BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Ban

There should be A ban on guns or at the very least a good system of Gun Control. Argument on the Second Amendment: Although it is true that the second amendment states that it is our right to bear arms it is also true that times have changed. Things were very different when the amendments were written. Back then, we really did have to hunt for our own food or at least trade goods or clothing with others for food. It made perfect sense to have the right to bear arms back then because it was very much needed. Back then there were no law enforcement or response teams that were able to keep security in a town or settlement so having a gun made people feel safe and secure. As mentioned before, times have changed. There is a very small percentage of people that use their guns today to hunt for their own food and/or survival. There isn't a huge percentage of American people that depend on a gun to survive anymore, that factor has changed since the time the amendments have been written. The necessity of owning a gun has changed dramatically. Argument on "Safety" : When you say safety what do you mean? safety from your neighbors? safety from the city next to you? Or safety from other people in general? From what do you feel safe from when you own a gun. Also you state that " That gun can save your life when in danger and can stop people from assaulting you", although that is true there is also another side to that. The same way that it can save your life, they can be used to take lives away and instead of stopping an assault it can begin one. A individual with a gun can both take and save a life a way. They can also start or even end an assault. Even if both the assaulter and defender had a gun, what good would come out of it. For example, an individual assaults another citizen with a gun but at the same time the defender has a gun. Both individuals take out their guns and begin a shoot out. From there it is hard to say what would exactly happen but It most certainly isn't a simple outcome. There can be collateral damage with the citizens nearby, property damage, and/or both individuals end up dead because no one knows who's shooting who for what reason so both get shot down. So while I do agree with that a gun can stop an assault and save someone's life, I also believe that guns have the opposite effect. Argument on "Food"(hunting our own food using guns): As mentioned before, times have dramatically changed. There isn't a huge portion of our population that depends on hunting for their survival. Therefore the need for guns is not needed. Also, saying that "People today still hunt their food since it's free" is a vague generalization. A good majority of hunting is monitored and controlled so I don't believe hunting is "free".
Gun Ban

Gun Control has been amongst one of the most debated topics about safety. But I am against the banning on weapons. One simple reason why: 2nd amendment. The second amendment helps people to be able to bear arms. Another reason why is safety. That gun can save your life when in danger and can stop people from assaulting you. Another reason is food. We used weapons before to kill animals for their food since there was no thing as a "supermarket". People today still hunt their food since it's free.
Rappers

As expected, my opponent has given up. I know, I know, I am the best debater in the world, and you are so sad this could not go on. This is what is happening to you. 1. You found out that my opponent forfeited. 2. You realize The Amazing Koopin will not be able to continue because of the forfeit. 3. You begin to cry and shake, your world is crashing down. 4. You realize that The Amazing Koopin was nice and filmed a video for you. 5. You watch the video and become happy. 6. YOU VOTE BOMB PRO! ALL 7 POINTS TO THE AMAZING KOOPIN! http://www.youtube.com...
Rappers

http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... I thank my opponent for posting her next argument. My opponent' claims that since most thirteen year old girls know Will Smith's songs then that proves that he is best best rapper. This is also very flawed, here is why. Point 1: In the 1958, a group of boys got together and formed a band. This band later became known as the Beatles. By the mid 1960's, every thirteen year old girl knew the lyrics to most of the beatle's songs. You could ask girls in America, or you could ask girls in England, but still you would get the same response. Sooner or later, this band slowly died down. Today, there is another singer named Justine Bieber. And once again, every 13 year old girl knows his songs. Although I hate to compare the Justine Bieber to the Beatles, the point I am making is clear. The Beatles are more popular, we can't determine who the best is simply by looking at what this generation is talking about right now. Point 2: Do thirteen year olds rule the choice of popular music? Of course not, but this is what my opponent is implying in her above argument. Using the Beatles and Bieber example again, most thirteen year olds today listen to Justine Bieber and not to a band such as Megadeth. This does not in anyway mean that Justine Bieber is better than Megadeth because Megadeth usually has a more mature audience. We can not base popularity off of one age group. If you let a bunch of five year olds listen to music from "Dora the Explorer" they would enjoy it. But if you let fifty year olds listen to it, they obviously wouldn't. Point 3: Will Smith's lyrics for the Fresh Prince of Bel-air are not really that great. They tell a story, like most other songs do, but it has no powerful meaning. The Beat is also the same throughout the whole song, and his rapping is in the same tune. I am not saying he is a horrible rapper, I am simply saying that this song is loved more for the show then for his rapping skills. I have provided a video of the "Fresh Prince of Bel-air" song, and a song called "I'll be in the sky" by B.o.B. Please watch both videos. After doing so, it is easy to see that the second video by B.o.B takes more talent then the first one. It tells a meaningful story of how he turned his life around. The Beat changes, and the rhythm is great. This is just one song, out of thousands of other raps out there. Point 4: A short point, but a necessary one is that Will Smith is not even on the lists of best wrappers ever. There is so much more that could be said, but obviously it is not necessary. It is easy to see that Will Smith is not the ‘Best rapper ever" I again thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to her last response. Sources: (1). http://answers.yahoo.com... (2). http://en.wikipedia.org... (3). http://en.wikipedia.org... (4). http://www.bobatl.com... (5). http://www.epinions.com... (6). http://www.spitefulcritic.com...
Rappers

