BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Rights in the USA

My original argument was that gun control won't stop mass shootings. I know gun control can lower the chances, and I would like to express that I think that the gun laws will be better if they are enforced much better. Gun control and vaccinations aren't as easily comparable as you may think. If you take a vaccine, chances are, you won't die from that disease. Same goes for gun laws. If you have strict gun laws, the probability of being shot to death lowers, obviously. But the chances of being stabbed, slashed, run over in a fit of rage, or otherwise murdered increase. The same does not apply to vaccinations,as in, if you take the vaccines you don't have a higher susceptibility to other diseases. Australia's gun culture was not as strong as it is in the United States. Their gun ban did not, in fact, stop mass killings as you have claimed. Since 1996, there have been six mass murders in Australia, according to Wikipedia, one of which was orchestrated using a gun. I agree that many injuries and fatalities could be prevented by better enforcement of gun control. But what we are talking about here is not enforcement, but implementation of ridiculously strict gun laws that prevent people from defending themselves from other people that don't follow the law and use illegal weapons. In Australia, crime may have gone down, but look at the UK. They implemented strict gun control and, "After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010." As stated on https://www.mintpressnews.com... The best way to prevent crime is to better enforce laws, not implement new, unenforced ones. Just because explosives are difficult to use does not mean they are any less dangerous. Take any crazy person with a strong enough motive, and they will find a way to level a building. I never said that gun control doesn't effect suicide rates. I have no idea where that was pulled from. Enforcing gun control has been shown to decrease crime. Which I agree with. As you said yourself, if existing gun laws were enforced, multiple mass shootings could have been prevented. Taking guns out of the hands of people that actually follow the law only serves to embolden criminals. The more people that own guns there are, the fewer criminals there are that want to take a chance at robbing, assaulting, or otherwise attacking somebody who could very well defend themselves. According to Mark Perry of AEI.org, from 1993 to 2013, there was, "a 56% increase in the number of guns per person that occurred during the same period when gun violence decreased by 49%." So overall, I believe that if we take away people's weapons, criminals will have less to fear. https://www.mintpressnews.com... http://www.aei.org...
You should not be allowed to vote on a debate that you participated in.

There has been a minor confusion. During this debate, I (ToastOfDestiny) shall be debating the Con side. I shall argue for debaters voting in their debates. James. ticknor will argue the Pro side, against debaters voting in their debates. When you are voting please keep this in mind. To cast your vote for me, you will put points in the Pro slot, but really be awarding points to the Con argument, and vice-versa for James. Thank you for bearing with us. It seems Pro has forfeited his last round - so I will briefly reiterate. 1) Debaters are users and therefore have the right to vote 2) If both debaters vote, there is no problem. In fact, letting both debaters vote can allow for them to grow as debaters and people in learning to accept defeat and vote for opponents. 3) Biased voting can always occur, but if debaters vote, this bias is limited to two votes. Alright, let's hope Pro returns next round!
You should not be allowed to vote on a debate that you participated in.

Observation 1: I have the burdon of clash, my opponent has the burdon of proof. Prove it. Observation 2: In no way will the participate be allowed to vote or influence voters with propaganda, just factual information. I will now begin. Contention 1: Participants being allowed to vote retains the possibility of biased decisions. The entire debate outcome is therefore jeprodized and subject to pointless arguementations; it means nothing if there is no truth in a vote. I do not believe that every case is unbiased, and if there is just one biased case, then I have proven my point. Contention 2: Judging is perceptive. Of course the Aff/Neg is usually going to believe that they have won. Allowing them to vote will open up the possibilty of biased votes. Besides, I don't have a texting plan, so I can't couter act a biased vote by being able to vote myself. I will rest my arguement. I will try to finish this debate as fast as possible.
Write as many political parties as you can (Quick Debate)

