BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun rights in general

Round 2 is arguments only so I will rebut all your points in the next round. With that being said, I now begin my main arguments. First of all, guns are the main source of crime in a country and they are also highly dangerous. Think about it, there is not much constructive use for a gun- it is used mainly to kill, whether it's homicide or hunting. In 2010, 67.5% of all murders were committed using firearms [1] and out of all the crimes that occur in the United States each year, 4% involve guns [2]. The USA is ranked 3rd out of 45 developed nations in regards to the incidence of homicides committed with a firearm [3] and compared to the UK which has one of the lowest rates of gun crimes the world [4], it is not surprising that there is a strict ban on firearms there. Secondly, guns are a dangerous reality in the lives of children (as well as adults). In homes that contain guns, despite the continuous educational efforts, 33% of these guns are still kept loaded, unlocked and potentially accessible to children [5]. A recent study shows that if a gun is stored in a home, the risk of homicide increases by three times and the risk of suicide increases up to five times. Guns also are 43 times as likely to be used to kill a family member or someone known to a family than to kill a stranger. Over 5% of young students indicated that they carried a gun in the past month, and it is estimated that approximately one million children bring guns to school each year [5]. Children do not understand the seriousness of guns and at a young age like that, accidents can often occur. Therefore, people must remove guns from their homes so that not only them but their children, can be safe. Thirdly, guns are not a good form of defence. As Scott Martelle says, "the notion that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun is a romanticized vision of the nature of violent crime" [6]. I have already proven that crimes are much more likely to occur in countries that are pro-guns. Let's say for example that somebody breaks into your house and you take out a gun in 'self-defence' and shoot. Why did you take out a gun in the first place? It's because guns are legal and since most people possess one, the person must have carried a gun, therefore making you afraid and shoot him/her. If guns are banned, crimes will decrease dramatically and even if someone breaks into your house or other, there will be a much less likely chance that they will be carrying the weapon that can kill people INSTANTANEOUSLY. If you killed someone and that someone only wanted to steal some jewellery and money, who committed the more serious crime? In conclusion, guns are dangerous, encourage crime and are not a good method of self-defence. We are safer and better off without guns. Thank you for reading and I beg you to propose. Citations: [1] . https://www.quora.com... [2] . http://www.theguardian.com... [3] . https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.unodc.org... [5] . http://www.aacap.org... [6] . http://www.latimes.com...
Gun rights in general

We will debating about the idea that civilians should be given to right to have licensed guns. I am pro gun rights as they help in self-defense, arm non-government security officials and help in crises such as revolutions and war. Self-defense Guns can be used for self-defense. Suppose if a robber enters your house and asks for the cash, you can open the drawer you have your gun in and shooting his hand with the weapon while calling the police. On the other hand, without guns it is risky to use sticks and knives, as we are prone to damage ourselves and our attack would be slower and less damaging. Non-government security One example would be plainclothes bodyguards. A high-profile target such as a politician or a journalist could have a normal person become a bodyguard with a licensed gun, and as there will be no records of the bodyguard it will be harder to estimate the strength of the security around the target. Crises One thing about guns is that we can use it for target practice. Suppose if I get a licensed gun and then weekly practice shooting, I would be good at it and can apply for law enforcement agencies or keep it for a difficult time. If we have a revolution happening, and the police fires at a crowd of protestors that includes you, you could easily fire back. Or in the situation of all-out war, you would be a better soldier than other ordinary citizens. Even if you are not a good shot, you would at least know how to reload and hold a gun, or know the gun recoil and therefore keep a firm grip.
The Big Bang Theory Is Probably True

Full ResolutionThe Big Bang Theory is probably valid. BoP is on pro. DefinitionsThe Big Bang Theory: "A cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration of matter of extremely high density and temperature. "[1]Probably: "Most likely; presumably. "[2]Valid: "Having some foundation; based on truth. "[3]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3]: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The Big Bang Theory Is Probably True