I can definitely prove that this is true! Will Smith has the MOST MEMORABLE verse ever! You can say Pac, Biggie, or Jay is better but you cant honestly say that the Fresh Prince of Bel Air theme song is not the most known. If you stop a 13 year old walking down the street and ask them to rap the verse to say, Tupacs "Dear Mama" or the Fresh Prince theme song...I think you know which one theyll sing http://www.lyricsfreak.com...
Rappers

My opponent claims that Will smith (1) is a better rapper than anyone else. This is absurd for many reasons. One of the reasons is that my opponent could not possibly go through every single song that has ever been rapped, therefore my opponent can not say that Will is better than everyone. I would ask that my opponent provide solid evidence in round 2 proving her point. Until then, nothing can more can be said on my part. Sources: (1). . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

This debate will be executed in LD format. If you do not conscent to debating in LD format, please do not accept the debate. It will vary slightly from the true format, but it will have many of the same elements (Value, criterion, etc.) Format: Rd 1 Neg: Intro Rd 1 Aff: Aff Constructive Rd 2 Neg: Neg constructive and rebuttal Rd 2 Aff: Rebuttal Rd 3 Neg: Rebuttal/voters Rd 3 Aff: Rebuttal/voters Good luck!
The Government Should Force Female Murderers to be State Prostitutes

C1-Less Innocent Rapes:I’m sure my opponent agrees rape is bad. So, I will argue that allowing female murderers to become state prostitutes will lead to less innocent women being raped.Prostitution in general has been shown to lower rapes. For example, it was discovered that there was loophole in Rhode Island law that essentially made prostitution legal. This led to rape rates plummeting in Rhode Island. (1) Now, Con may say this is a coincidence. However, no other crimes saw any significant drops in Rhode Island, nor did any other states with similar populations see a drop in rape during this time period. (1)It should be fairly intuitive that legalized prostitution lowers rape. This is because sex is easier to access when prostitution is legal, so that means men have less incentive to rape women. Now, if female murderers are made into prostitutes this will also lower the rape rate, perhaps more. Not only would sex be easier to access than normal, but also state prostitutes could be a lot cheaper since they don’t set their cost, the government does. Also, normal prostitutes could be unwilling to do certain sexual acts, which some guys would desperately crave. However, state prostitutes would be forced to do these, so it just makes it more attractive to certain guys and a better option than rape.C2-Deter Murders:I will now argue that forcing female murders to become prostitutes will lower murder rates. This will be much like the death penalty. Simply put, this is the idea that if a punishment is severe enough people will be deterred from committing the act. This can be seen with the death penalty, where executions have been shown to have a deterrent effect. (2)I probably don’t have to argue that most women do not want to become state prostitutes. Whether or not they consider this worse than being sentenced to death is subjective, however, a considerable portion likely would consider becoming a state prostitute to be a worse punishment. The same way a bunch of people would rather die than be tortured, it is reasonable to assume a lot of women would rather die than be constantly forced to commit sexual acts.C3-Economic Benefits:By selling state prostitutes the government will gain revenue. This revenue can help make up for the court costs for these women’s trials. Plus, any additional profits made can be used to invest in developing society.Sources:1- https://business.baylor.edu...2- http://cjlf.org...
The Government Should Force Female Murderers to be State Prostitutes

Apply in the comments if you're interested. Definitions: Female Murderers-Women who have murdered (not counting accidental murders) and have been found guilty by a court of law. State Prostitutes-Prostitutes owned by the government. Have to fulfill any sexual requests (assuming it's possible). Kept in jails and regularly tested for STDs. Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. No new arguments in the final round 3. First round is acceptance only 4. No trolling 5. No kritiks 6. Violation of rules results in automatic loss.
Being taught to do good is better than being taught to not do evil.