Republican PartyModern Whig PartyLibertarian PartyGreen PartySocialist PartyJustice PartyConstitution PartyAmerica PartyAmerica's First PartyAmerican NAZI PartyAmerican Independent PartyCommunist Party USAFreedom Socialist PartyDemocrat PartyNationial Socialist MovementReform PartyProhibition PartySocialist Party USASocialist Equality PartySocialist Labor PartyTax Wall Street PartyWorker's World PartyCentralist PartyConservative Party USAWorking Families Party USAUS Pacifist PartyVetrens Party of America
Write as many political parties as you can (Quick Debate)

Each player got 5 minutes to write as many political parties as they can, without doing copy and paste. Then the voters have 3 days to vote on who wrote the most parties, with correct spelling and grammar1. Round: Acceptance2. Round: Write as many political parties as you canRule 1. Do not Copy&PasteRule 2. Don't cheatRule 3. Don't Use semanticsRule 4.Only write 'I accept' for the 1st roundRule 5. Don't use Grammar or spellcheck to check your argument for mistakesRule 6: US Political parties allowed onlyRule 7. Follow the rules Definitons:Political party:Group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power. Formal political parties originated in their modern form in Europe and the U.S. in the 19th century. Whereas mass-based parties appeal for support to the whole electorate, cadre parties aim at attracting only an active elite; most parties have features of both types. All parties develop a political program that defines their ideology and sets out the agenda they would pursue should they win elective office or gain power through extraparliamentary means. Most countries have single-party, two-party, or multiparty systems (see party system). In the U.S., party candidates are usually selected through primary elections at the state level. [1][1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Ethics

Although my opponent has forfeited this round, I will present my arguments in this round to continue the debate.Being Pro, I take this to mean that I am for ethics. With a title as vague as "ethics," I am to assume that I am pro for the concept.Ethics is defined as "rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good and bad," [1] something that the majority of the world would believe in without any thought. I believe that ethical treatment is definitely something that should be mandatory in most (if not all) cases in the world. There are already countless acts and laws regarding ethical treatment of animals, humans, etc... Here are a few areas where ethics and ethical treatment should be in place (and most all ready have ethical standards):- Animal Testing- Jails- Schools- Nursing Homes- Hospitals- WorkplacesWhile I could go into detail for each of these, I will choose to avoid that, seeing as I don't have ample time to write (only 30 minutes per round) and only 2000 characters to type. PETA, for example, fights continuously for the ethical treatment of animals, and rarely comes across opposition (in the sense of opposing ethical treatment). [2]In short, ethics, or ethical treatment, is undoubtedly a good thing. This would be hard to disprove, and even though I have not sourced ethical treatment for these listed scenarios, it is clear that ethics is needed.Sources:[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] www.peta.org
Tier Tournament [Top], R1: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons

It's a pleasure to finally debate him, and I think this is just the issue to do it on. I look forward to an impressive discussion. As the resolution is pretty straightforward, I won't spend much time specifying in this round, but I will make one thing clear. This is not meant to be a conversation about whether any nation should have nuclear weapons, or whether some nations should. It's a question of whether all nations should have equal opportunities to produce their own nuclear weapons. As such, this applies to every nation, including those that currently have them or are purported to have them. I will define nation, as this can be an ambiguous term: A large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory: (. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) However, I will clarify a little more to make this simpler. A nation should be demarcated by defined borders accepted by the majority of the international community. As such, Al Qaida and Hezbollah would not be nations, but Iran and Lebanon would be. If any further clarification is necessary, I will gladly oblige. The burden of proof will be shared. I will have to make a clear case for why some countries should not be allowed the opportunity to build nuclear weapons, while it is up to Pro to defend why those countries should be allowed said opportunity. It is up to him/her how he/she would like to shoulder this burden within the debate. The structure of this debate will be as follows: R1: Acceptance only R2: Opening arguments R3: Rebuttals, new argumentation R4: Rebuttals, new argumentation R5: Rebuttals and conclusion And with that, I await my opponent's acceptance and a good debate!
Yo Mamma Fight (*joke battle pertaining to direct phrases of Yo Mama)(Joke limit 3)

