BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control in the US

Gun control is a very bad issue in the US. First off, it is much easier for a gunman to access a military-grade assault rifle than it should be. The AR-15 for example is probably the most popular rifle in the US. Sure, it may have a longer barrel and no automatic capability, but it fires the same round and accepts the same attachments as the M16. It's not because they look scary, it's because they are scary. It's much easier to kill someone with an ergonomic rifle with a large magazine than it is with a single shot hunting rifle. If I saw an open carry AR-15 in real life, I'd probably be heading in the other direction. Call me a wimp, but would you have the balls to stand next to a guy with military firearms strapped to his back? On the topic of "guns don't kill people". I don't care about that ideology, the simple fact is that a person with a rifle bought over a supermarket counter for $400 is much more likely to kill someone than a guy with his bare fists. This is all coming from a Canadian, the place with near-impossible gun laws. Your turn Shreked4Lyfe
I like playing the guitar

You sly dog!!I did not change the topic mid-round you simply didn't understand the topic in the first place so I was just clarifying. Obviously you know you cant possibly win this debate so you are looking for any possible way out of it. Naughty naughty I must say!! Also, for the record, I notised meny speling erors in yur rebuttals!!! such as: " My opponent does not to play guitar" and "very inept at learning to play said instrument". You know how much our voters h8t spilleng errars! You'd better watch yourself next time or you won't get any votes!!Also, if you think I was insulting your brother then goodie for you, I wasn't, I was just stating a fact, but whatever you can think that if you'd like sir (or ma'm).Like I said, this debate is all about ME ME ME ME ME!! You may now attempt to argue now if your done making excuses :).
I like playing the guitar

= Rebuttals = Oh silly opponent, how can you say such Malicious lies like this? And furthermore, how can you justify changing the topic mid-round? You told me I was to argue "I do not like like to play guitar" not "My opponent does not to play guitar". Also, for all you know my brother makes a living teaching guitar. Although I was sadly very inept at learning to play said instrument, he could be a fantastic teacher! I'm hurt at the fact that you feel such a need to say these awful things about my beloved brother. Ah well, I guess I'll take this moment to extend all of my unrefuted arguments across. Since my opponent never covered them and instead insulted my brother's teaching ability, as well as having changed the topic mid-round; I guess you have to vote for me.
I like playing the guitar

Obviously my opponent is not understanding my arguement. I specifically said that my opponent will argue that I (as in me, the person saying these words) do not like to play the guitar. (Even though I know that I do like to play the guitar, so good luck trying to prove me wrong on that) Anyway, now that you know we are talking about ME here, not you, its your turn. Also, your brother isnt a teacher get a real guitar teacher and maybe you will have better luck.
I like playing the guitar

= Introduction = I will argue the Con in the position the debate "I like playing the guitar" = Arguments = Honestly, I don't. I don't know how to play the guitar, it's silly to think that I would like something I don't even do. When I was younger, my older brother always wanted me to learn to play the darned thing; so I gave learning it a shot. It was difficult, he was a terrible teacher, and after listening to him teach himself how to play that blasted instrument I decided it was not an instrument I ever wanted to learn to play. in fact if you'll check out my activities [1] you'll see very clearly that there is no reference to guitar whatsoever; They only include Debate, Church, and Drawing. There really is no other vote in this debate than for the Con, I don't even understand why my opponent would make a debate like this. There is no way for him to even make an argument saying that I like to play guitar when he doesn't even know me. As he's stated in his opening arguments "My opponent will argue that I do not like to play the guitar." And accordingly I am arguing, I do not like to play the guitar. Although I don't understand the relevance of the later part of his statement when this debate is so obviously about whether or not I like playing the guitar. = Sources = [1] http://www.debate.org...
I like playing the guitar

= Rebuttals = I apologize for my gross misunderstanding, this debate is obviously about you. I guess I'll just point out that not only is my terrible spelling due to the crippling learning disability known as dysgraphia[1]; but the offensive way in which you've mocked my spelling prowess is grounds for a loss in conduct points, so thank you for that voter. Also to the debate on hand, I would like to point out that my opponent has neither proven, nor warranted his argument. He's only said "Even though I know that I do." As the instigator in this debate, my opponent has the burden of proof in the round; as he's proven nothing there can be no debate. Accordingly you must vote Con by default, as I have indeed upheld my prescribed burden to disprove my opponent. Again, for clarity, I will reiterate my disproving that my opponent likes to play the guitar; There has been no proof of this claim shown in the round. Let's not forget that this is an internet debate, and providing only a claim is not substantive proof. For all of these reasons, I urge a Con vote I bid you all beautiful people adieu, and hope you have a wonderful day! = Sources = [1] http://www.as.wvu.edu...
Feminism is not equality

