil because he cannot support his definition with an original point. B. Scientific Atheism contradicts moral atheism This point is far more simple. Simply put, how can you cast blame for evil on something you claim doesn't exist? Conclusion: atheism, be it a blend of moral and scientific atheism, or either individually, is far more irrational than a belief in God This debate is Atheism is problematic, therefore my opponent, whoever you may be, must refute every claim I made in order to win. Any argument made by my opponent claiming religion is problematic, will be considered a strawman and thus ignored.
Abortion

Normally, I would use the Bible to back my points but today I will try not to. According to two different scientific articles, "human life begins at sperm-egg fusion" because when classifying cells it is considered a living organism. If this is true it"s not a debate about whether or not is it alive but about the moral complications that come with the fact that your taking a human life. If abortion is legal why should murder be illegal. " The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me. There is nothing between."-Mother Teresa. Citing https://www.npr.org... https://lozierinstitute.org... https://www.brainyquote.com...
Abortion

I"m just saying killing people is illegal but abortion is legal. Killing innocents who haven"t done anything is legal but murdering someone maybe cause they deserve it is illegal. See that contradiction? Pro choice arguments argue its their body but "Abortion isn"t a health care, a woman has a right to her body, but that is not her body. What about the baby?"- Alveda King, I have to be honest here I don"t understand how people justify abortion if it"s murder. Society has stated murder is illegal, and is wrong, so that"s why I state murder is wrong.
Zimmerman acted in self defense

The fact that George Zimmerman called non-emergency police dispatcher alone presents different avenues for interpretation. Zimmerman did not act in self defense as he claimed by using Stand Your Ground why, because for the fact Tyayvon Martin was unarmed and was probably afraid that Zimmerman was going to use his gun to kill him of which he did. Zimmerman was wrong for all and should have been found guilty on second degree murder. Another fact, he should not have followed Martin or made suspicions, stereotyping and racial profiling Martin because Martin happened to be in Twin Lakes neighborhood complex walking around not causing trouble and mistook Martin as one of the black males in the neighborhood known to cause burglaries and other crimes. By Zimmerman following Martin caused the fatal confrontation. The Pro must understand that you can still be Hispanic or any other race and still be racist. Zimmerman having black friends and black relatives does not excuse him from the murder .We know Zimmerman is half white and half Hispanic . The Pro mentioned the NAACP, the NAACP is always fighting for minorities civil rights whether poor or rich if Zimmerman was in Martin shoes the NAACP was going to seek justice for him also. A civil suit should be brought against Zimmerman by Martin's parents for causing physical harm and emotional damages. Any book deal Zimmerman gets half of the proceeds should go to Martin's parents. The Pro must understand also that O.J. Simpson murder case is quite different from George Zimmerman's case .O.J. Simpson was accused of killing his ex-wife and her friend of which lab work were tampered with and other court evidence found O.J. Simpson innocent of the crime and not guilty. We know the gloves found at the crime scene did not fit O.J. Simpson's hands and those famous words from his lawyer Johnnie Cochran if it doesn't fit you must acquit. The legal system in America is broken especially for blacks and in this case for Trayvon Martin and his parents. O.J .Simpson is rich and famous and could afford high profile lawyers to represent him unlike Trayvon Martin parents who are poor blacks. If O.J. Simpson was poor he be on death row now for killing his ex-wife and her friends who were both whites .Zimmerman also has money.
Zimmerman acted in self defense

George Zimmerman did not act in self defense as his lawyer claimed. He got away with murder. The jury should have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for killing an unarmed teenager who was racially profiled as being a bad black kid in the neighborhood. Of course there were crimes in the neighborhood prior to the Zimmerman/ Martin incident so that means he was racially profiling Trayvon as being one of the bad black teenagers in the neighborhood known for committing crimes and decided to take the law into his own hands after the dispatcher told him to leave the teenager alone. The Justice system is broken for blacks in America since the civil rights movement.Zimmerman should have also used his fist to confront the teenager instead of using his gun to kill him.If Trayvon had a gun and had threathen Zimmerman that would have been another case but Trayvon was unarmed. sundial
Controlled legalization of all drugs is good for America.

We have agreed so far that: 1. Drug laws cannot effectivly be enforced to stop drug use. 2. People are using drugs to a great degree. 3. Drug abuse does destroy lives. 4. Taxpayers have to pay costs related to the use of illegal drugs. 5. Some drugs are addicictive, and currently lead to problems for both the user and society. Still being debated are: 1. Americans will "make more money off of basically killing people". Americans are making a tremendous amount of money selling illegal drugs now. Whether the macro economics of crontrolled legalized sale will result in higher or lower profits is far too complex for me to determine. But one thing is for sure; that taxes will be paid on retail sales and income derived. Summing up: Drugs are being used today. Violence and destroyed lives are a result. There is no credible information available proving that use/abuse would increase/decrease with legalization. I stand by my original assertion that controlled legalization will have a net positive affect: Government spending will decrease, tax revenue will increase, impurities would be reduced.
Controlled legalization of all drugs is good for America.

The fact that you say that drug use is possible to eventually abusing it seems like a very inaccurate claim. It would be easier to believe if you would've provided sources/references for that. Anyways, responding to your argument, Alchohol is a drug - but it isn't a illegal drug, it can, however, become an addiction if you do not use it within moderation - just like everything else. Illegal Drugs, however, such as Cocaine or Meth, become addictive when you start using it. The more you use it, the more amounts you will have to take in to feel better. Also, legalization of illegal drugs will result in ways for America to make more money off of basically killing people. Most illegal drugs come internationally, so that means more oil has to be used (and wasted) to deliver the drugs to America. The taxpayers have to pay for the use of illegal drugs, with certainly is not benifical to us because of the high tax amount now. Not to mention; i'd like to see some sources leading to the "fact" that illegal drugs aren't addictive.