1) Yo momma so poor, i lit a match put it next to her house and a bunch of roaches ran out and said" clap your hands stomp your feet we got heat!!!!!!" 2)Yo momma so fat, i came in and said it was chilly out and she ran out side with a bowl and spoon. 3)yo momma so old when she farts she blows dust from the 1600's
Yo Mamma Fight (*joke battle pertaining to direct phrases of Yo Mama)(Joke limit 3)

1. Yo mama is so dumb, she sold her car for gas money 2. Yo mama is so fat, she heard the doorbell ring and went to the microwave. 3. Yo mama is so poor, that when Billy walked into her house and got caught in the cobwebs, she said, "Hey! You're messing up my drapes!"
Yo Mamma Fight (*joke battle pertaining to direct phrases of Yo Mama)(Joke limit 3)

1. Yo mama is so fat, that when she was in school, she sat by EVERYBODY! 2. Yo mama is so fat, that when she rode a horse, the horse said "When do I get a turn? " 3. Yo mama is so stupid, when she saw a sign that said "Rail Road Crossing", she waited for the rails on the railroad to get done crossing the street. .. .she's still waiting! (I made up the last one. Surprised at how good it turned out! )
Yo Mamma Fight (*joke battle pertaining to direct phrases of Yo Mama)(Joke limit 3)

1. yo moma's teeth so yellow you scrape them with a knife and it look like butter. 2. yo moma so fat that she sat on t horse and it started singing A,B,C,D,E,F,G, get your fat a** off of me!!!!!! 3. yo moma so ugly seh make freddie cruger cry.
Teens should be fashionable in their own way without people telling them what to wear

A birthday suit is when you go around naked. And they don't wear short skirts on game day. They wear them all the time. And they do get in trouble but our school is not strict enough about the dress code. If they get a warning next time should be a punishment, and not a call home, ISS, then real suspension. So again I think our school should have the right to regulate what we wear.
Teens should be fashionable in their own way without people telling them what to wear

I kinda agree with birthday suits but remember how Zendaya wore a birthday suit. That's fine. Not all birthday suits are bad. Well, not that I know of. Anyway why would people wear short skirts at school. Some people already do that but they always get in trouble. But they keep doing that. Some of the girls in our grade basically wear short skirts when it's game day.
Teens should be fashionable in their own way without people telling them what to wear

I agree with the not wearing inappropriate clothing at school but they still could wear appropriate clothing for school. They should just stick with being themselves over the weekend and at school. This shouldn't be difficult. As long as they don't violate the dress code they are fine, but no one shouldn't be able to tell anyone else to wear like style, or it's not matched with the other clothing they are wearing.
Teens should be fashionable in their own way without people telling them what to wear

Teens should be able to. I agree with that. But they need to keep it under control of WHAT they wear. If, says schools, just allowed any type of clothing, people would be wearing shirts with people's heads getting ripped off and stuff like that. That's just not right. Kids do need to learn to be themselves but they also need to keep their personalities under control. We can't have everyone walking around is "Daisy Dukes bikini style"(really small bra and practically a thong) they can have personalities but if they're not going to keep them under control then, sadly, we need to take that right away from them. At least long enough till their older and get themselves in trouble and not the school or workplace.
Global Warming: Climate Change

One of the major mistakes I see in your opening argument is the blaming of the 2003 killer heat wave on global warming. Quite the contrary the heat wave was caused by an atmospheric circulation anomaly within the jet stream. Another is the assumption that co2 is the main cause of global warming and the greenhouse gas effect. In reality however it is water vapor that contributes more to the greenhouse gasses. The world has always had periods of global cooling or global warming. Two of the most famous would be the great ice age or the medieval warming periods. Now I don't believe that they had coal plants next to castles so how would we explain that. Plus the medieval warming was actually just as hot if not more warm than now. Deforestation is a major problem but I believe that global warming is highly overestimated. And I do have one question for unrelated purposes. Did you watch Al gores Movie about global warming?
Global Warming: Climate Change

