BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
No US citizen has the right to bear arms.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- "My Response: ok, lets first off and define the difference between a right and privilege. [Definition - Right] 1. A legal or moral entitlement [Definition - Privilege] 1. a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all Now, looking at this definitions, my opponent claim that its a privilege is off base. He says that its a noun, and thus a privilege, not a right. I have the right to property, i. e. a noun, I have the right to life, i. e. a noun. Therefore, a right can be a noun or a verb. Drop my opponents contention 1. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- While I agree with your definitions, in no way did I suggest that all nouns are privileges nor did I say that all verbs are rights. My argument is based on the grammatical fact that the constitution was referring to the verb of 'bear' (ie, possession) rather than the noun of 'bear' (the godless, marauding killing machine). And thus, the constitution refers to the right to possess firearms, and not the right to have the arms of a bear. I never alluded, nor have I argued that a noun is instantly a privilege, it was just a matter of grammar. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Link his contentions 2 and 3 for my attack. He contradicts himself by using these 2 points. How? Because he "claims" that its a privilege, and as what he calls a noun. Chopping off a bears arm is a VERB, not a noun, and therefore according to my opponent should be a right, since its a verb. So, you can either accept his contention 1, and thus dropping contentions 2 and 3, or accept 2 and 3 and drop 1. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Once again, I have never suggested even slightly that every noun in the english language is a privilege. Nor have I suggested that every verb is a right. I demand quotes of mine suggesting I meant anything other than what I had initially stated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "My Response: LOL, this is a funny burden. However, i argue that yes everyone should have the right to do that. It's a free country, if someone wants bear arms, GO AHEAD, get them. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This I totally disagree with. As I have demonstrated; 1) It is cruel to the bear to have his or her arms butchered off for the purpose of attaching them to a human. 2) The constitution does not grant this right, the 'bear arms' statement refers to the right to posses firearms. 3) It is dangerous, as with arms with the size, strength, and ferocity of a bear, maulings would rise an approximated 10,000%. In explaining the finer points of the second amendment, my opponent does nothing but prove my point. This passage does not refer to the right to have your biological arms changed to that of a bear, but rather, it refers to the right of US citizens to posses firearms. As such, the right to change your arms to that of a bear is unconstitutional and is not a right.
No US citizen has the right to bear arms.

While I realise this is a controversial topic, I'll do my best to get through it as convincingly as possible. First off we'll go through some definitions; US Citizen- "A person born in the United States, or naturalized, holding a US passport." Please note this does not mean people who aren't US citizens DO have the right to bear arms, it is wrong in all cases. Now onto my argument. 1) The USA constitution does not grant this right. A common misconception about the US constitution is that the second amendment refers to the right to have your arms surgically changed to that of a bear. However this may shock you to find that this is not the case at all. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." While the wording may be confusing, upon closer inspection, the word 'bear' appears to be a verb and not a noun. Thus, the right to bear arms is a privilege and not a right. 2) It is cruel to the bear In many cases, the operation is done in a cruel way. Many times, the bear is killed for the sole purpose of having its arms harvested by a scrawny nerd. While arm commandeering may be appropriate if the bear has died of natural causes, it is otherwise a cruel and unnecessary practice. 3) Such a right would raise maulings by an alarming rate Current estimates show there to have been three fatal bear attacks in North America in the year 2007. There are approximately 1,000,000 bears in North America. Now if every US citizen were to have the right to have their arms changed to that of a bear, we would expect a 300 fold increase in the amount of bear related deaths. This is just unacceptable. Please note- A successful CON argument must prove why all US citizens have the right to bear arms in the sense of having their biological arms changed to that of a bear.
Nude art is good contribution to the world of art

What I'm saying is that while the intentions are good, in today's world there is no way to not see it as pornography. It will either be viewed as erotica or shamful filth. If I were to throw feces onto a canvas, I could say it is art, I could view it as art, and feel no sence of shame in it. But for the public, it is impossible for them to not see it in a distastful way. My intentions where good, but no one else will see it that way. It may be art, but that does not negate the fact that people just don't want to see it. They see it as repulsive and sickening. The same principal applies to nude art, except people will see it in a sexual and pornographic context. As you said "first people were naked and were OK with that...They didn't need pornograpy... But then thousands of years later some painter drew a picture of naked woman as just a work of art and crowd that by that time was pretty sexually perverted liked that and made more paintings what later was called pornography" It is true. We didn't have a use for porn back when those parts of the body where shown publicly. But now they are sacred, hidden, and maintained as a prize to be won. People can't just have it, they have to work for it. But if you just put it out there then people will use it for their own purposes. People saw others naked all the time. People saw feces all the time. In both cases they have grown into a manner were they cannot be viewed without some kind of negative response. If the artist considers it art, and does not see it in a negative and exciting way they are more than able to keep it in their own house and show to friends or any other form of person that wants to see it, but the public simply cannot handel it. They see it in a bad way, despite the artists intentions. So for public viewing, it generally is not a good contribution as it spurs negative effects. If a private person could contain their natural sexual tendancies then I would agree that nude art is a good form of art, but people simply will not, and can not do it.
Nude art is good contribution to the world of art

