BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Laws Banning Guns for Citizens will Create a Safer Environment

The idea that semi-auto rifles, "spray bullets everywhere" is based on ignorance of the firearms of which you are speaking and really is simply an appeal to emotion. Semi-Auto means one trigger pull, one shot. The same as a semi-auto pistol. And so-called "Assault Weapons" account for less than 2% of all fatal shootings, and much less than 1% of total murders. And there's nothing to suggest that those murders would not have occurred with a pistol had an "Assault Rifle" not been available. Whether you believe civilians need "assault weapons", which is cosmetic term for rifles that simply look a certain way, or not is irrelevant to the question of whether a gun ban would create a safer environment or not. As for the "Assault Rifle" ban, it's already been tried under the Clinton administration and a 2004 National Academy of Sciences review of studies on violence failed to document one gun legislation that reduced violent crime and homicides. Those federal "Assault Weapon" bans expired that year and what followed was a reduction in murder and overall violent crime. Even a 2013 memo put out by Obama's own Department of Justice (which he ignores), reported negative findings in "Assault Weapon" bans reducing violence or homicides. But we're talking about overall gun bans here. Basically the goal of gun bans is to create a safer environment by reducing the rates violent crimes and homicides. If it fails to accomplish this, then it fails to create a safer environment. The best way to test whether gun bans do indeed reduce rates of violent crimes and homicides is to see where it has been applied before and look at the results. In both UK and Australia, where gun bans were implemented, violent crime and homicides increased in the years following the ban. Within the US, in Washington DC, one of the first places to have gun bans, murders within the city have increased, even as the average rate of murder nationwide was decreasing. Interestingly, the Supreme Court, which ruled that the 2nd Amendment covered citizens' rights to bear arms for self-defense, lifted the gun ban in DC, and what resulted was a decrease in murders. In Kennesaw, Georgia, a law was implemented requiring every household to own a gun. Did the increased presence of guns suddenly create a crime wave? No. The very opposite happened. All crime, but especially violent crime decreased substantially. There is nothing to suggest that a gun ban would reduce violence and homicides, and therefore, I have no reason to believe that a gun ban would indeed create a safer environment. I believe that guns in the presence of law-abiding citizens reduce violence and murder rates, not only by assisting those citizens to physically stop a criminal in the act, but also because the mere knowledge that law-abiding citizens MIGHT be armed does much cause criminals to act less frequently due to less risk to themselves. When criminals act less frequently, there are fewer cases of violent crime and fewer homicides. This results in a safer environment.
Laws Banning Guns for Citizens will Create a Safer Environment

Well I do think gun bans will create a safer environment. Civilians don't exactly need assault weapons, and if we ban then, I know some criminals will be able to get them illegally, but if we ban them then not as many people will be able to get them. Civilians can use revolvers or pistols or rifles for self-defense since those guns are safer and won't spray bullets everywhere, possibly hitting and killing innocent bystanders. In the end, it doesn't matter how many bullets you shoot, if you hit the guy you want to hit without getting hit yourself, you win.
America would benefit from a new political party in power.

In this debate, I will argue that the two parties in power right now, the Republicans and the Democrats, are efficient in accomplishing the most important needs of the population majority. I will also argue how why a 'new vision' for America's future would be wholly un-beneficial and why a new party would be completely unnecessary. I also hope to demonstrate how a change in the political spectrum in such a way would be detrimental to the state of the country.
America would benefit from a new political party in power.

In this debate, I (Pro) will present opinions and information in support of these points... - The creation of a new political party and why it is beneficial to America. - How the two political parties in power right now (Republicans and Democrats) are inefficient in accomplishing the most important needs of the population majority. - How a completely new vision for America's future is beneficial and why a new political party that supports this vision is crucial. I propose these terms for how the debate shall be played out. By accepting to challenge me in this debate.. I will assume that the challenger also accepts these terms. Round 1 - Acceptance and stating what points will be made in the challenging argument. Rounds 2 through 4 - Arguments and conclusions. Round 5 - Final conclusion and/or statements. Let the debate begin!
Students should not be forced to go to school until the US gets a replacement for Common Core

The majority of the populous has known that common-core is a horrible and ineffective learning method, school can basically be summed up as "Here da facts, memorize da facts, write as many facts as you know, A+=Intelligent / F-=Retarded/Learning disability" and this pretty much stays constant until college or university were they actually make an effort to teach people things like Engineering, Government, Business. My point is common-core is a pathetic excuse for a method of learning that isn't going to go away any time soon because that would require people to get off their asses and develop a new system and somehow convince minimum wage salary teachers to enforce it in classrooms. School being terrible isn't a stereotype, and i refuse to deny people the truth.
VIDEO DEBATE: WriterDave should leave debate.org