We should take action on climate change now because it is predicted that the climate will increase by 4-6 degrees by 2100. Right now the climate is increased by 1 degree Celsius warmer since 1880. In the past extreme heat and drought has caused thousands of deaths. For example in Chicago 1995, 795 people died in a heat wave and in Europe 2003, 30,000 people died from another heat wave. In Northwest China desertification of farming lands causes a loss of 1000 miles annually. The Amazon forests play an important role in absorbing CO2 to regulate its amount in the atmosphere. The trees in the Amazon forest had begun to die due to droughts, this will cause in more carbon being emitted to the atmosphere. The cutting down of trees will also have the same effect. Because decaying trees do not only absorb carbon, but they also emit it as they die. Carbon pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels is also another leading factor to as why the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased.
Animals are on a rampant evolution course to termination of the human race.

I'm a liar? There goes conduct for the ad homs. Do you know what a resolution is? It is the little thing at the top of the page that says what the debate is about.... Yet as humans we can easily kill everything on this planet. We can kill the roaches in our floors and the birds flying over head. We spray chlorine gas and the birds die whilst we survive because we have gas masks. We spray pesticides and other chemicals to kill the roaches whilst we survive. Again with the liar stuff? I did not lie simply because you didn't know what a resolution was. Since we are not supposed to cuss on here I used a substitute. That video is not evidence of our termination, it is showing animal behavior.
Animals are on a rampant evolution course to termination of the human race.

I didn't contradict myself.. Therfore you are a liar. here's your proof. First off, do you claim a "resolution" to be that the human race goes extinct? That doesn't sound like a resolution to me. We're technologically advanced? That may be so, but the animals are on the same planet as us, roaches hide in are floor boards, watching house to use this technology, then reporting it back to the other species through the night. Birds could easillly fly over millitary fences picking up grenades, pulling the pin, and practically nuking us out of our very house. This may all seem very far fetched, but it's not if you actually take some time to observe the animals. With you saying "You provide no evidence to back this up, all you did was make a claim. I could make an opposing claim and it would be equally reliable.".. This is also false, because you are in fact a liar. (See my first statement in this round.) Who would believe a pathelogical liar.. "unsubstanshiated bullshet" ... Is that even a word? Why would anyone believe someone that makes up words for debates. I have evidence. http://www.youtube.com... ..... Let's see you do this. WITH YOUR MOUTH. http://www.youtube.com... ..... I'm sure you could with stand one of these hits. NOT. Now stop wasting your time, you need to be building your shelter. Perhaps we might even need to migrate to a new planet. The land is unsafe, and the ocean is even worse. (KILLER-whales, sharks, etc).. There is no hope if this were to happen tonight. We need to take action and leave now.
Animals are on a rampant evolution course to termination of the human race.

You contradicted yourself. You said: "there is no resolution... im on the PRO side" yet moments later you said: "The resolution is that in the end, the animals will be triumphant" Which is it? About there being more of them: That may be true but we are technologically advanced and thus we can beat them. //The animals may seem like a single track mind, running in a linear system. but I can tell you that's wrong. That's just what they want you to think. They act so stupid so they can strike when we'll least expect it.// You provide no evidence to back this up, all you did was make a claim. I could make an opposing claim and it would be equally reliable. I will continue and I would like to say that all that has been said is unsubstanshiated bullshet. I can make opposing claims with no evidence and they would be equally reliable.
Animals are on a rampant evolution course to termination of the human race.