If it is commonly accepted that there could be "violations of the law of conservation of energy", then it wouldn't be considered a law, as that would contradict the scientific method. I see that it is important to restate that explosions don't push gas in clumps, but evenly in all directions. You have not yet explained how the stars could have formed. Also, what lit them on fire? We don't know of any stars that are not burning (large clumps of combustible gas). There's no getting around the fact that our planets and stars are all round. For the big bang theory to make sense, an explanation for this would have to be added. We've never seen anything that happened without cause. If such a thing did happen, science would have to drastically change, or disappear, for science may not be possible in such a world. Sorry, I've got to go. I'll discuss this later if you want.
The Big Bang Theory Is Probably True

A lot of your counter-arguments rely on ideas that are still in the hypothesis or theory stage. Also, you need to make your arguments clear. Use clear words that everyone can understand; an argument that can't be understood is not an argument. Use your own words, rather than taking nearly everything from other people. I don't see why the universe would be homogeneous if the big bang were true. That seems likely to me, but no more than that. Also, we still don't know the boundaries of the universe, or even if there are any. For what we know, the makeup of the universe might change drastically immediately outside of the boundaries of our observations. What you showed is more clustered than homogeneous. The material for explosion, and the energy for explosion, had to have either come from somewhere, or always existed. You haven't explained this yet. The same goes for the nature of things. You mentioned negative and positive energy, wouldn't this (unproven) negative energy neutralize positive energy? If energy makes equal matter and antimatter, then there should be equal amounts of both, which would react and turn back into energy. The only way that this could make sense, is if we happen to be in a cluster of matter, surrounded by antimatter, but there is no logical cause for this. Our galaxy's plant's movements are not completely "orderly". There are wobbles, elliptical orbits, and more. It doesn't make sense to assume that after an explosion, the planets would just snap into orbit. It's also highly unlikely that most, or even any, spherical planets would result from such an explosion. Where did the bosons and photons originate? In your final paragraph, you mention: "'You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began.'" the big bang theory, as you have previously stated, is about the beginning of the universe, nothing more (you didn't say the last part, but it's true). The big bang is also, as you also mentioned, about an explosion of matter. It would not have it's name if it was not about an explosion. For the universe to be as spread out as it is now, would have taken incredible amounts of time, even all masses moved at the speed of light. The sources I looked at seemed to be in slight disagreement with each other, but they all seemed to say that the known universe has a radius of about 10 billion light years. This means that even under the very slim chance that all masses were traveling at the speed of light, it would have taken ten billion years to reach the current expansion. (1) I would expect to see specs and streaks of light and new stars, because of the light created during the big bang, and stars which light has not yet reached us. You mentioned that not everything has to have a cause, this a great leap of faith. Radioactive decay does have a cause, it's known as the "instability" of the atom. (2) I apologize that I am not able to make a more thorough response. 1: http://hypertextbook.com... 2: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov...
The Big Bang Theory Is Probably True

I'll start with my simplest of arguments. Many people think that the big bang theory solves the issue of the origin of the universe, however, it does not, for the simple reason that the material that would have exploded and the nature of things would have had to come from something else, or would have had to always exist. First of all, there are a lot of physics problems with this idea. An astounding amount of energy would have had to exist for the mass to explode. Remember that an object in motion tends to stay in motion. Because there is nearly no resistance in outer space, the pieces would just keep flying away from each other at incredible speeds. Any pieces that collided, would cause more collisions, which would probably cause the pieces of mass to accumulate in a few lumps. Our universe consists of extremely precise orbits, which would be nearly impossible to form by a random explosion. Minor variances in distance or gravitational force, and the planets of our solar system could collide and go flying into space, eventually destroying more and more solar systems. There should be many loose planets and such traveling at incredible rates, even if some orbits did happen to originate in perfection. Also, energy is never used up, it's only converted. Where has all of he energy from the explosion gone? I can't prove that the necessary amount of energy doesn't exist, but I'd expect to see massive amounts of radioactivity everywhere, due to extreme amounts of atomic collision during the explosion. Maybe I don't understand the big bang idea of the origin of stars, but gas doesn't fly together in a lump. If I were to cause an explosion in the midst of a gas cloud, would it fly away in lumps? No, it would fly in all directions. If you say that the stars formed by expansion of dense chemicals, then I would bring up the issue of how that could have happened. There has to be a big banger. What caused the explosion to happen all at once? If you say that the matter always existed, then what sudden change caused the energy to turn into motion all at once? I know of no possible cause. After skimming your argument, I see that I'm going to get more detailed arguments than I bargained for. I suddenly wish that I was more of an astronomer. I'm sure that I've got misconceptions on the big bang theory, so feel free to correct any of them
This House believes that we should substantially subsidize the extraplanetary industry

