BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control

I would like to conclude by restating my main points. Gun-induced suicide. Over two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. Gun control laws may be able to limit a few of these but the user of the gun and the owner may very well not be the same person. Assault rifle bans. Assault rifles account for a minute amount of gun deaths. However, since they are scary looking, the gun control lobby continuously tries to ban them. Blame the gun. In gun tragedies the gun is often blamed for the death. While the gun was the mechanism for death, the person using the gun ultimately decided to pull the trigger. This brings me to my last point. Impractical. Most gun deaths are due to gang violence. Gangs do not obtain weapons legally. In order to stop the majority of gun deaths we cannot just ban guns as we have tried to ban marijuana. I bring marijuana up because the ban on it doesn't work, it just makes them look for other suppliers such as the cartels. This leads to an increase in violence which is the main argument for a gun ban. In conclusion while common sense measures such as a background check and gun safety class are important, a gun ban would not do much in the way of preventing gun deaths because it would only take guns away from the hands of good people. And while it seems smart to ban scary assault rifles, it would do nothing to prevent gun deaths. And while gun violence is a problem, gun control is not a solution.
Gun Control

I would like to start by saying that in many cases of countries instituting gun bans they did not work. Two such examples are Ireland and Jamaica. In both cases gun deaths went up significantly following the ban. This can be attributed to citizens not being able to defend themselves. Also many gun deaths are caused by guns bought illegally and used/distributed by gangs. By instituting a gun ban, the amount of illegal guns stays the same and the number of potentially life saving guns decreases. And in cases where gun bans have helped gun deaths these countries did not have the same amount of gang violence as the United States. Gangs are able to get guns illegally, banned or not from Mexico and Canada. Citizens in other countries were most likely not able to import guns as easily as in the United States. This brings me to my next point. It would nearly impossible to ban guns because of our borders with Mexico and Canada. The United States has a federal ban on marijuana however it has been very unsuccessful because Americans can easily obtain it from Mexico. If we were to ban guns, the same situation would likely arise. Prohibition is another example of a ban gone awry. In both of these situations the only ones who benefit are the criminals. Another flaw in the gun control argument is the hypocrisy behind the "blame the gun mentality". For example, if there is a bombing we blame the bomber, if there is a drunk-driving accident we blame the driver, but when there is a shooting we blame the person and the gun. Also why not ban fast cars. After all they are scary looking, and clearly designed to kill people by enabling them to exceed the speed limit. These are the same reasons the anti-gun lobby wants to ban assault rifles. Finally, I would like to address my opponent"s point in his first argument that guns should be allowed for hunting. How do you know if someone will use a gun for shooting an animal or someone else?
Gun Control

I would like to respond to my opponent by saying that everything has destructive power. Every weapon over the course of history had the ability to deal death in one way or another. One of the main flaws in the gun control arguments is the reality that two-thirds of gun deaths are suicide induced. This makes it very hard to control gun deaths with laws because for two-thirds of the deaths, the person buying the gun may have a clean mental health and criminal record. And while responsible gun ownership should be important, it is impossible to check if every gun owner in the country has his gun stored properly. Second, suicidal behavior is not increased by having a gun around the house. The gun in two-thirds of gun deaths was merely the means to an end. If that person had serious enough mental problems that they were willing to take their own life, they would have just as easily done it using a rope or knife. In these situations and not all situations it is important to remember that if the person was willing to take their own life, not having a gun would not have stopped them. Third, while thorough background checks and a mandatory gun safety course would most likely cut down on the number of tragedies each year, there is not much we can do in the way of legislature that would be effective enough to make it practical. One reason for this is that a person's mental health can deteriorate over time. This means that a perfectly stable person as a thirty year old could start experiencing mental health problems that lead him to commit heinous acts of violence. Another main flaw in the gun-control lobby's ideology, is the banning of assault rifles. According FBI crime statistics from 2007 - 2011, almost seven-tenths of gun deaths were caused by handguns. Furthermore, only one twenty-third of all gun deaths were caused by rifles. While there are many mass shootings carried out with assault rifles, mass shootings account for less than one percent of gun related homicides each year. This means that only around one hundred people were killed last year in mass shootings compared to the 388 killed in Chicago. You may be asking yourself, why do I not here as much banning handguns as I do banning assault rifles. There are many reasons but a few simple ones. First, an assault rifle is intimidating. Using this fear they are able to tell you that assault rifles are evil and they use incidents of assault rifle shootings to back their story up. I would like to ask my opponent, "what guns would you like to ban, just the scary ones, or would you like to take every gun from every person? ". Finally I would like to say, every weapon has destructive power and the main cause of deaths by guns, banning guns would not be able to prevent. Sources . http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... FBI crime statistics
Gun Control

