BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Banning guns is a bad idea

"If they had a gun maybe they could have confronted them before they took their stuff" Although that is a possibility, confronting them also puts the lives of the defenders at stake. "It's more dangerous than a gun. One can use a gun to defend them selves with wry little knowledge of it" Yes, one can use it to defend himself/herself with little knowledge, but that also means that one can use it to attack and kill others with little experience. "You can simple hold a gun and have nothing go wrong and you don't have to watch signs and other drivers ect. Plus more people die Ina car accidents than gun accidents." That is false. In the US, there are about 43, 000 casualties each year from car accidents. However, there are annually 100, 000 casualties from a bullet. This is an enormous amount and is more than twice the casualty rate by car. Doing the math, that's about 11 people per hour being shot. http://usnews.nbcnews.com... "a small black bear was sticking it's head in the car after the food my aunt was able to yell and scream and make the bear go away. Thankfully everything was fine nuts at if the bar tried to get my cousin? My ain't couldn't have wrestled the bear. She would have needed a gun." Bears (when near humans) usually scavenge for food in trailers, cars etc. The chances of your cousin being actually attacked by the bear are minimal. In 2012, there was only ONE death from a bear attack. http://www.statisticbrain.com... "seance for them to have a gun to defend them selves (from pro Russians mobs) if I were surrounded by a mob that was going crazy if want a gun." Although I see your point, it is slightly flawed. If your relatives were to have guns, the mob would see your relatives as a threat and would try to hurt them. Confronting a threat with a gun always puts the "confronter's" life at risk because the "confronted" may retaliate or try to eliminate the threat. "has a black belt in karate and taught me and my sister some sc defense moves so I'm familiar but karate or a knife would be a match for a 6 foot gal man" Martial arts definitely help (I've been training for about 6 years now). A knife is more than a match for a man. One effective stab and he's pretty much done. Let's imagine if you both have guns. If you tried to pull out your weapon, that would give him a reason to shoot you. Not the best scenario. To sum up my arguments, I believe guns (esp. in such large amounts) are an unnecessary threat. Statistics show that the more guns, the more death and violence from guns. This is my argument in a nutshell. There is little practical use for them (unless you are a hunter or maybe soldier). Even in self defense, although having a gun may increase your chances, it also instantly makes you a threat and gives the attacker(s) a reason to hurt/kill you. Thank you for the good debate.
Do soccer players really deserve their big salary

Good luck in the voting. Second, I wish to to point out that my opponent has not actually refuted my points as I have done in the second round. Though I agree that ideally a public figure should be a good example for all of those around him, you cannot exactly discriminate against one job field. We continued to pay President Clinton his normal salary throughout his sex scandal. We supported and continued to pay David Letterman through his sex scandal. Robert Downy Jr. we supported and paid him his salary back in his Drug and partying days. Mel Gibson still got acting rolls even though he made some racist remarks. John Edwards we supported and continued to pay throughout his scandal. Ted Kennedy, no need to say more there. The list goes on, the point is that it does not seem to matter that we pay these public figures high salary's and they are not the stare role models. It is the fact that they are human and they have reached a point of greatness and we want to pay them because they made it. All can be corrupted by money and go through outlandish and ridicules phases and stupid actions. They worked to get to the place they are, why don't they deserve their pay? Most of America and the rest of the world has loose collars for public figures in the sports industry because they enjoy watching them perform. Why not pay them the salaries we've set it at? I feel that my opponent has not inducted a solid argument in all retroscope that concludes that athletes should not get their current salaries.
Do soccer players really deserve their big salary

. A public figure should be the good example for people around him, let alone their fans. Just count how many cheating and sexual scandal which involves footballer. We don"t want our "kids" to follow John Terry"s lead in cheating, do we ? And should we see the lads goint involves in night life party like Adriano and Ronaldinho just because they are the idol? There are still many unexemplary deed such as shoplifting, street brawl, or even drug abuse. Once again I must stress how great the influence of the idol could affect their admirer. The admirer could follow the footstep to destruction without even knowing it. Such bad-manner player really do not deserve such big sum of money. Lets take Ronaldinho as example. Just when he reached his peak in career, he began to be disoriented. The bright spotlight, money, admiration, luxury, and elite life was beyond his childhood imagination. Then the downfall began. He was tempted to attend flickering night life, spending money without worry of starving at next day, and other luxuries he couldn"t afford back then in Brazil. And why was he tempted to do so ? Because he had money. The money pours into his account like torrential rain, an amount which he has never seen before. Well it tells us, however bad is the background, however pitiful is the past experience, overpaid salary is not an excuse to allow footballer earns such big money.
Do soccer players really deserve their big salary