Wow. .. Didn't expect a forfeit. *****CONCLUSION*****Anyways, whether it is banned or him leaving, my points still apply to both. My opponent, whether out of laziness, or knowing that my points were more correct than his, has simply failed to respond. It is strongly abusive of my opponent to say I have not responded to his points, as I thoroughly touched on each one. He strictly said the use of "semantics" should be voted against. Well, saying that my points are not valid over the difference of one word, when they still obviously apply, is a strong use of semantics. My opponent has forfeited, and violated his own rule. Thus you can extend each argument that I have made. I thank the viewers for watching.
The United States is a Christian nation.

It is regrettable that we cannot properly finish this debate. However, I'd like to thank pro for his initial arguments and for his conduct. I'd also encourage pro to let me know if he wants to debate again sometime. I'm always up for it. That being said, I'd encourage readers not to vote on the concession. Pro seems to have some other stuff going on right now, and we can all relate to that. (Besides, I wouldn't feel right winning a debate because of a concession.) Please judge the debate as though it was only two rounds, and vote on pro's initial arguments and my rebuttals to them. This still isn't completely fair to pro because he never got to respond to my rebuttals, but I simply can't help that. I feel that I adequately refuted all of pro's claims and have made a good argument here, but I will ultimately leave that decision up to the voters. Once again, thanks to pro for accepting, and thanks to any of you for reading and voting. (Obviously, extend all arguments for round 4.)
The United States is a Christian nation.

I'll go ahead and get this out of the way to avoid any semantic arguments or whatever. Nation: A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory. Christian: Of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings. I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and look forward to his arguments. As I stated initially, the burden of proof lies on him to prove that United States is a Christian nation, so I won't go into a huge amount of detail in this first round. But my argument is as follows: there is no evidence to support the claim that the United States is a Christian nation. To say that it is as almost literally a meaningless statement. I often here the argument that 95% of American identifies as Christian (I think the statistic has changed a bit recently, but it's still close to that), therefore it is a Christian nation. This is complete nonsense. One might as well call America a white nation since the majority of its residents are white, or a pro-death penalty nation since the majority favors capital punishment. The United States was founded on the ideas of secularism - it's as simple as that. Our constitution has no references to Christianity other than exclusionary ones (i.e. no religious test being required to serve in public office, separation of church and state). Our founders were mostly deists, and those who were self-identifying Christians were above all secularists. There is simply no reason to think this is a Christian nation. I am looking forward to pro's reply and thank him again for accepting. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
The United States is a Christian nation.

The resolution is that the United States is a Christian nation, which I am denying. In this case, pro will have the burden of proof - he or she will need to provide evidence to support the position that the United States is indeed a Christian nation. If pro cannot show this, the conclusion must be that it is, in fact, not a Christian nation. What do I mean by 'Christian nation'? I mean that the United States is not, in any sense, founded upon Christian ideology. (In other words, the majority of the people being Christian proves nothing here. ) Format is standard: Four rounds, first being acceptance, second being arguments, third rebuttals, and fourth closing statements/summaries. (No new arguments in the fourth round, please, although feel free to refute arguments/clear things up, etc. ) If anyone wishes to accept and has any questions or comments regarding the resolution, format, or anything else, feel free to leave a comment.
Rise of good music.

http://www.imdb.com... This is a site containing how many sales Led Zeppelin got on his albums. ACDC got even more. One Direction sucks. Their band is falling apart as we speak, and they are not as thought over as some of the classics. And to be honest, I don't know what YOUR problem is. I don't have to take this anymore. Bullies like you use intimidation and insults to belittle others who they percieve as unwilling and intimidated, it's time for me to take a stand. So STOP. I want you to stop right now. Stop. You bullies tend to pick on those who they identify as being unwilling or unable to stand up for themselves. Bullies choose easy targets to 'test' by needling with words and actions. Don't expect me to negotiate, befriend, or add more fuel to your fire, therefore making it worse. I'm not whining. I'm not crying. There's nothing funny to say about 'Stop'. There's nothing to mock in someone who is confident. So go ahead punk, make my day. I will NOT listen to the insults that you say to me nor will I take them seriously. You say things in order to get a rise out of me, not because you believe these things, not because you are right, and not because you are trying to help. You're trying to break me down as a way of holding yourself up, because all bullies including you are insecure and weak at heart. You. I will NOT exchange insults back and forth with you. I know I'll lose because of your skill of hurting people's feelings, much better than I am, considering I have no experience. You bullies always rig the game. Once again, I won't reply with better come-backs and cutting insults, which will only make it worse for myself. Especially online, I should be ignoring you. Whether it's via email, text, Facebook, or Debate.org, I should have disengaged from you as much as possible. So I'm sorry I'm even debating with you. I would have been better off debating with someone fair than you. I know I'll never meet you in person, but my goal is to learn to throw a damn good punch. I realise it's not advisable to let bullies draw me into physical violence, but I will be able to carry myself with more character if I'm confident that I'll be able to defend myself if it ever does come to if I meet you. So, for the people who are spectating this debate. Think well and do the right thing. I have tried to stay on topic. I really have. But all DATXDUDE has done is insulted me, but I have held strong. I have not cried. I have not whined. I may be small, shy and scared. But I am NOT afraid of standing up to pathetic bullies who have nothing else to do. So thank you, DATXDUDE, for allowing everyone spectating to see who you TRULY are.
Rise of good music.