Rules:1) Definitions:Subsidised is defined by the Oxford English dictionary as “A sum of money granted by the government to assist an industry so that the price of a service may remain low and competitive”. To make this clear, my opponent will affirm the partial aid by the government to industry. Not nationalisation by the government, not charitable aid by NGOs, but partial aid by government to industry.The extraplanetary industry is defined as industry that takes place outside of the planet, such as moon missions, moon bases, private shuttle launches, etc.2) No headingsThis is practice for me for a live debate, and as such the presentation should be as if it were a live debate. As such, no headings, images, etc. that wouldn't be able to be presented in a live debate. This excludes sources, for obvious reasons.3) Opponent firstAs this again is practice for me for live debates, in which I go second, I request my opponent to go first, in the first round. As such, (s)he should forfeit the final round, to make the number of rounds each balanced.4) ELO Ranking of over 3000 (except YYW)This doesn't take much explaining. Please have an ELO ranking of over 3000. Any breaking of any of these rules should result in voters giving all seven points against whoever committed the infraction. For reference, the rules do not hold for this (my) opening post, if anyone attempts to be smart :)If you fit the requirements but cannot accept, please post in the comments and I shall set this challenge at you. Thank you for reading, and I await any challenges.
sportsmen and women are overpaid

Alright so my opponent forfeited the last round and did not respond to any of the numerous contentions I mentioned/strengthned in R2. Therefore I'd just like to give a quick re-cap of my arguments: The economy is based around supply and demand. Athletes get paid higher wages than soldiers, for example, because athletes demand higher wages and people oblige (via watching games, buying merchandise, attending ball games, etc). Soldiers on the other hand are awarded only what the government can afford to give them or offers them. How is that the fault of the athletes? They are obviously very skilled and earn a lot of money not only through their playing but through marketing, PR, endorsements, etc. They sell tickets and generate billions of dollars worth of profits. If an investment banker generated millions of dollars worth of profits, would people claim that he didn't deserve HIS money? I don't think so. Bottom line is that athletes are simply valued more in today's society because of how they stimulate the economy. It's not about ethics, it's about $$ (not saying it's right - just sayin' how it is).
sportsmen and women are overpaid

I hate to sound trite, but please vote on this debate based on who has put forth the better arguments - not your own personal opinion. That said, for now I will address this round the same way my opponent has: (relatively) short and sweet. "sportsmen and women are vastly overpaid." Opinion. Consider supply and demand. "sports people just entertian" Not true. They (figuratively) put people in the stands. They sell tickets, thus, they make money. Also, outside of a team's franchise, they also promote endorsements and in turn make a whole lot of other people a bunch of money too. "how can we possibly think a football player for example is more deserving of large amounts of money than the emergancy services, or help groups like the samaritans?" I just told you - supply and demand. I mean I'd hate to get into a whole economic discussion here, but I will if I have to. Basically it all comes down to where people are willing to allocate their money. And finally, some contentions of my own: Many people feel that athletes actually earn every dollar they make. They possess a skill, the same way a seamstress or a painter utilizes their skills to make a profit. Also, consider the amount of preparation a doctor undergoes in order to obtain his PhD. Now think about the physical training one endures to become a professional athlete. Sportsmen and women have talent, experience, and not to mention make a lot of sacrifices in order to keep their jobs (traveling, being in the public eye, constant physical improvement, etc.). Remember that athletes can get fired just as easily for poor performance as any other occupation. So, to win on this point alone, Pro would have to prove why an athlete's compensation is undeserved - not just state that it is in comparison with other professionals/institutions. And might I add that not all athletes are millionaires, including the professionals (the resolution doesn't specify amateur or pro, but I won't pull a Logical-Master and manipulate it to "flex my creative muscle" lol). Anyway, your move. Good luck.
The aztecs were salvages