I'd like to debate any feminist out here because it isn't equality. Feminism has quite the hypocrisy considering men are justhe as oppressed as women but feminists are silent on them but shed millions of tears for women. Con will argue this is false and feminists are targeting equality. Rounds 1) Acceptance 2) Rebuttals 3) Defense Rules 1) No trolling 2) No profanity 3) No ad hominem 4) No forfeiting 5) Use evidence and sources.
Feminism is not equality

Thanks for accepting. Feminism is full of angry women who hate men, some want them all killed. They claim to get paid less, but this is not the case, the pay gap you see is average payment, this means women generally work less than men, men do the most dangerous jobs in the world, war, taxi driving potential killers, boxing, police work, bouncer, labour, etc. Feminism complains about men being rapists, but there are women rapists too. Feminists don't even realise 100-140,000 men are raped in prison https://www.hrw.org... http://womenagainstfeminism.com... https://ec.europa.eu...
Ancient Hindu texts of Mahabharata and Ramayana can be taken in literal meaning.

So assuming that my fellow opponents knows how to debate with logic and reasoning (seems unlikely). So here goes my arguments in points as to why Ramayan and Mahabharat CANT be taken in a literal manner. Here is why.... 1. The Ramayana talks of semi beast/animal natured 'humans' referred 'vanar sena'. This is nothing but a prejudice used by the poet to show the superiority of people belonging to the Aryan race and inferiority of people belonging to the Dravidian race, who were darker in colour. I am not really raising the issue of racism here but am speaking of the fact that poetic licence was used to show the Dravidian people who helped Ram as having monkey/animal like qualities both in behavioral and physical nature. Let us not forget that Hanuman and his people belonged to a tribe and hence were cut off from the civilized world of that time. My QUESTION to my opponent- If they were really apes,how did they have human like intelligence and ability to speak? Also what happened that 'species' of semi human like group. 2. Mahabharata talks about how the father of the main villain of the story Duryodhan was blind and the mother had a piece of cloth tied to her eyes. Were they really that way? Shouldnt it be understood that the poet made a metaphorical reference to how the parents of Duryodhan 'turned a blind eye' to his bad and evil activities? 3. Poets and writers in all languages have used metaphors and (if you are an Indian or understand Hindi) 'alankaras' to make their poems and creation look more fancy and interesting to read. A Greek poet described Medusa as having so many heads that 'they cannot be painted on a pot' This is nothing but POETIC LICENCE. Recent poets and writers too have used it to illuminate someone's character using a non living being's property. I will put forward further debunking of the metaphorical use of words which have been taken in literal sense,and request my opponents to ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I ASKED
Ancient Hindu texts of Mahabharata and Ramayana can be taken in literal meaning.

In the religion of Hinduism, ancient texts of Mahabharata and Ramayana mention incidents of supernatural nature. These supernatural activities are nothing but the poetic licence and metaphors used by the poets. Therefore I hold the view that those incidences can not be taken in a literal way and assumed that people in ancient times had supernatural powers to carry on such kind of activities.
The Las Vegas shooting was a hoax

To suggest that the Las Vegas shooting was a hoax is just preposterous. That would be like saying 9/11 never happened. Now only real crackpots and conspiracy theory fanboys would suggest that. I mean why would every news broadcaster station just make up a story in unison, why. Plus all these victims and their families. To suggest such travesty never happened is like a slap in the face to the families of the 59 people that lost their lives. So I will just have to provide examples of how it DID happen. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://www.cbsnews.com... https://www.nytimes.com... http://www.independent.co.uk... These are just a few sources, now if the Pro debater disbelief's all these sources then he is delusional Case is closed (mic drop)
The Las Vegas shooting was a hoax

My position is that the Las Vegas shooting never happened, but rather, was a government organized hoax designed to push for gun control. Like the gay club shooting in Orlando, the Paris Shooting, Sandy Hook, all of these were faked. But Orlando, Paris, and Sandy Hook are different topics. I attempted to debate this topic previously with Fanboy in the forums, in which he and his buddies quickly turned to turned to ad hominem attacks (with the occasional appeal to the stone and appeal to emotion arguments). He failed to provide any reliable evidence that the Las Vegas shooting actually happened. I decided I would give him one last chance to prove his case and I plan to abandon this topic after this debate. To make sure you we have plenty of space to argue, I will allow up to 10,000 characters. A few opening arguments: 1. Crisis actors hired before the shooting. Other crisis actor site remains: http://archive.is... 2. No blood showed in official photographs. https://gyazo.com... 3. The gunshots sound like a BB gun and are coming from different directions, implying that there would be more than 1 shooter. No screaming or running to get away from gunfire. The concert continues. Sounds like about 30 shots were fired, which shouldn't be able to kill 58 people and injure 546. By the way, I've never heard of a BB gun killing someone. Unless you think we need stricter sound effect control. https://www.facebook.com... Rules 1. Ad hominems or failure to respond in time will result in an automatic loss. 2. You may only use things like Google Docs if you don't have enough space to write a rebuttal Con argues first. Round 1: Con's arguments Round 2: My argument and rebuttal, con's rebuttal to my points. Round 3: Closing statements. Failure to respond in time and ad hominems will result in an automatic loss. Also, don't use anything such as google docs unless its because you don't have enough room for a full rebuttal.
The Las Vegas shooting was a hoax

