BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Banning guns

Constitution: It appears you do not like the constitution. So I will ignore this as your arguments need not be constitutional. Crime rates: In every single case in which restrictive gun control or bans have been brought into place, crime rates have gone up. It doesn't matter how low the end crime rate may be, as it may be quite low. But It was lower still prior to the bans. [1] This is due to a simple phenomenon. I call it the sitting duck argument. Criminals will always get guns. They are simple pieces of machinery and criminals have gotten them illegally in the past. [2] If guns are banned, civilians turn them in. This leads to defenseless civilians. So the criminals, who do not turn in their illegal guns, attack more and more people because they know that the civilian, who obeys the law, will not be able to protect themselves by shooting the criminal. Source 1 includes this fact. Also, it has been shown that mass shooters routinely attack "gun free zones", because they know that no one there will be able to defend themselves with a firearm. For example, james holmes chose the one movie theater out of the 7 that were within 20 minutes of his home that banned concealed carry of handguns. It was not the closest, or the biggest.[3] I wonder why. To be simple, why do places with strict gun control, like chicago, have the highest crime rates, and places where many civilians are armed, there is so little crime? [3] Criminals following only some laws: If you are a criminal committing crimes, why would you turn in your gun to comply with some other law? I can't see into the minds of criminals, but this is very simple logic. Self defense: Most attacks on the streets do not occur with firearms.[4] People need a gun to defend themselves because you are much more likely to survive a violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun.[4] And banning guns does not just remove them from the streets. If it did, I'd be for banning guns. But it doesn't, as it hasn't in chicago, DC, and a host of other cities. It is similar to my next point, Guns vs. Drugs We banned alcohol in the 1920's and what happened? More illegal bars and alcohol.[5] We banned cocaine and other illegal drugs, but there is still a lot of cocaine on the streets. Why? Because criminals don't comply with these bans. If they don't work, why would a gun ban work? Police officers: Police officers do not need their guns because there are guns on the streets. They need them for the defense of themselves and others from all forms of threat. If you attack a police officer with a knife, he will draw his gun. Why? Because a gun is an effective method of defense. Sources: 1. http://www.gunfacts.info... 2. http://www.gunfacts.info... 3. http://www.foxnews.com... 4. http://www.gunfacts.info... 5. http://www.pbs.org...
Banning guns

Rebutting My Opponent's ArgumentThe Constitution People in the 1700's live a completely different life then we do in 2013. The idea that we have to follow some set of rules created hundreds of years ago is just ludicrous. We should create a new set of rules based on how people live their lives today, because today is much different. Therefore, falling back on the constitution does nothing to show one's position is correct. Gun Banning Equates To Higher Rate of Gun CrimesCorrelation does not equal causation unless it can be tested (Pro also provided no sources). Regardless, this argument from Pro would indicate that we need even harsher gun laws. This is because if there are more gun crimes, this means there are guns that these people are using that they should have never had their hands on in the first place! Criminals Obeying Certain Laws"Explain why criminals will obey that law while breaking numerous others" - ProNot being able to explain the above really has no bearing on the resolution. You would have to ask a psychologist that one. Self-DefensePeople who need guns for self-defense, only need them to defend themselves against people with other guns. If we sweep the guns off of the streets, there will be no reason for people to need to defend themselves with guns anymore. Why Guns And Not Drugs? This point from Pro is outrageous. Guns aren't anywhere near as bad as drugs. This is like asking why I want harsher rape laws, but not laws against infidelity? Why do police officers need them? Officers need them because there are guns on the street. If we take away these killing machines, cops would not need them as much now would they? Conclusion Pro failed to meet his burden of proof. All of his argument backfired, and I showed why its best to remove guns from the street.
Banning guns

If anyone believes in the banning of firearms, I would like to hear your argument. Firstly, It is against the second amendment to the constitution, secondly, In every place where guns have been banned, gun crime has skyrocketed, thirdly, explain why criminals will obey that law while breaking numerous others, fourthly, why should people not be able to defend themselves? Fifthly, why would a ban take guns off the street when it has not done so at all with illegal drugs? Sixthly, if you believe number 4 is irrelevant, why do police officers need them? Thanks for a response. And by the way, only accept if you will actually participate.
Harry Potter is better than Twilight.