Aaron TabenkenFebruary 4, 2015 Gun Control Every year more than 100,000 people are injured or killed by guns in the U.S. Many of these guns are purchased by people who do not have to undergo a background check or are stolen from people who purchased them legally. This is a concern, because we are all at risk of being killed by these weapons. It is hard to believe, but even mentally disturbed people can slip through the background check system and purchase guns. I believe there should be stronger restrictions on the types of guns, and a restriction on high capacity magazines that can be sold and that ALL people be subject to background check without exception. No one needs a weapon for killing lots of people really fast. By limiting the number and types of weapons on the street, specifically assault type weapons with high capacity magazines, we can decrease the numbers of mass murders. Take a look at some statistics for each year: 31,537 people die from gun violence 11,583 people are murdered. 18,783 people kill themselves. 584 people are killed accidentally. 334 are killed by police intervention Some may say that the second amendment to the constitution guarantees the right for all individuals to bear arms. Others would say that it is not guns that kill people, it is bad people who kill people. I believe that US citizens should have the right to own guns for hunting and sport shooting only. Now you know the fact about guns and what destructive power they have now what do you think? Bibliography 1"Background on Gun Control." Background on Gun Control. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Jan. 2015. . 2 Unstable., E., and 1225 Eye Street, Nw, Suite 1100, Washingt. THERE ARE TOO MANY VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE (n.d.): n. pag. Web. http://www.bradycampaign.org... 3Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, n.d. Web. 2 Feb. 2015. http://www.latimes.com...
Capital punishment is a flawed system

1) The death penalty gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. The number of criminal cases that are plea bargained (meaning the accused admits guilt in return for a lesser sentence or some other concession) can be as high as 80 or 90 percent of cases. With the time, cost, and personnel requirements of a criminal case, there really isn't much of a choice. The vast majority of people that are arraigned are in fact guilty of the crime they are accused. Even if you believe a defendant only deserves life in prison, without the threat of a death sentence, there may be no way to get him to plead guilty and accept the sentence. If a case goes to trial, in addition to the enormous cost, you run the chance that you may lose the case, meaning a violent criminal gets off cost free. The existence of the death penalty gives prosecutors much more flexibility and power to ensure just punishments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2) It creates another form of crime deterrent. Crime would run rampant as never before if there wasn't some way to deter people from committing the acts. Prison time is an effective deterrent, but with some people, more is needed. Prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3) Justice is better served. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, doesn't it make sense that the punishment for the perpetrator also be death - i.e. an "eye for an eye" policy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4) Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. It's time we put the emphasis of our criminal justice system back on protecting the victim rather than the accused. Remember, a person who's on death row has almost always committed crimes before this. A long line of victims have been waiting for justice. We need justice for current and past victims. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I will explain in the next round why capital punishment is a cost-effective and fair punishment. Letter sent from President Abraham Lincoln to Henry L Pierce and others (6 April 1859): "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."
National Health Care should be established in the United States