I know you are very lonely, hanging out in your moms basement on the computer all day long, no friends, no social life, still wearing those same Hulk pj's from 2 days ago, eating pizza pockets and just hanging out online as your only outlet. This is why you post these outlandish debates on here. So as your evidence I'm just going to post a little interesting reading as evidence for you, something to think about. Because there is no point in debating with a lonely basement dwelling individual who can't go outside or he will be bullied for his nerdy look and the acne covered pasty face. Take comfort in the fact that I'm the only one you have socialized with here, and I understand you are lonely https://www.menshealth.com...
The Las Vegas shooting was a hoax

My opponent is posting fake news, and is also delusional with OCD, or schizophrenia, or bi-polar disorder or any other form of mental illness. Therefore he is not a credible witness or sane individual to be posting debates. My opponent is deemed mentally ill and does not want to accept clear facts presented to him, therefore at this time I have to withdraw from debating with an insane mind as his douchebag fallacies and fake news facts presented will not prove events that clearly happened, yet are not recognized by this mentally ill patient.
The Las Vegas shooting was a hoax

1. Extend all arguments from round 1 into this round. 2. - Hey if I have to read a bunch of media articles and watch a long video then... its fair. 3. Stephen Paddock found alive after shooting - Rebuttals: "To suggest that the Las Vegas shooting was a hoax is just preposterous. That would be like saying 9/11 never happened. Now only real crackpots and conspiracy theory fanboys would suggest that. I mean why would every news broadcaster station just make up a story in unison, why. Plus all these victims and their families. " I literally showed you a Craigslist ad for paid crisis acting. Is that not a good explanation? That's easy, as I have said before, the Las Vegas shooting is yet another false flag attack set up to push for gun control. Notice that as soon as attacks like these happen, the blame is immediately placed on the NRA and guns rights, followed by immediate calls for strict gun control? The end goal is an unarmed, police state country. https://www.billboard.com... I'm not sure if my opponent actually thinks I'll be able to respond to all of this. If you take into account their previous comments, then I would say it is likely they are committing what is called a gish gallop fallacy (drowning your opponent in a flood of weak, often unrelated and/or inconsistent arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort). His evidence it actually happened? A wikipedia article and a video explaining what allegedly happening without giving proof, followed by what could easily be turned into an extension of my 2nd argument, as well as a bunch of CBS and Independent articles that really aren't proof it happened, just a bunch of random articles referencing the shooting, such as discussing how people are suing a gun company who manufactured a weapons part allegedly used in the shooting, and how Paddock was mentally ill. You've proven a bunch of sheep are suing a gun company, congrats. "These are just a few sources, now if the Pro debater disbelief's all these sources then he is delusional" I don't neccessarily "disbelief" in any of these sources.
In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

Because in LD Aff gets the first speech I will allow Affirmative to start. The structure of this will be as follows... Aff starts Neg Case and rebuttal Aff rebuttal Neg rebuttal and conclusion Aff Conclusion Judging: As this is to be a Values debate I ask that it be judged objectivly based on who presented better arguments. Also who's criterion came out to be superior and best fulfilled the Core Value that came out superior.(sorry this is a bad explanation) Opponent: I ask only one thing and that is some experience with LD style debate(essentially how it works and the structure) Thanks in Advance to My opponent and everybody else who reads and follows this debate
Anarcho-Capitalism is NOT Anarchism

In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority. [1]I used the popular definition, since the opponent didn't clarify definitions at the start. Using popular definitions, I made my case, and it has gone unrefuted. I don't feel like playing semantics, honestly. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Anarcho-Capitalism is NOT Anarchism