I disagree that nothing would happen if we didn't have the athletes performing anymore. DO you understand how many people turn to these games every week as a means of social bonding? I would argue that having these help members of a state and in some cases, citizens of a country bond to some level. Sociologically it is important to have these games and athletes around. (This can be seen all the way back through history. Mayans, Africans, Ancient Egyptians. They all had some sort of sport that was of some sociological advantage to the community, nation or kingdom. It promoted pride.) As far as athletes pay compared to Medical professionals. I would agree that it may not be RIGHT, that there is such a pay margin. However, these are set within the fields that they are in. For how FAIR, it may be does not necessarily apply. Is it fair that my father a computer technician makes a lot more than I do as a chief? We both work the same hours, have the same work ethic and kill ourselves for the job about the same level. But it is fair as his field sets his salary at 30 grand higher than my field does. I may not think that it is right, but it comes down to the standards the field you are in sets it. In the world of professional Sports, so many things raise the margins of what you are worth. Not all athletes get the same pay. I think that Doctors are underpaid to hold you life in the balance sometimes, but having been almost killed by a Doctors mistake myself I think that they can be over paid as well. It really comes down to the standards of the field that you are in. Not to address the starving children of the world. I HAVE thought about that. But, have you though about, How many of our athletes give hundreds of thousands of dollars in some instances to charities, soup kitchens and other means of trying to help the under advantaged, poor, homeless and starving? David Beckem gave his salary to a charity if I remember the news correctly. (That's like, 5.5 Million.) Many athletes go to their home towns and give back as well as give time and money in other areas. All the SuperBowl Memorabilia for the losing team, (ya know in case they were the ones that won.) Goes to countries in need to help cloth them. Something that bothers me when people bring this up as you have done here today, is that first off we don't do enough here to take care of our own homeless, starving and dying citizens in this country to help the rest of the world. Not that we shouldn't help the rest of the world that's not what I'm saying, but we forget about our own people all to much. The things I have mentioned above that US athletes do athletes of other countries do as well. But way are you picking only on the athletes here? Should not every single citizen of this country give to try to help the under privileged, starving, dying, homeless, sick etc. Of this country? TO focus only on one salary earning member of society is not Fair in any sense even if it was Donald Trump. That is all I am saying here.
Do soccer players really deserve their big salary

Let's take an example, world without football. Since week, month and year nothing would change, but if where weren't any other professions such as doctor, teacher or extremely crucial professions - miners, pilots and so on, the world would change drastically. However, footballers earn much more than all these professions all together. I do agree with you that football players deserve a good payment, but not millions. For instance, Cristiano Ronaldo or Messi earn $114 thousand dollars a day. On average, in Europe football player earns a minimum million annually, in countries such as England, Spain, Germany, France, Italy this figure sharply increases. There are a lot of extreamly important professions that should be high paid, to them it is disrespect and unfair. I think that footballers should have a pay cut or they should give a part of their salary to charity and there would be no arguments about this topic. Gaining a huge amount of money by "Running and kicking a ball" is disrespect to other professions( Javier Zanetti, 2012). Moreover, a great number of people are suffering from famine and crisis, which lead to many deaths. Didn't you think about it before?
Do soccer players really deserve their big salary

Why should they not get the salaries that they get? Each player works hard at a game that they love and enjoy. They are some of the best athletes in the world. Why not pay them to compete and perform? Cause in all honesty, the team sponsors and anyone financially invested in the teams make a lot of money. Millions in some cases. Why should the players not get some of that which is gained by their game performance? Heck, I'm willing to go watch it be played, I'll even pay to view it. Why should what I pay not go at least a little to them? Many of them do not see their family members for great amounts of their lives because they are off playing and training. Their pay is partially compensation to that in some respect. I think they earn what they get paid in most senses. some I will agree may get paid a tad much, but their contracts are not without stipulations and are based on performance and the players actions as a whole.
Euthanasia