My opponent didn't specify the context but I think these are fair assumptions: Context: Harry Potter, the books: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Harry Potter, the movies: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(film_series) Twilight, the books: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(series) Twilight, the movies: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(film_series) == ARGUMENT == The resolution of this debate, which my opponent has the burden to prove, is "Harry Potter is better than Twilight". The only introduction she has to the debate is "I think Harry Potter is better than Twilight. I would like to hear why Twilight would be better. " Both of these things are opinions/preferences and set forward no burden for me to prove that Twilight is better than Harry Potter, only to negate any supposed evidence that Harry Potter is better. I assert that anything, especially things of entertainment, being better than another is simple subjective opinion that rests in the mind of the individual. On an objective level, neither Harry Potter nor Twilight is better than the other. There is no measure upon one can truly calculate any superiority.
Fancy Polite English Gentlemen Insult Battle

1) My 21 year old nephew, who was kicked in the head by a horse when he was just a wee lad, cannot walk a straight line... He cannot speak intelligible sentences, he can barely remember to breathe, he has no memory, and he requires 24/7 care from a nanny to make sure he doesnt do something to hurt himself.... However, he can count to the number 3 with ease, which is more than enough for him to count all the times you said something that wasnt completely and utterly stupid 2) There must be over a million words in the English language and yet none of them can paint the picture that accurately depicts just how badly I want to beat you upside the head with a 2x4. Oh woe is me. Would you care for some tea?
Fancy Polite English Gentlemen Insult Battle

1) "I have a farm in the upstate part of the country consisting of 4 pigs, 3 cattle, 6 goats, a short-sighted English mutt, a cat with only one eye which was lost during the winter of '87, and a llama named 'Bilbo' that I bought for $300 off of a man from the Middle East.... And all of them combined do not produce as much excrement as you do when you open your mouth to speak a single sentence" 2) "There is not enough tea in the entire British Isles and all of its foreign colonies for me to drown away my sorrows that I am suffering from due to the stupidity of what you just said...... Good sir."
Fancy Polite English Gentlemen Insult Battle

Example: "You mother is so uncultured that she cannot tell the difference between a Caviar spoon, and an Iced Tea Spoon! " ^ You post two each round starting in round 2. Voters pick whoever has the FANCIEST insults overall, fanciest being defined as something that only a very highly upper-wealth British individual would consider to be an insult. .. .
Restricted abortion should be legal

! Round 1 is for acceptance only, no arguments to be presented in round 1. !! !!! Fourth round for rebuttal and closing statements, no new arguments. !!! Definitions/Explanations Restricted abortion should be legal = By this I mean abortion should be legal for a woman to choose in the embryonic period of pregnancy. Abortion - is the end (termination) of a pregnancy. A low-risk surgical procedure called suction aspiration or suction curette is generally used for first trimester abortions. Medical (non-surgical) abortions using medications such as mifepristone (RU486) are available in some clinics. The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). If you have any problems with the debate, use the comments section so we can agree to terms before we start the debate.
Absolute Freedom of Speech should not be aspired to by society.

Hi there, It's very simple. Society would benefit from the regulation of citizens' speech. That much is plain to see. Only an idealist would suggest that society could flourish in an environment whereby any person could say whatever they wanted to, regardless of the truth, sensitivity, or confidentiality of what is being said. I will be arguing that absolute freedom of speech conflicts overwhelmingly with core Liberal values, and in support of this argument I will refer to the work of John Stuart Mill. I will also draw upon modern-day examples of how regulation of speech has been calculated and introduced, so as to aid social development and safety. I welcome your response.
Absolute Freedom of Speech should not be aspired to by society.

Okay you've committed the straw man logical fallacy. "so what you want a guy to stalk us telling us what to say." "what so you even want us to be controlled robot[s]" No, obviously I don't want that. Just because we don't have 'absolute' freedom of speech, it doesn't mean that we have to be told what to say. That would be ridiculous, and it isn't something I said. You've created a fiction. Your attempt to misrepresent what I said actually neatly leads onto an argument that will feature below. "Regulate what you want to live in a dictatorship yo that bonkers" Apart from being almost indigestible, this point is clearly not thought through. Just because a society regulates speech, it does not make it a dictatorship. Take America, for example: in America it is illegal to shout "fire" in a crowded place when there is no fire at all. This is known as "Reckless Endangerment, as you are trying to cause deliberate harm to others by scaring them. To pick up the point of you giving false impressions regarding what I said, I would also like to refer to two other types of law" libel and slander. It is illegal in many (non-dictatorial) countries for you to circulate spurious and malicious lies about another person. If you write it in a newspaper, for example, then it's called 'libel', and if you say it, it's called 'slander'. These rules mean that I can't make untrue things up about you, and the same with you to me. These pieces of regulation are so critical to the functioning of a society. Imagine if you pick up a newspaper and on the front page you've been accused of being a paedophile, yet that simply isn't the case" you're gonna be pretty angry, right, and you're going to want to have your name cleared, aren't you? Well in a society where everyone can say what they want, there aren't going to be any laws to protect you from that. Anyone can say anything about anyone, and there would be no consequences. We would be much better off adopting John Stuart Mill's 'Harm Principle', which "holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals." Sources: Yes it's Wikipedia, but it's obviously a well-established concept in philosophy, and it was the easiest and fastest definition I could find. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Washington Redskins should've hired Gregg Williams as head coach.