In my last rebuttal I spent a LOT of time talking about how my opponent doesn't show how the Aztecs were not savages he merely explains how their savage like behavior was justified. I would like to point out that he does the EXACT same thing in his last argument. Everything that my opponent has said through out this entire debate can be summed up in these words. THE AZTECS WERE SAVAGES, BUT THAT'S OKAY. While this is a dandy position (and I whole heartedly agree) this does not negate the resolution as my opponent is suppose to do. When he says things like "the religion is savage" and "their religion required them to be savage" he is basically agreeing with my position (as he has been doing through the entire debate). He of all people should know (since he was the one who made the resolution) that this is not a debate about whether the Aztecs being savages is OKAY, this is a debate about whether or not they WERE IN FACT SAVAGES. This entire debate I have show you how the Aztecs WERE savages and through out the entire debate my opponent has shown you how they WERE SAVAGES but they were because of their religion. I don't know how to stress this enough. Due to the wording of the resolution "The aztecs were salvages" my opponent's job as the CON is to show how they were NOT savages. When my opponent says things like "their religion required them to be savage" he is not doing his job of arguing that they were NOT savages (on the contrary he is doing MY job of showing how they ARE savages).
The aztecs were salvages

First I will attack my opponent's case,then defend mine. Cross-apply my contention1 to their contention 1 Now I will defend my case My opponent says That the Aztecs were savage,but their religion required them to be savage. If you don't do what your religion what says,then you aren't true to your religion. The Aztecs were very religious people. Now I will give an example of how the religion is savage,not the people: Professional priests supervised many public and private rituals in honor of the gods. According to several Aztec myths, the gods had offered their own blood and some gods had sacrificed themselves in order to create the earth, the sun and moon, and humans. People therefore owed a huge debt to the gods, and offerings and sacrifices were the means of repayment. Offerings of food, incense, and other goods were commonplace. Priests engaged frequently in rituals of autosacrifice in which they pierced various parts of their body to offer blood, which was then spattered on paper strips and burned. Human sacrifice was practiced extensively by the Aztecs, although the actual extent is difficult to gauge because early Spanish observers systematically exaggerated the number of sacrifices as part of their attempts to make the Aztecs seem more savage-like. The most common form of sacrifice involved cutting open the chests of victims on altars atop tall temple-pyramids. Special sacrifice priests removed the heart and offered it to the gods, and then the body was thrown down the pyramid steps. Most victims were enemy soldiers captured in battle. They were dressed in the clothing of a god, and lived their last weeks being worshipped as that god. The actual sacrifice was a reenactment of one or more myths and the victim was seen as the god, not as a mere human. The skulls of sacrificial victims were displayed in public places on long wood racks. Beyond its manifest religious role, Aztec sacrifice also served social and political ends as a form of propaganda or even terrorism directed against the lower classes and the enemies of the citystate. Human sacrifices were major components of a series of twenty monthly ceremonies that involved all sectors of Aztec society. Each ceremony, organized and presided over by priests, was planned in advance and lasted several days. There were public processions as sacrificial victims (dressed as gods) paraded through the streets; dances and music; offerings of many kinds; theatrical presentations and speeches, usually leading up the a climax with a series of sacrifices atop a town's central pyramid. Alongside the public religion was an active program of domestic ritual that escaped the notice of most Spanish observers. Archaeological excavations of Aztec houses have turned up domestic altars, several forms of incense burners, and clay figurines probably used in curing ceremonies and other household rituals.