Accepting the challenge of my adversary, I would offer this example: Refusing to give donations to a typhoon victim, is a neutral act. At a basic depth of insight, the act proves to be neutral due to the fact that it did not provide both parties (you and the victim) any immediate benefit nor did it provide any further deepening of predicaments. Inaction is the key word in this specific scenario. Providing aid to the victim in a holistic manner such as providing temporary basic bodily needs, empowerment, shelter, education, etc, however, is a relatively a better option than the said neutral act. It not only provides immediate benefit to the victim but also a long term one. Of course, simply providing a small donation such as $20 in this situation, is still to be considered an act of goodness. The level of goodness, which may be determined by the level of benefit the act provided, is not important in this case. Withholding yourself on intentionally discouraging other possible donors, can be classified of an action that does not promote or do evil. Looking at this single situation, it is not difficult to see that doing the good provided more benefits. Moving on, in response to my adversary"s conclusion, I would like to agree that not doing evil may provide some neutral benefits, but that is not to say that these neutral benefits are better than the benefits brought about by good deeds. After reading the situation given to me on your first argument, I would like respond by saying that it lacks some explanation to properly support your argument. In fact, I believe that the very same example went against your point. In that situation, unlike your interpretation, my interpretation states that the moral dilemma was made by thorough consideration of the evils that it may brought about. The persona was held indecisive due to his pursuit in not doing anything he considers evil. Summing it all up, although I acknowledge that there are some neutral benefits brought about by neutral / "not doing evil" deeds, it can be seen that good deeds provide deeper and possibly more holistic benefits to possibly more than one party. In addition to this, unlike your claim, "not doing evil" may actually be the one giving moral dilemmas that leads to indecisiveness or inaction.
Being taught to do good is better than being taught to not do evil.

In order for teaching people to do good being better than teaching them not to do evil, it must be possible to do such a thing without teaching them to not do evil. I challenge my opponent to give me a single example of an act that is neither good nor evil in any way whatsoever that could be done in a more good manner if the person had been taught to do good, instead of not doing evil. Aside from this, the resolution is speaking from the point of view of the one who was taught, not the one who is teaching. thus, if one is taught to not do evil, it opens their inner psychopath to carry out its malignancy in legally neutral ways that result in neutral benefits to the self whereas being taught to do good will likely lead a person into a lot of moral dilemmas whenever they do anything for themselves. Imagine this: You want to bang this really hot chick and give her the night of her life but you fear that by doing so you may marry her and that would be evil both to any other man who may have a crush on her or may end up alone because you took her before she could meet him as well as the same dilemma for why woman and you. Heck, you couldn't even breathe oxygen without fearing who you're stealing it from. Being taught to 'not do evil' gives you a few boundaries to never cross, that gives you much more play area inside as opposed to being forced into a tight corner of 'good' actions that are almost boundlessly restrictive on what you can do in fear of indirectly harming another.
Being taught to do good is better than being taught to not do evil.

In a society which proves progress is key, doing is much more contributive to progress than suppression. If a child is taught not to do evil, then he will possibly remain neutral - a fence sitter. However, this does not mean that he is no longer capable of doing either the good or the bad. He/she will just be more inclined on not performing evil deeds. If a child is taught to do good, then he will continue making changes guided by values he chose to live by. The changes he/she makes may not hold a great impact, but a contribution non the less. This, however, again does not mean he is no longer capable of having twisted values that may actually be counterproductive to society (ie. Having Absolute beliefs that result to wars; Adolf Hitler). However, the chances of a misguidance is highly minimal. The definition of good and bad in this debate are highly cultural, but still has to follow the universally accepted moral norms.
Atheism is illogical

Kalam argument You give no reason to assume the cause of the universe is personal being. You also give no reason to assume that consciousness can exist without the brain. You can only have consciousness with a physical brain. You also give no reason to assume that consciousness can exist without a physical brain and exists outside the universe. Thus, prove that consciousness can exist: 1. Outside the brain 2. Outside the universe Mathematical argument Pointless. The cause may be causeless. So what? This doesn't prove God exists, and it's certainly doesn't prove that atheism is illogical. Atheism doesn't say anything about the universe not having a cause or having an infinite amount of causes. This has absolutely no impact on the debate.Scientific argumentOnce again, you work under the assumption that the universe's cause is a thinking being. This is an invalid assumption, as, again, you give us no reason to assume that consciousness can exist with a brain and in an entirely different dimension.Also, yes, there is an in between. As far as we know, the universe is expanding into nothing. Is there an infinite nothing to expand into? Maybe.You also say that saying nothing exists outside a basketball (or universe) is a logical fallacy, but you don't say what that fallacy is or why it's a fallacy, and how it makes atheism illogical. Thus, your committing the fallacy fallacy (repetition meant). You also use an appeal to intuition fallacy by saying "For something to exist inside of nothing is completely uncomprehendable and illogical in a finite reality." Simply saying something is incomprehensible doesn't make it wrong.You are also arguing on the premise that there is actually an infinite amount of things outside our universe. A more reasonable conclusion to draw from is that our universe simply ends past its boundary into a nothingness void.I also don't really understand your paradox. What is paradoxical about existing inside of nothing? So, in all, you've proven that an uncaused cause of the universe exists. You will now have to prove that the uncaused cause is a being, and that consciousness can exist outside the brain and universe. Good luck. My arguments The topic of this debate was "Atheism is illogical". For atheism to be illogical, the disbelief of God would have to fly in the face of reality, and be against a large amount of evidence. So far, Pro here hasn't given any reasonable evidence that God exists (I.e. A Ultramundane being that created and rules the universe). The evidence for God is lacking sufficiently enough to conclude that atheism is not illogical. Thus, atheism is not illogical (thus far).
Modern Radical Islam Is A Larger Threat To The World Then The Axis Powers