The Redskins have been underachieving for years, failing to make the playoffs several years and then enjoying little to no success on the rare occassion that they did make it in. They have had a roster littered with pro bowlers and haven't been able to amke it look like they do. Williams represeted the status quo. Joe Gibbs system, style and ideology would have just been continued through Williams. That would have been bad, because the last few years have shown that the Gibbs strategy doesn't work in Washington. Sure, they had a great year this year, but on the whole Washington was in great need of a change.
The Washington Redskins should've hired Gregg Williams as head coach.

Spending the last four years as the Redskins' assitant head coach-defense, Gregg Williams was in total control of the defense and fit into the Joe Gibbs system. The players had much respect for him, he has the personality of a fired-up motivator and that is what the Redskins, or any team in the NFL for that matter, needs at the head coaching position. Williams already had head coaching experience, a short stint with a horrible Buffalo organization a few years ago. Williams was the natural fit for this opportunity when Gibbs retired, but owner Dan Snyder chose to go with Seattle quarterbacks coach Jim Zorn. Gregg Williams should be the head coach of the Washington Redskins right now, instead Snyder even fired him from his defensive head coach position, probably to avoid a possible power struggle.
The Washington Redskins should've hired Gregg Williams as head coach.

My apologies, the hall of fame coach won one playoff game in four years, not zero. Again, all of that would be nice if the player's loyalty was the only issue in hiring a head coach. You admit Williams didn't get along with management. This is essential to being a good head coach. If the ownership and coaches don't share the same vision, the team is going nowhere fast. Its hard not to rank in the top ten with that roster. That would be like the Patriots not making the top ten in offense. This only proves that the defense could make minimal achievements. While Williams may well be a motivator, thats not always the right way to go with a head coach. A head coach has to have a strong strategic mind and be able to get the most out of his players. Again, Williams represents the Gibb's era and the status quo. The Redskins have been underachieving for the large part of a decade. The only way to remedy this is to change the situation. You have a pro bowl roster, so you know talent isn't the problem. The only situation left to remedy is the coaching staff. Whether the players liked him or not isn't the question. The Giant's hated Tom Coughlin and we all know how that storry ended. I guess, to sum, Williams may be well liked, but he is only a continuation of an undesirable result pattern. Different from Gibbs as he may be, Williams was part of the problem. The only way to try to get new results is to bring in new personnel. Thats exactly what Snyder did.
The Washington Redskins should've hired Gregg Williams as head coach.

- You Actually in Gibbs' second season back the Redskins lost in the second round to Seattle, but I don't guess that really matters. Just thought I should correct that for the sake of facts. Anyway, I'm not saying that strong ties to the players is always enough to hire an assistant to be the head coach, but I am saying it was right in this circumstance. The defense had finished in the top 10 in rankings 3 out of Williams' 4 seasons as the defensive head coach. He produced results where he was in charge and the players loved him, not just defensive players, but players like quarterback Jason Campbell and Pro Bowl tight end Chris Cooley spoke out in support of Williams as a candidate for the job. And as for the fans wanting change, that is true, as a Redskins fan myself I want to see the return of glory days. But as you can tell from my entire argument, and my knowledge as a Redskins fan who is friends with dozens of other Redskins fans, the general consensus is that the core of the Redskins fan base wanted Williams as the head coach just as the players did. I am hopeful that Jim Zorn will be a good fit, it's not like I will be disappointed by being proven wrong. I hope Zorn takes them all the way this year, but I believe the chances would've been better with Williams at the helm. Williams produced results on defense and could've gotten the most effort out of his players in all three phases-O,D,and ST. He is a motivator more than he is a guru and that would've translated into hard play from everyone. Snyder just didn't want an outspoken head coach that would question his decisions as an owner and he didn't want the fans and players to make the decision (even if it was the right one), he just wanted to show that he is in charge and he displayed his arrogance. As much as we Redskins fans love Joe Gibbs, I will have to admit that Joe was a soft-spoken, father-like figure at times for Snyder and would support Snyder's ideas and decisions and make him feel special. Snyder wanted a new coach with no experience, eager for a head coaching job, just so he could yank him around at will with no talking back. Gregg Williams could've picked up next season where he left off this season with another terriffic year establishing the Redskins as one of the top defenses in the league. Jim Zorn would've been a good offensive coordinator, and Williams could've continued the momentum the Redskins established towards the end of this season. Zorn will have to start from scratch.
The Washington Redskins should've hired Gregg Williams as head coach.