Euthanasia, actively or passively helping someone to die, is certainly a big issue that this site is pretty much ignoring; but it's certainly important. We're going to debate about any sort of euthanasia and having to right to do it and/or to ask for it. Interesting things to talk about: Child-Euthanasia like in Belgium, Euthanasia-Tourism... I don't mind if you have strong religious feelings about this but I would ask you to provide more than only this as an argument, as it certainly does not apply to and won't convince those who don't share your religion.I propose the following round-system, because I think it's fair and leads to nice and closed debateRound One: Acceptance (obviously) and an probably opening statement*Round Two: ArgumentsRound Three: Reaction and further argumentationRound Four: A conclusion that does not introduce new statements so everyone has the chance to react to the other's statements. *Openning Statement - one to five sentences so I have a small impression of your opinion and that you are really going to debate me on this (I am not sure if I can take another full-forfeit ;D) Sources: I might ask for a source if something seems not legitimate to me or if I have no idea what you are talking about or where you got that idea. I am handling it the same way and provide you with sources where I think it's necessary to strengthen my point or to give you additional information that I don't want to fully paraphrase.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Opening Statement from my Pro-SideThere are many reasons why people might choose to commit suicide and some of them are, that their physical condition is not bareable for them any more. Especially in those cases people are often already unable to end their life themself and ask for help. I argue that those how help someone end their life (as long as there is proove that this happend with consent of all involved parties) are neither murderers nor should be treathed like that. One should be able to escape long suffering if one wished to.
Euthanasia

Please note that I took this debate because I wanted to argue for the "con" side even though my beliefs on euthanasia are "pro" under most circumstances. That being said, I apologize if I can't give you a strong rebuttal on every account, but I will try my best. "Opening Statement from my Pro-Side There are many reasons why people might choose to commit suicide and some of them are, that their physical condition is not bareable for them any more. Especially in those cases people are often already unable to end their life themself and ask for help. I argue that those how help someone end their life (as long as there is proove that this happend with consent of all involved parties) are neither murderers nor should be treathed like that. One should be able to escape long suffering if one wished to. " Your statement has the BOP to demonstrate that the parties involved in this situation are not murders. My responsibility is to show that euthanasia is a form of killing. If you wish, you can define murder in this situation. If you do not provide a definition, I will take the definition off of Merriam Webster for this argument. Thanks and Good Luck!
Jail climate change deniers.

I reassert my strongest argument in r2. "Finally, and perhaps my strongest argument. Assume for a second that the deniers are wrong. Not much of an assumption. Jailing the deniers could backfire. Causing them to become martyrs per say. Holding back political change and giving the deniers a louder voice. Thanks for debating and being respectful. " stupidape Jailing the climate change deniers could backfire. Cause the deniers to become martyrs and more suspicion and doubt to be cast.
Jail climate change deniers.

The problem with your argument is humans have been wrong with a lot of ideas. I find most of your argument fits under the ad populum fallacy. [2] Just because the majority of scientists think man made climate change is real and a threat, does not mean the scientists are correct. At one time we thought the Earth was flat and the sun revolved around the Earth. " "Does the Earth go around the Sun, or does the Sun go around the Earth?"If you answered the latter, you're among a quarter of Americans who also got it wrong, according to a new report by the National Science Foundation. " [3]There is a chance that the entire global warming/climate change is a scam. That the deniers are whistle blowers. If we start jailing whistle blowers we could be in a lot of trouble. [4] Remember that 97% of climate change scientists agree. That means 3% don't, those 3% could be legitimate whistle blowers. Some of the scientist claim there is bullying going on to reach the consensuses. [5] There is talk of data manipulation. [6] Honestly, I will not stoop by backing up the deniers. I think the chances of the deniers being wrong is at least 99%. Nevertheless, there is that 1% chance. More importantly, it sets a precedence as seen in r1.Finally, and perhaps my strongest argument. Assume for a second that the deniers are wrong. Not much of an assumption. Jailing the deniers could backfire. Causing them to become martyrs per say. Holding back political change and giving the deniers a louder voice.Thanks for debating and being respectful. I am not a climate change denier, I just feel both sides of the debate need to be represented. Sources2. http://www.skepdic.com...3. http://abcnews.go.com...4. https://www.gov.uk...5.6. http://www.forbes.com...
Jail climate change deniers.

There is an overwhelming scientific consensus climate change presents a serious risk to the future of the Earth and to mankind. Many of the threats we face due to climate change are insidious and while with others the connection may not be noticed by the deniers. But they are real and serious. Among these are the spread of potentially lethal diseases such as that caused by the Zika virus. Other diseases formerly confined to the tropics will spread across North America and Europe. There is also overwhelming scientific consensus climate change is being caused by human activity. There are a limited number of circumstances under which free speech can be restricted. One of them is child pornography. The reason that can be banned with violating the 1st Amendment is the harm caused to children in the production of child porn is of such magnitude the normal means of combating bad speech-- more speech is not adequate or sufficient. The ignorance peddled by climate change deniers many of whom like child pornographers do so for greed. Those threatened most by the adverse effects of climate change are children. These will include teenagers sent to fight the increasing number of wars and conflicts which will likely occur. Yes the risk is too high to allow this ignorance to continue to be peddled. Should we jail people who write and utter falsehoods about climate change? If need be yes.
Jail climate change deniers.