the resolution? there is no resolution. .. im on the PRO side. . The resolution is that in the end, the animals will be triumphant. there are MORE of them then us. they are BIGGER, eat more, some have longer necks, some can swing from trees while we are just sitting back enjoying the internet and twinkies. Don't you SEE? The animals may seem like a single track mind, running in a linear system. but I can tell you that's wrong. That's just what they want you to think. They act so stupid so they can strike when we'll least expect it. Have you not NOTICED? The squirrels, the birds, and most inportantly, the cockroaches. They are using tools, hiding behind trees, hiding in bushes, watching our dailey patterns to know how to execute there plot. Have you ever seen a man fight a lion before? It's not a graceful thing. It's bloody and we need to prepare NOW. If german shepards can be trained to catch any type of criminal in just months, imagine what a elephant could do in 20 years of training in the desert where we cannot see. I reccomend you to just leave this argument and begin your shelter building. If you do continue, I will continue to provide some of the most extreme evidence ever reported. This was just for starters, just to get the young that read this to be aware.
Animals are on a rampant evolution course to termination of the human race.

I first like to say that the Burden of Proof lies on the affirmative and I await her response. But please clarify the resolution. Definitions: Evolution-"development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage"[1] Termination-"the act of ending something"[2] Rampant-"unrestrained and violent"[3] [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
MTV Is Run By Masons

1. They would be secret Freemasons. I obviously can't give proof for that, but It's an assumption based off of the other points I made. 2. I accidentally liked the wrong pictures: It should be these: Masonic Temple - http://vigilantcitizen.productionshardl.netdna-cdn.com... (The compass is also still there: http://www.wtfrly.com...) It's on the blue wall on the second link. VMA reformance + Checkerboard Pant Leg - http://vigilantcitizen.productionshardl.netdna-cdn.com... Masonic Ritual - http://vigilantcitizen.productionshardl.netdna-cdn.com...
MTV Is Run By Masons

ClarificationAs a Freemason, I find debates of this nature to be extremely interesting, hence why I accepted. For Pro, the burden is to prove, beyond a doubt, that MTV is run by Freemasons. For Con, I must negate any proof he presents, and if I do so, I win. I will also introduce counter-arguments in addition to rebuttals to further negate the resolution at hand. Arguments I. "Is run by" = "Is owned by"My opponent shapes this entire resolution around the premise that Freemasons run MTV. This is essentially Pro saying that MTV is owned and operated by Freemasons. In reality, MTV is owned and run by Viacom, which is an American global mass media company with interests primarily in cinema and cable television. [1] So who owns Viacom? Well, the man responsible for running, at-least, the MTV portion of Viacom is Tom Freston [2]. After extensive research, there are no records of Tom Freston being an active Freemason. There are no lodges that hold him within their membership according to my research. If Pro wishes to continue this line of argumentation, he must prove that Tom Freston is an active or inactive Freemason. Without that proof, there is no reason for anyone, including myself and the judges, to accept that MTV is run by Freemasons. RebuttalsII. "One of the MTV headquarters is in/by a Masonic Temple."So what? Does living next to a Muslim mosque make you a Muslim yourself? Absolutely not. Furthermore, Pro doesn't even provide evidence for this claim, he merely shares an image showing the inside of a Masonic Lodge. There is a big difference between being located "IN" a Masonic Temple and being located "BY" a Masonic Temple. Pro has given zero evidence for either claim to be considered valid or true. III. "Part of MTV's Video Music Awards on the left side of the picture, and a Masonic ritual on the right"Pro utilizes the exact same picture as the other one he shared in the previous argument. It's the same picture of the inside of a Masonic Lodge. Pro needs to show how similarities between the MTV Video Music Awards and the Masonic floor pattern are connected. Merely having the same pattern or design does not prove anything. If I live in a house with Mediterranean tiles as my floor pattern, does that mean I'm Mediterranean? Absolutely not. In closing, Pro has provided zero evidence for a link between MTV and Freemasons running it. He has merely relied on conspiracy-influenced images which don't even show a comparison or connection. Furthermore, I've not only provided a counter-argument showing who really runs MTV, but I've also provided rebuttals for each argument raised by Pro. I now return the floor to Pro, thank you. Sources[1] http://www.viacom.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...