I'm not altering definitions, I'm just expanding the definition of AnarchyAnarchy isn't simply just a lack of stateAnarchy is the absence or denial of any authority or established orderAnd my argument is that since Capitalism is inherently authoritarian, then in consequence, Capitalism would be implying the opposite of AnarchyThe reason why Capitalism is inherently authoritarian is because Capitalism is a system of competition over which business men compete over the right to authority. The right to authority to profit off from labor workers and rise on top of the ladder of power.Capitalism is hierarchy.Let me ask you: Are labor workers free under an Anarcho-Capitalist system?No. And do you know why?Because labor workers are not free from the authority of the profiteers or the bosses or the exploiters. Labor workers, or what Anarcho-syndicalists like to call "wage slaves", are not free from the authority of the business men or the corporations.If the working class is not free, than the country is not freeCapitalism goes against everything Anarchy stands for in this respectAnarchy implies freedom from opression, hierarchy, bosses, the state and CapitalismTo assume that Anarchy simply means lack of state, is to fail at understanding an entire conceptIn fact, the authority that comes with Capitalism would become even worse when the State is abolished and can no longer stop monopolies from formingSo even though in Anarcho-Capitalism the state would be gone, the oppression from Capitalism itself would become even strongerThe fact that Con has not provided any arguments to argue against the notion that Capitalism in inherently authoritarian is significant in itselfAnarchy is freedom and Capitalism is slavery
Anarcho-Capitalism is NOT Anarchism

Anarchism isn't just the lack of stateThat is far too general of a definition. Anarchism is a philosophy that is against all forms of authorityAnd Capitalism is inherently authoritarian just by the fact that Capitalism requires people on the bottom of the ladder of power to feed people on the top of the ladder of power.This goes against everything Anarchism stands forAnarchists are unhappy with inequality and abuse of power. "Anarcho-Capitalism" is an oxymoron since Anarchy=the removal of authority, and Capitalism=competition over authority.Con seems to argue that since Anarchism is "generally" defined as "a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful."But the philosophy of Anarchy, completely contradicts the nature of Capitalism I want Con to argue why Capitalism isn't inherently authoritarian as it definitely is relevant to the argumentAnarchism is much more than a general definition of a stateless society.It is a philosophy that argues against authority, inequality, and positions of power, while Capitalism encourages all those factors
Anarcho-Capitalism is NOT Anarchism

Anarchism is generally defined as "a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful." [1] Proponents of "anarcho-capitalism," also known as "right anarchism," [2] want a free market with no government regulation or intervention, because they believe that a state is undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful when the option of allowing private enterprises perform the state's current functions is considered. [3] I would argue against the opponent's notion that capitalism is "inherently authoritarian," as he puts it, but I don't have to—because it really isn't germane to the resolution. Regardless of the opponent's arguments about the actual "degree of freedom" one has as a consequence of capitalism, a core belief in anarcho-capitalism is that a stateless society ought to exist; this naturally fulfills the criteria to becoming an "anarchist" belief system.Thank you. I'll hand it over to my opponent now. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Anarcho-Capitalism is NOT Anarchism

I am arguing that "Anarcho-Capitalism" is too often confused with "Anarchism."I feel that since the philosophy of Anarchism involves being completely free from authoritative control, that government as well as Capitalism must be abolished since Capitalism is inherently authoritarianCon will be arguing that Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchism and explain their reasons for thinking soThe first round can be either for acceptance or if Con wants it can be for their first argument
abortion

Wouldnt you think the child would be better off not knowing their parents if they were say drug addicts, alcoholics? The child would be better off with parents who care and have enough money to support them, and what not. The children get adopted, so it is not like the government would spend money for their whole life. This would be better for the mother, and the child, if the mother did not have an abortion. And i do not eat eggs or seeds, simply for the fact that they are still children. So that doesnt apply to this debate.
abortion

Resolved: Abortion is a moral and right thing to do. And in fact, you are wrong. Abortion is murder. Whether the fetus can feel it or not. There are other options like adoption. Which, in fact, will not harm the baby, or female. It has been proven, that if in fact, a woman gets an abortion it raises her risks of infertility. It is not better for the baby to be aborted, because he/she could have been the next Albert Einstein. And you killed he/she? The baby wouldnt have a bad childhood, because again Adoption. If the girl got pregnant during highschool, that was her decision, and she should deal with the consequences, and if she or the father do not have enough money to support the baby, ADOPTION is again the option. Or if youre ashamed, you can go to a hospital, or clinic and give the baby to them, preventing harm. If the woman was raped, it is unfortunate, i know for a fact, because i have been a victim of rape, but she doesnt have to abort it. She would be more happy to see the child grow up with another family, and would be happy to see that she brought a life into the world. This is why i negate the resolution.
abortion

resolved, abortion is a moral and right thing to do. under the vast unemployment rate, bringing a child into this world that us humans live in is tough. sometimes things happen be accident and a girl gets pregnant. now if she has barely any money and is still in school, wouldnt it be better to abort the baby before he has the oppurtunity to have a bad childhood. if the girl is wrongfully pregnant, such as getting raped or tricked. now abortion is a process that is painless for the baby and mother and can prevent the fetus from developing causing no further harm