I don't believe the point of this debate is to insult one another. As I told you, people have their own opinions about music. If I like Counting Stars, that doesn't necessarily mean it is scientifically proven to be a good song. Other people might hate it and others like it. Just like old and new music. Opinions are ranged, and everyone has their own choice of music which they prefer to listen to. I am sorry if I sound like a juvenile, but at the moment that is you.
Prostitution Should Be Legalized

Thank you for this topic, and I look forward to this debate. As this is my first debate, I'm still trying to get into the style and organization needed for debating better, so bear with me, please :]. There are several reasons why prostitution cannot or should not be legalized in all of the U.S, which I will list (not on this post) in no particular order. I'd like to note that I am not arguing for making prostitution illegal where it is legal now, but rather that the U.S. on a widespread scale should not legalize prostitution. The first is economic harm for places where prostitution is legal (the state of Rhode Island allows sex for money, but not organized prostitution rings, while Nevada has legal prostitution organizations in 8 of 16 counties). This argument would be quite straightforward. The legalization of prostitution in such places would indicate that prostitution might help save a failing economy or give jobs to many unemployed. Indeed, Nevada brothels pay licensing fees, like quite a few other businesses. Legalizing prostitution on a large scale would probably make it harder for these states to sustain their economy. I mean, where would all the tourist revenue go? People don't go to Nevada to enjoy the cool 100 degree summer weather, or the incredibly arid and desert-like air. They go for the gambling and the prostitution. If you make prostitution widely available elsewhere, then both gambling and prostitution would no longer be the exclusive trademark of Nevada, as gambling has already begun to creep away from Vegas. A direct rebuttal to this might be that prostitution on a larger scale might give the U.S. and states more tax revenue, and that Nevada and Rhode Island will be able to compensate for the loss of revenue and jobs. Common sense would seem to dictate that prostitution was PROBABLY not the first thing Nevada's legislators and citizens thought of when they moved to the state in an attempt to build a new life. Desperation, along with the failure of other options, probably led to it. In fact, legislation has been pushed for years now to ban prostitution altogether, but is never passed. Another thing that might surprise voters in this debate is that prostitution is not a legitimate business in the U.S. The state of Nevada does not recognize brothels as businesses, and do not tax their revenue, but only charge for the permitting of such a brothel. (all above from [http://en.wikipedia.org...]) That's all for now. In the manner of many of the debates I've read, I'm pretty sure that my opponent has the burden of proof - he's the one trying to change things.
Prostitution Should Be Legalized

The resolution should be clear and without controversy. I affirm, prostitution should be legalized. For the purposes of this debate, anything that deals with legal matters will pertain within U.S. jurisdiction. Arguing that prostitution should be legalized in places like Sudan or Somalia is quite out-of-topic :). To start off, let's get a few definitions on the table: [Word - Prostitution] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] The act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money [Word - Should] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency [Word - Legalized] [Source - http://www.merriam-webster.com...] To make legal ; especially : to give legal validity or sanction to ==================== Prostitution is not "wrong" or "immoral" ==================== I argue that there is nothing morally wrong with prostitution. If consenting sex is obviously legal, then why not consenting sex with money? There is nothing in making a job out of consensual sex - it does nothing to harm either party. ==================== Conclusion ==================== I realize that my argument is small, short, and not much. However, I expect that if my opponent doesn't try to argue against the morality of prostitution, he will instead argue against the practicality of it. I am entirely aware of these arguments, but I have no clue what various one my opponent will use - refuting several POSSIBLE arguments is a waste of time. Anyway, I await my opponent's response. Good debating for the both of us!
Atheism requires more faith than religion (Contender: Pro)