Modern Radical Islam (Jihadism) is a larger threat then Germany, Italy, and Japan were from 1933 to 1945. Because: 1: They kill ruthlessly and believe they will go to paradise for it. 2: Their laws are harsher 3: They are willing to use any kind of weapons And they use propaganda to teach kids to cut of peoples heads.
The west doesn't need feminism, it needs to move

They do mean on average since men generally work longer while women generally look after the kids and men get the bigger jobs. My opponent says that men could vote before women even though this is the present, today they're fine although they were mistreated decades or even centuries ago. Ever heard of the Equal Pay Act of 1963? It's illegal to pay less without a valid reason. As I said earlier, you CAN sue your employer If he pays less because of discrimination. This woman describes why we don't need feminism, I'll mention some of her words, the rest is in "America has the most free and liberated women in the world. We have more opportunities than ever before thanks to the original feminist movement. Today"s feminists claim to be strong and independent women but instead they play the victim in order to push their agenda." "One of the major arguments of the current feminist movement is that women make 78 cents to every dollar a man earns. Experts have proven this to be misleading and simply untrue. This claim does not take into account occupation, experience, hours worked, education, and many other variables that factor into wage." "According to the feminist theory class that every school seems to offer nowadays, this is because women are pressured by sexist stereotypes. They will tell you that women"s choices truly aren"t free. This is also false." "When a woman claims that she wants a family more than a career, she is laughed at and shunned by these so-called "women warriors." - Shannon Golden Sources: {1} http://futurefemaleleader.com... {2} https://m.youtube.com... {3} https://m.youtube.com...
The west doesn't need feminism, it needs to move

It would be good if people did get sued for that but that does not always happen. According to the Guardian, there is not a country in the world where women get paid the same as men. {I am assuming they mean on average}. There are several reasons for the pay gap and it can be hard to just prove a specific law has been breached. For example, when men and women first join a law firm and the company decides on pay the woman usually gets less. When a alot of women join an industry the pay for everyone goes down. That is not discrimination {in a legal sense}. It is their work being valued less. https://www.theguardian.com... There might be times when people believe that a particular group of people are privileged. And of course, as you point out that is not always true. There are plenty of men that do not do well in life. This does not mean that there are men that don't get an advantage because they are men. For example, men could vote before women could. There is still discrimination against women, etc. I would argue though that feminism holds different views on the status of men. Therefore, not every feminists believes that it is as simple as men being privileged. For example, "all people are both privileged and non-privileged in certain aspects of their life. Furthermore, since dynamics of social status are highly dependent on situation, a person can benefit from privilege in one situation while not benefiting from it in another.". https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com...
The west doesn't need feminism, it needs to move

I would point out that the claim that men work more than women is not true. At least according to some of the facts and figures out there. For example, http://time.com... I agree that men are also victims of crime and in bigger numbers. This is not an argument against feminism though. Could it not just be arguing that as well as feminism other groups need to campaign or feminism needs to expand what it focuses on, etc. The school situation may vary. Girls have been suspended as well for violence.
The west doesn't need feminism, it needs to move

The pay and promotion gap is not very true considering men generally work more, doing the heavy lifting, in the police work https://gyazo.com... Women are more likely to receive sexual assaults but men are more likely to be either beaten, robbed or even shot dead Men also tend to commit suicide more as stats have shown Men are raped in prison Approximately 216,000 prisoners are raped per year in the U.S., compared to about 90,000 reported rapes outside prison While feminists still speak of equality, they never complain about this problem (3rd wave feminism), instead focusing on the women problems Feminists also never seem to speak about the "never hit a woman" being a problem rather than a good thing, this meant that girls smack, push and tease boys in school and can just say "you can't hit me back, I'm a girl" and if they do the boy will get suspended or detention while the girl goes off scot free. {1} http://thoughtcatalog.com... {2} http://www.huffingtonpost.com... {3} http://prisonwriters.com... {4} https://www.hrw.org... {5} http://www.theapricity.com...