Thats just the problem. Gibbs didn't meet expectations. Expectations are the key. Surely, success in Miami is defined differently than in NE. Gibbs not meeting Washington's particular expectations, right or wrong, is why he and his system don't belong there. So, your argument boils down to the fact that Williams has strong ties with the players and that is why he should be the HC. This is true of all assistants. No one would do any outside hiring if strong bonds with the players were all that mattered. While Williams may or may not have done things entirely the way Gibbs did, he represents the status quo in Washington. The management and fans were clearly tired of being let down and knew something had to change. Bringing in the same old story would just lead to the same old results. Ownership may have been a problem. But, poor execution from the players was key. Washington has had pro bowl rosters for the entirity of Gibbs' recent tenure. Despite this excellent talent pool, Gibbs had a losing record and two first round playoff losses. Poor coaching was clearly one of their big problems. Hiring a coach from a staff that has underachieved would have been a bad idea.
The Washington Redskins should've hired Gregg Williams as head coach.

Gibbs second tenure in Washington did produce a losing regular season record but it also produced two playoff berths in four years. I get the point you're trying to make about Gibbs failing overall and falling short of the real goals in Washington, but I don't think he got enough credit for the success he did have because the expectations were so high. Personally, I thought he should have retired after last season. He would've done well as just the team president instead of actually coaching. But back to Gregg Williams, I feel like Williams could've gotten the most out of the players, at least more than anyone else they could bring in. As far as Williams continuing the Gibbs system, many reports have surfaced as to why Williams wasn't hired and it has been suggested that Williams disrespected Gibbs and smeared him in some way during one of his interviews with Redskins ownership. He was very unhappy with the way a lot of things were done while Gibbs was in charge and made it clear several times that he would do things differently. With all that said, what I mean when I say Williams would fit into the system better, I believe Williams already had strong relationships built with the Redskins players and if the choice had been left up to them, he would've been hired as the head coach the day after Gibbs resigned. I think that should carry some weight in itself. Dan Snyder is a big part of the Redskins' lack of success in recent years. He has been too much a part of the process. He is a businessman with a background in the communications industry and really has no credibility as a "football guy" besides the fact that he was always a huge Redskins fan, he just happened to be a billionaire able to buy the team when Jack Kent Cook died. He has been nothing but irresponsible, even in bringing Gibbs back. He was looking to please the fans, not looking at the situation with a practical mindset. Dan Snyder seems to me a Jerry Jones wannabe. He should've hired Williams.
debate on church cooperation

The proposition reads, "It is contrary to the Scriptures for churches of Christ to contribute funds from their treasuries in support for TV programs, Radio Programs and publications like Spiritual Sword and gospel advocate as means of cooperating in accomplishing the mission of the church." Of course, I am affirming the opposite, i. e. "It is consistent with - in harmony with - the New Testament for churches to contribute funds from their treasuries to support the accomplishment of the Great Commission by contributing to the Spiritual Sword, Gospel Advocate, television programs, radio programs, area-wide meetings, and the like." My position is that there is no specific pattern in the first place: the choice of expenditure is an expedient based upon good judgement. We all know what the Commission says, "Go ... preach ... " How? How does one go? By foot? By mule? No, the going encompasses all methods of going, including any that may be designed in the future. How to preach? How to make disciples? Again, it's an expedient. As there are examples of many different types of cooperation, I shall insist that no pattern exists. The commands "Go" and "Preach" are generic: the method(s) are unspecified. Likewise, cooperation in some manner is exhibited between churches, churches and needy members, certain disciples and elders, and among individuals. I shall also request proof that any church ever expended any money from its so-called "treasury" for anything other than "benevolence", if it be insisted that we stick to a rigid pattern. How is an anti- preacher even paid, if we all stick to a rigid NT pattern? That will be my position, and I state it in advance, and I await the 1st negative.
Lack of education is the cause of poverty in SA. Do you agree or disagree? Provide reasons

I agree that one of the main causes of poverty is lack of education but there is also a way bigger cause of poverty which is the lack of problem solving skills, Let me explain. The issue is that modern school system are not teaching you the skills you need to survive in life. Most of the things you learn in your core classes are not things that are going to help you later in life. There are some electives that are specialized around a specific profession but most students are going to either pick the easiest of these so they can achieve there credits and a lot of students are not sure what they want to do with there lives yet. So you go through these classes just learning enough to pass even if you get good grades your not going to retain that info because you don't need it after finishing that quiz or that test or whatever you needed to study for. They are not teaching you how to learn and solve problems from that knowledge there just wanting you to be able to regurgitate facts. So once you get to the work force you can only do one job, And then what happens if the job that you spent all this time going to school for isn't needed in the work force, Your out of luck because you were never actually taught how to learn new skills and solve new problems.