so you say that nude art is as soulless as pornography?First of all by art I do not mean those pictures from magazines under your bed(ones like "Maxim" or "Playboy".)By art I mean paintings, work of mind, skilled arm, and soul.What can you see on photo with naked woman?Let me tell you: reflection of your most secret desires. Painting though reflects model's soul, feelings of painter towards his model, filled with beautiful, clean love...What do you think I would do if naked woman were in front of me?The same thing you would do!And I am talking about art!Really? Then just to let you know, if you don't, first people were naked and were OK with that...They didn't need pornograpy...But then thousands of years later some painter drew a picture of naked woman as just a work of art and crowd that by that time was pretty sexually perverted liked that and made more paintings what later was called pornography... Even in photography, good photographer, shooting a naked woman, tries to focus his camera more on her eyes than on her body...Why does he do that?Because eyes are the mirrors of the soul,and that is what makes his work more perfect among other photograph:his work has a soul as well as a body...Artists thought may be as clear as the sky whne he draws naked woman but people are making his work their "temple" of their wildest dreams...
Nude art is good contribution to the world of art

Well, first off, how is nude art a representation of the artists creativity? Is not art a reflextion into the mind of the artist? If one made a nude work of art, does that not mean they had flesh on the brain? Thus, as they make it, they are using it to describe a personal sexual desire in some way. Then, as the artist themselves made it with such a purpose doesn't that make the work pornographic in the artists view? Wasn't excitment the origonal purpose of the work itself? I am guessing that if an attractive, naked woman were to be infront of you, you would be arroused. Can you honestly not say that her fleshy appearance is not the least bit invigorating? Could you honestly say that the first thoughts upon viewing the persona of the female is "life" or would it be "desire"? If you can you have an awfully strong will. But as it goes, attraction is a natural phenomenon, thus a person will nearly always be attracted to the opposite sex, especially if they are exposing one's self. In this time where human censorship is common place, the revelation of their bodies is a high arrosal point. So, if it is freely presented it will always take the form of sexual nature, and so it will be in life or art. If the human body was not censored, and people walked naked amoung the streets, then it would be common placed and would not be so easily arroused. However, in this day and age, it is impossible for one to not find pleasure in the exposal of the opposite's body. If an artist shows a naked body than it will be thought of in a sexual nature if it proves to be attractive. Such is human Nature. Art will not change it. I do agree with you one the origional basis, but at this point and time a naked body will not have an artist effect on the mind, morely a sensual one. The artist intent could be fine, but the ends will not meet sadly. So, for todays society, an exposed body will be pornographic in nature, and any artist who makes such art, is thus also fabricating pornography.
Nude art is good contribution to the world of art

Nude art is not the waste material of artist's mind. It's just as beautiful as paintings of fields full of flowers, full of life. It is just the same in nude art, the issue what do you use it for, is it a new addition to your art collection or it's just desire of your filthy mind, nude art is not just pornography it shows you life, but thoughts that appear in your mind make it pornography...
Anarchy