I wish now to give your submissions, the scrutiny that they deserve. Can I just state at the outset of this dissection that there are no absolute truths for 'evolved primates' such as our selves and that believing in God or Country is as valid for us as living in a cave in Alaska observing moon shadows on the wall. The human is a limited creature that declares 'truth' to a cacophony of celestial laughter, IMHO. Seriously..................................You attempt to make this point, for example.'For the second point, this is what's called a popularity fallacy. Just because a vast majority supports something doesn't mean there must be some truth in it. Just because a vast majority of people like fast food doesn't mean it's the best thing to eat. In this case, people tend to favor comforting lies over painful truths.'I cannot think of a thing that warrants popular 'currency' that is a complete fabrication.Take the example you give and you find the underlying truth that is the fact that we need to eat regularly to exist. God belief has a source and a reality of its own. Man extracted it from somewhere. We should explore the source of this thing which emanates from our earthly existence as humans within life.You state............ 'On the contrary, "no God" is the default, just as a child wouldn't know there was even an idea of a God if he was not introduced into religion.'If no God was the default, then that position would be the status quo, which it is not. You can only hold the logic of the above statement by declaring that all humans throughout time have been and are, self deceiving idiots. Good luck with that stance as the human as a species has made many real and amazing evolutionary advances. Why would the human 'invent' an entity like God without real stimulus to pursue this. It makes no sense.Conclusion In short, this evidence based position that you attribute to the atheist is not an actual reality. Atheist's are not people looking for evidence, as a norm.You will never find evidence for something that you do not believe in. In short, I cannot, not believe in something that someone else believes in while declaring this to be a valid position. I need to express my own opinions and reference them to those of others. A simple example of this is the mossy stone that is the 'origins argument'. If a Baptist tells me that there was a Garden of Eden and that god made man specifically in his image then that is his/her declaration of faith. It is not for me to ridicule unless I have formulated a competing explanation as to how 'all this' came about. How do you think 'all this' happened. Do you go for randomness or what. Regardless of your deliberations you will end up looking at shadows. In this situation the depths of wisdom in religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism carry equal validity with scientific conjecture, IMHO.Thank You for your participation on this thread and if a third party considers our writings on this subject then I thank them for the generosity of their efforts. Good Luck.
Atheism requires more faith than religion (Contender: Pro)

I am enjoying this debate with you too. Rarely is a debater as civilized as you. Okay, so to sum up your second paragraph, your point would be: 1) Not following the tiger tracks (religious teachings) would be considered faith to you. 2) As a vast majority of humans pursue a faith for an ultimate being, you recognize that there must be a reality that underlines these tendencies. I'm sorry, but many of the other sentences are not much relevant to this debate. But first, my condolences, I can imagine the pain of living under that law as an atheist. But be careful not to go too far with voicing out, alright? I've heard there could be serious consequences. Now, to address those points. For the first one, I guess with the heavy influence of religion in your country, you would consider "God exists" as the default position, and to not believe is to be considered faith. That is not the case. On the contrary, "no God" is the default, just as a child wouldn't know there was even an idea of a God if he was not introduced into religion. It is then that the child is brought to church, or a mosque, that he is indoctrinated. So, if others tell you there is a God, and you don't believe them, that is not faith, just like you don't need faith to not believe in unicorns. The faith is when people ask you to believe and without asking for any proof or evidence, you believe them. For the second point, this is what's called a popularity fallacy. Just because a vast majority supports something doesn't mean there must be some truth in it. Just because a vast majority of people like fast food doesn't mean it's the best thing to eat. In this case, people tend to favor comforting lies over painful truths. "Are you aware that the a-typical Atheist dismisses all theistic deductions based on the single fact that they are deduced from deceptions" Accurate. Now, for the wisdom inside religious thought and enjoyment of the people (in this case comfort religion provides), I will have to dismiss this once again as it is not relevant to faith. Faith deals with truth and fiction. To believe fiction as truth you need faith. But the morality (I highly doubt it) or the comfort religion provides is an effect of the faith. Does a deity exist? --> faith it exists --> comfort Now, why this is irrelevant is because it deals with the last two parts. Faith is presupposed to have comfort. What this debate is about is the first two parts, whether you need more faith to believe in a deity or more faith to not. For your last paragraph, I understand you mean one needs faith not to fall into religious fundamentalism. I disagree, this is a matter of critical thinking and reason, not faith. Your next submission is eagerly awaited.