I would like to note his entire argument is this: healthcare costs a lot in the US, a single payer system would reduce cost, and therefore we should obtain a single payer system. Although I agree with the first premise—that the US system costs a lot—the second one, that a single payer (SP) system would reduce costs is incorrect. He calls it ‘national healthcare’, similar to that of UK—which is a SP system. Costs My opponent actually offers no evidence for his position. He shows how expensive it is in the US, but offers no comparable evidence that (1) the high cost is due to the healthcare system or (2) comparing it to SP systems. Although (1) may be true, high costs is also associated with the wealth of a country. Wealthy countries spend more on elective surgeries, go to the ER more often, etc. all of which raise costs. It first must be noted that we already have government insurance—Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and many others. Those combined already spend more than other OECD countries [1]. Thus, if we did do a general comparison, it would be flawed as the sheer size of our country means our current National Health measures cost so much. So expanding these systems would increase costs. My opponent’s case also seems to assume healthcare under SP would be free. Nothing is free, so this assumption is untrue. Medicare, Medicaid, VA all offer ‘free’ healthcare, but it is paid for through taxes. And the fact those programs already cost more than other countries is telling. Imagine if we expanded those to a large SP system. Taxes would be through the roof! So although a person may feel they are saving money as they do not pay the doctor directly, their pocketbook actually may be more affected as they not only pay for their healthcare, but they pay for everyone’s via income and payroll taxes. Quality of care Canada—due to their SP system—has a massive wait time problem. The wait time from your general practitioner to when you see a specialist is 8.6 weeks. The time you wait from seeing the specialist before you actually get treatment is 9.6 weeks. So assuming you go from your normal doctor to a specialist and then surgery, you wait 18.2 weeks [2], about 126 days, about 34% of a year. A comprehensive study between the Canadian and US healthcare systems concluded the assumption that SP systems are superior to the US systems are not supported by the study [3]. In fact, they conclude the US system may be superior to that of the Canadian single payer system. So even if costs are reduced, quality will also decrease—and I have provided evidence that costs will not change significantly and may increase. 1. . http://www.bloombergview.com... 2. . http://www.fraserinstitute.org... 3. . http://www.nber.org...
Sex work should be illegal

I personally am not against sex work (porn, Prostitution, Etc. ), I'm just playing Devil's advocate so I could attempt to gain some logical criticism of the anti-sex work crowd's rhetoric (which, In this context, Means thing I heard them say). So let's get into it. 1. Sex work harms women by forcing them into sex they don't want, Be it through facilitating human trafficking, Or from exploiting women from lower-class environments who don't have a choice. 2, It causes addiction and will harm boys. 3. It will ruin families/society/[insert important thing traditional values]. 4. It increases urges of rape. 5. It's a sin. 6. It is dirty.
Sex work should be illegal

A cunning argument, Alas I can think of no way to refute it. So I'll simply make rambly conversation during this round I suppose. Hmm, Why do people get offended by sex work? I wonder if it is similar at all to people being offended by public nudity? Sure I can't really think of public nudity hurting anybody, Except perhaps in a hygienic sense of where such people might sit. Are people wrong for holding to core values however? I often feel what is the point of any value? It's just some environmentally caused belief. Even values such as harming or not harming other people develops depending on the environment, Times, Society. So if we look at it that way are the people who are against sex work wrong? Well, Right this second I don't think so, Though this doesn't mean I'm conceding the argument right here and now. I also think maybe the people going about their efforts in support of sex work wouldn't really be wrong either. . . . . . You know actually I'm already bored by this conversation I'm having by myself. . . . . . Hmm, But still 8, 945 characters left. . . . . . What's that? I don't actually have to use them all? And using all of them would be a bit obnoxious? Well, That's one point of view. The other that I hold is that people don't actually have to read this whole stack of text, I'll even put a warning label at the very bottom in bold that informs people reading this block of words is likely a waste of time and will not bring them much if any knowledge concerning the debate. What you still think it's a bit of a d**k move? Well f**k you buddy! . . . . . . Who am I talking to? Hmm, Ah well. Oh, Abandoned I am in this debate, Well this round of this debate. By an opponent wh-. . . . Yes I suppose he could have made multiple rounds in case he needed to use them later on, But simply did not to this round. . . What do you mean I'm being overly detailed and unnecessarily focused on the number of rounds? Well, Maybe a little bit. . . . . . Wow it is only at 8, 004 characters, And still I am bored. . . . Sooooo, What shall I talk about? Well, Do we really have to talk? I mean it's not as though we're really enjoying it. Hmm, True. . . . . . What if we read bad poetry? Yeah. . . Yeah, That could burn some time! You know we don't actually have to use all the characters, It's not as though we used them in the last couple rounds. Oh, Be quiet common sense. . . . . Still I think boredom has a rather good point, This is rather boring. So boring in fact I'm not going to finish boring myself. ALL THE WORDS UP THERE BY LEANING IN ROUND 3 ARE RATHER POINTLESS, PROBABLY BETTER OFF NOT WASTING TIME READING!
Sex work should be illegal