My two main points against anarchy are thus 1. It can never be effectively realised, for two reasons: [A] A system that implements anarchy is an oxymoron, as anarchy is against any ruling systems. [B] People will always establish a kind of hierarchy or ruling order or anything, as they need order and security in their lives. 2. It is a bad system for people to live in. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ First off, argument 1A: The definition of anarchy has been agreed upon by both of us as: 'A societal system where there is no government, and people can make up their own rules.' The problem with this system is that it is a paradox. Who is going to implement the system of no systems? If you rise up against your government and declare 'Anarchy!', then you automatically have created a system, namely of anarchy. What about the people who like rules? You claim anarchy is for freedom, but where's their freedom to be ruled over? 1B: The second reason that anarchy can never be implemented and realised is that people, no matter the situation, will always create rules and/or rulers. Why are there no anarchist countries? The answer is because nobody wants anarchist countries. People want the police to stop them being raped and murdered. People want the security of being part of a community/country full of people they can call their fellow countrymen. If they don't have this security provided to them, they will create it. Why do you feel you are being oppressed in the current system? I'm guessing for you it would be your desire to practice your sexual preferences, but is it worth it to have sexual freedom when at any minute you could be robbed, raped or killed? What's to stop people from torturing you? It's anarchy remember, there are no rules. Funnily enough, people tend to not like being tortured, so they work together and establish groups to prevent it from happening. By doing this, they are destroying anarchy. 2 It's just a bad situation for people to live in. With all their time spent on survival and defence from others, people would have no time for leisure, science, art, music, relationships etc. Almost everything that defines the human race as human comes from having enough spare time to do cool things like putting a man on the moon and getting him back again. And debating! The only reason you are typing on a computer and debating me is because rules were established to stop people stealing your computer. A computer that would have never have been invented if people didn't have free time. The reason we have all this free time is because we aren't constantly fighting each other, we have rules to stop that. Even animals can see the sense in rules. A pride of lions can catch lots of food because they work together. If a lion goes rogue and tries to eat another lion, they will kill him, as it is the most effective strategy possible to work together.
The Death Penalty should be Abolished

The Death Penalty Saves Lives Since 1996, 17 studies have shown that the death penalty reduces crime rates. Five of the studies find that the death penalty shows no difference in crime or that it has a slight increase in crime. Two studies are inconclusive in the issue, however one of them says that deterrence exists, but is not strong. In other words, 18 studies find some criminal deterrent, 17 find a strong deterrent, and 5 dissent. (1) From this, we can see that out of all studies performed on the death penalty, a large majority of them prove to have the effect to lower crime rates. Even more than this, when one uses national data, one of the studies was actually used on a localized area. This is important because other studies were conducted on a much larger test subject. One study conducted by Joanna M. Shepherd concluded the following: 1. On average each execution saves 3 lives 2. From the total lives saved, it is shown that 50% of them will be African American, 33% will be White, and 17% will be of other descent. 3. Shortening the time spent on death row also lower murder rates further. Precisely one life more is saved per execution for every 2.75 years taken off death row. (2) For further proof of deterrence, studies have also shown that a whopping 99.9% of criminals would vote for being kept in jail for the rest of their lives over then be given the death penalty. (3)This shows us that they prefer life over death. If they fear death then they will not do crimes that would give them the death penalty, this is why the death penalty is beneficial. A study by Gary Becker proves this theory. He proved that most murderers have a fear of death, just like everybody else, and may not commit a murder with the possibility of future execution - that murderers understand the cost and benefit analysis of their decision. (4) History and Murder Rates From 1968-1976, the Death Penalty was actually suspended in 10 states. During this time period, the murder rates in the United States went way up. Fast forward to the 1990’s where the death penalty has started to become legalized again in some of the states, there was a huge decrease in crime-rates. In addition to this, states that reinstituted the death penalty experienced a 38% drop in murder rates by 1998. (5) Another study concluded, “Overall, the rise in executions during the 1990s accounts for about 12 to 14 percent of the overall drop in murders.” (5) Conclusion The death penalty saves lives and lowers crime rates. Multiple studies prove the above statement and history itself has also proved that the death penalty is beneficial to society. I would like to thank my opponent for debating with me. I await Pro's response. (1) http://www.cjlf.org...... (2) Joanna M. Shepherd, “Murders of Passion, Execution Delays, and the Deterrence of Capital Punishment,” Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 33 (June 2004), 283-321. (3) http://www.prodeathpenalty.com...... (4) Becker, Gary S., "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach." Journal of Political Economy. (1968) (5) http://www.foxnews.com......
The Death Penalty should be Abolished

I will be taking the con position in this debate meaning I think the death penalty should not be abolished.DefinitionsDeath Penalty - "Capital Punishment" (1)Abolish - "to end the observance or effect of : annul" (2)RulesNo trolling, semantics, innapropriate language, lawyering, strawmanning, or anything that the average DDO user would deem as innaproriate for a debate.First round is for acceptance.(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Death Penalty should be Abolished