I'm against jailing Climate change deniers. It is a violation of free speech. I also think it sets a bad precedence. I would hate to see a 15 year old teenager go to jail for running off at the mouth. Nevertheless some people think we should jail climate change deniers. [0] What's next jailing flat Earth people and hate speech? [1] 0. http://www.washingtontimes.com... 1. http://www.theflatearthsociety.org...
ZP Theart is a great singer... perhaps one of the greatest

i am from alabama, and i like music. perhaps more than anyone, more than justin beiber and miley cyrus, and one direction and michael jackson, and alot of other people. i believe that i am better singer than alot of those kinds of peoples. those people have too much money. if i had to pick one of those persons, then i would pick kanye west, because he is a creative genius and his songs are dope. he also likes cool stuff: did you know he got his first pair of gucci slipers when he was 18? he also is aquaman which makes him better than anyone on this entire planet. so yeah. i win. your argument is invalid from now on. i am sorry to do this to you. but won pretty easily. you should get better at debate. that was the easiest win i have ever made.
socilism is the best

Pro raises a contention: minority groups are "discriminated against" not by the market, but by the government. There are two responses:1) If the government is biased, that's a problem for socialism, not capitalism. In a capitalist society, government stays out of the economy. It doesn't pick sides, like in a socialist society. Thus, if the government is biased, minorities in a socialist society would suffer much more than if they were in a capitalist society.2) Just how biased against minorities is the government? I'll list off some famous, rich minority figures in the USA:-Oprah WinfreyNet Worth: $2.7 billion (Forbes, 2017)-Robert F. SmithNet Worth: $2.5 billion (Forbes, 2017)-Michael JordanNet Worth: $1.14 billion (Forbes, 2016)-Patrick Soon-ShiongNet Worth: $8.6 billion (Forbes, 2017)These are only 4. I'll tell you right now, Pro, it looks like these minority billionares have a lot more money than I expect to earn in my life. And this is due to capitalism, not socialism. If this was socialism, they would be forced to earn the same amount as you or your lazy neighbor. They would be forced to make less money, which just doesn't make sense!
socilism is the best

You've made my case for me, Pro. The danger of socialism is that it allows other people to run your life.It makes you a tool of a community rather than an individual.Capitalism, on the other hand, respects each person's uniqueness, individualism. It gives liberty to all, opportunity to all. In stark contrast is socialism, someone deciding just how much money you are allowed to have, how much property you are allowed to have, and some even go as far as to regulate how many children you are allowed to have. I ask the voters to decide: Would you rather live your life ruled by another, or have the liberty to make your own financial decisions?
Science should be privatized

1. Competition Competition is a good thing. It leads to progress and innovation. With government control of science, huge advantages are given to the government science programs. The government has already picked who is going to win. And with a government monopoly, it is almost impossible to make any real progress. 2. Ansari X-Prize/Scaled Composites The Ansari X-Prize was a 10 million dollar competition launched in 1996, to launch a manned spacecraft into space twice in two weeks. It was based off of the Orteig Prize It was completely private. In 2004, Scaled Composites won the competition with their SpaceShipOne and White Knight spacecraft. The Ansari X-Prize was shown to be a huge success, proving that private science and competition are very good for progress (1). 3. Political motivations vs. private motivations You are probably thinking of all the good things that have come out of government science. You are likely thinking of the Apollo program, among other things. However, most of our greatest developments in the world of space travel were during the Cold War: a time where the governments of the U. S. and the Soviet Union looked for superiority over the other in almost every way. One of these ways was space travel, and this era is known as the Space Race. Things like Sputnik, Yuri Gagarin, the Gemini program, the Apollo program, etc. .. were all primarily done to outdo other countries. It was more about politics than the search for truth (2). 4. NASA and Islam In 2010, NASA said that it wanted to reach out to the Muslim world, to "help them feel good about their historic contribution to science and engineering" (3). In no way does this benefit science or the American people. NASA is not about diplomacy or therapy. It is about science, and lately it has been failing. No human has even been to the Moon since 1972, and no human has ever been to Mars. This is not progress. One thing to add, I notice my arguments mostly view science from the perspective of space exploration, but if my opponent wants to discuss other branches of science, I encourage him to do so. Sources: . http://space.xprize.org... . http://www.history.com... . http://abcnews.go.com...