Sexual assault would be traumatizing I imagine. To men or women. The act of sex itself being traumatizing I need a bit more information to be convinced. Some persons working in a slaughterhouse, The military, Or even as an actor in an exceptionally demanding filming of a movie could be traumatized by such an experience, Would you outlaw those professions as well? The legalization of something would cause an increase in it's availability and possibility to be abused I suppose. Guns, Marijuana, Painkillers, Other examples I can't think of. But you get the rub. Of course illegal, Forced, Unwanted prostitution would be hands down wrong, And ideally stamped out by people. Do you feel the same about willing prostitution?
Sex work should be illegal

Ehhh, Sure. Lets go. 1. Forcing you say? There are plenty of people in the world who don't want to work. Who don't want to break their backs in manual labor or demean themselves by serving other people. But, Working for other people is a fact of life. Should we outlaw jobs that generally go to people who are in the lower class or need a job no matter the needs? Think about it, There are a lot of jobs like that. Making 'it' legal would in fact make it more difficult for people to be illegally forced into such a profession 2. Causes addiction and harms young boys? Pretty sure there are plenty of people who have sex without getting addicted. Also some people who get addicted, But the act of $ changes that? 3. Do you dare say the people of the state of Nevada have no family values? Also pretty sure pornstars are normal people as well. Probably have families. 4. Same reasons as #2 for the most part. 5. Lot of atheists in the US of A it seems nowadays. Besides there are so many other sins people take for granted in America, Most people aren't going to care. 6. Same reasons as #2 for the most part.
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize

I have thoroughly enjoyed debating this topic, but it seems I am the only one. Most other people that I have talked to have complained about it being a terrible topic, but I have yet to see why. Unfortunately, I won't be able to post an argument this round as I am not quite sure what the resolution is. The good news is that this gives me and my opponent an equal amount of rounds to debate. I would assume we are debating the LD Sept/Oct topic. For clarification, the September/ October Lincoln Douglas Debate topic's exact wording is Resolved: Public High school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardized exit exams to graduate. . http://www.nflonline.org... However, 1. My opponent left ought the world 'not' which would reverse the role of PRO and CON on this topic. I am not sure if this was his intention or not. 2. My opponent never posted the complete resolution, it has been cut off at the word 'standardize'. I'll refrain from making any arguments this round and give my opponent the opportunity to go first. I should hope he clarifies exactly what the resolution that we are debating is in his next speech.
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize

Lets keep this a concise debate. I will be the Negative and my opponent will be the Affirmative. Since the resolution is specifically stating the U.S., unless there is sufficient evidence to say that the resolution is placed elsewhere we must adhere to it. However, since this is LD debate the examples and empirics may be brought from other places Ex. "Student in Denmark is scarred forever b/c of standardized tests" if the premise or claim state "Failing lowers a student's self esteem" There will be 4 rounds but that is b/c ,I am wasting my posting with this one. BTW...Leave RFD's.
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought be required to pass standardize

It's quite a shame that my opponent forfeited. It is quite understandable, though. My arguments were tough, sharp, and made of sound logic, just as the nails in my profile pic are. My opponent's arguments did look nice, but they were delicate and flimsy as is his profile picture, a flower. As such, you can extend all of my arguments which clearly show that I win the round. 1. His entire case was completely off-topic. I gave 5 reasons why there was no link at all to the resolution in question. 2. I am the only one who generated any offense. I outlined benefits to these tests. He gave no harms. It's pure profit!
Fur is murder.

If con is going to base his argument on definition, then fur is not murder. Fur means the outer skin of animals. And murder means the killing of a person by another person. But this debate is not about that. We all understand that murder means any act of killing. The meaning of murder has evolved through time. And it's no longer one person killing another. Its evolved to define the act of killing itself. So con is saying that if we keep animals captive and then kill them for fur, nothings wrong. By all means, let's kill all the zoo animals, I'm sure there must be some valuable products that can be obtained.. We dont cause the death of animals, we KILL animals. (We being human beings). "Eighty five percent of the fur industry's skins come from animals living captive on fur farms." This is only because of the extensive laws against hunting and killing. If there weren't I'm sure there would much more real fur coats out in the world and many exotic and rare species extinct.. This debate is not seen from a definitive viewpoint. Its about the legality of the action and the importance of the fur providing animals in the ecosystems.