Listen, I'm not going to lie. I am obviously losing this debate. I made this debate in order to practice my arguments on why the death penalty should not be abolished. I have made many mistakes in my arguments, but now I know how to re-organize what I am trying to say, add in certain arguments, and take out some of my weaker arguments. I would like to thank pro for this debate and for helping me to reform my arguments and get a taste of the arguments of the opposing side. You have really gotten me to think and to really continue to consider my position on the death penalty (I am currently undecided). Thank you. I concede this debate.
I am the instigator and you are the contender

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisici elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Game over.
Prices on abundant food at the mall will kill us all, And has destroyed society with racism

"You need food or you die. . " [1] Yes you do, Congratulations. "Food shouldnt cost money. . Taking money for producing the food is fine" [2] We already pay the producers of the food, The mall only makes it cheaper. "Oh im on mushrooms huh, Why don't you eat some food at one point in your life? " [3] I 'm inclined to ask them to vote for you out of pity, But I don't know if that's against the rules.
Prices on abundant food at the mall will kill us all, And has destroyed society with racism

[1a] It is not binding. No one is forcing you to buy their food, Assuming you're living in the US, The likelihood you don't have an alternative is close to 0. "Selfishness pollutes the atmosphere, To sell fresh air to the highest bidders, Which is the exact same as putting prices on abundant food. " [2a] I assumed this would be an ignorant metaphor. You've made the assumption that the prices of the "abundant" food were arbitrarily determined. The world has gotten progressively richer and better due to the free market. We don't just "put prices" on food. [2b] Selfish isn't a problem created by money or price tags. With allah its, Worship or die, With hitler it was, Kills jews or die, With money its, Work or die, All forms of submission [3a] Actually, You don't have to use money at all. In fact, You could probably grow the mushrooms you're on right now for free. [3b] You've confused submission with authority
Prices on abundant food at the mall will kill us all, And has destroyed society with racism

Not as a result of money, As a result on prices on abundant food, Which makes money necessarily blinding. Selfishness pollutes the atmosphere, To sell fresh air to the highest bidders, Which is the exact same as putting prices on abundant food. With allah its, Worship or die, With hitler it was, Kills jews or die, With money its, Work or die, All forms of submission
Prices on abundant food at the mall will kill us all, And has destroyed society with racism

[1] I don't believe we will go extinct as a result of money, Nor do I think it's binding us. [2] Selfishness is a human trait, Not a product of capitalism. [3] Hitler has nothing to do with you purchasing the food at the mall. You don't have to buy food at the mall, And if you choose to you aren't submitting to a fascist, You're purchasing a sandwich.
Prices on abundant food at the mall will kill us all, And has destroyed society with racism

We will necessarily go extinct when money is necessarily blinding us, We can't stop racing with the fiery flames caving in, And there is no friendship truth or love in a race but the all encompassing goal. If it was just raining fish. Selfishness pollutes the atmosphere, To sell fresh air to the highest bidders. Hitlers reincarnation is prices on abundant food, And mall owners are his generals, And he lives in all of us, And through us. How are money, Hitlers rule, Or allah, So different, When abundant food has a price at the mall? They are all forms of submission
Climate change is real.

Nothing, not even our own minds, are real -- we are living in a simulation. I believe that RationalWiki does a good job of explaining the gist of the argument, since I can't explain it any more briefly with such small character amounts allotted: The ability to simulate: Although human-level minds we are currently familiar with are all implemented by biological brains, there is no reason in principle why a human-level mind might not be implemented by other means, such as a computer with artificial intelligence. How to simulate: One possible method for achieving this level of artificial intelligence, at least in principle, is to simulate the operation of the human brain on a computer so that it is indistinguishable from human intelligence (see Turing test). If the human mind is ultimately material, and there is no immaterial soul needed to explain the human mind, this assumption would seem to be correct. Simulation of people and environment: So, it should be possible, with enough computing power, to simulate many human-level minds (even billions of them), complete with a virtual reality environment for them to inhabit and interact with each other in. These simulated people need have no idea they are being simulated. Computational power: Although the level of computational power needed to achieve the above is far beyond our present capabilities, it is not inconceivable that one day (possibly centuries from now) we will achieve the necessary capabilities to do so Multiple simulations: If we had the power to create such simulations, it is likely we would use it, and use it extensively, creating many such simulations. More simulated entities than real entities: Hence, the number of simulations (millions or billions) will far exceed the number of actual non-simulated worlds (one only) Concluding that we are a simulation: Therefore, almost certainly, we are not actually in the real non-simulated world, but unbeknown to us in one of these simulations.