BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Americans have a right to own firearms

Indeed a real combat..that one should defend himself or herself is quite a good thing but not at the expense of your life..you said we are the people that should scare thieves, with what if i may ask? Is it with the firearms? Indeed that is certainly impossible because if 7thieves where to attack your house, with your children sleeping, can you kill all? Will you even know when they will come in? Indeed if you even raise your head they will blow it off. Or what you are trying to say is that 1 is stronger than 7? If Americans should carry firearms, then even thieves will be given firearms also and besides, since they have noticed you you have firearm,what makes you think they won't blow your house immediately? Indeed the work of the police is to regulate this crimes and we have patrol team who will take care of this crimes.you equally raised the issue of a big man trying to kidnap a younglady of about 25..ponder on this, do you think the man will come alone? Do you think he won't be armed? Indeed if Americans should be allowed to carry firearms it means the man will equally carry his arm and more arms which he will use in executing his plans..allowing Americans to carry firearms will even make criminals to be strong and patrol in large number. The big man in question, will kill the lady if the lady draws any arms thank God you said big man..that exactly draws me to my stand in this argument, 'the security of Americans should be tight and Americans should not be allowed to carry firearms' indeed if the security of Americans are tight, they can defend the the state and Americans should not be allowed to carry firearms because they will harm even close relations in event like fight. This also draws me to what you said about the police not showing in event of crime, indeed if police don't show, then it is the work of the government to strenghten their government and not citizens protecting theirselves in abnormal way..moreover, you talked of ladies been raped and murdered that if they were with firearms, they would have protected themselves, now if a gang of armed robbers of about 6 were to attack a young lady of 23years, will she defend her self with that small pistol? Indeed what she should do is just to alert the police and not trying to risk her life..indeed, American should never be allowed to own firearms because they might even harm the military in event of problem..
Americans have a right to own firearms

Many states have made laws to allow people to defend their property from those that would attempt to steal it such as the case in Texas. Why should we allow someone to hijack our car when we could be the ones to scare them off? To put it in better perspective for you, what if a large man tried kidnapping a young woman (21 years old) are you suggesting that she should not have the right to own a firearm to defend her life? She doesn't know if hes going to kill her and you make the assumption that a carjacker would not try to kill or kidnap either. "you allow him and call the police because that is their work" You stated it perfectly, the police are rarely there when a crime is taking place, they almost always show up after the crime is committed. Imagine if all the women that were brutally raped and murdered had a firearm to defend themselves. There would be far less kidnappings. Americans" is a general term used to describe people. I had assumed it would be obvious that I was referring to people legally old enough to own a firearm. If someone breaks into your house with your children sleeping are you going to ask the person if he will let you call the cops? Or would you rather have a firearm to fend him off? By choosing not to defend yourself you give the power to the criminal. Those that abide the law should not have to fear criminals, it is the criminals that should fear empowered law abiding citizens.
Americans have a right to own firearms

Thank you very much for waiting for my return..now to start with, i acknowledg the fact that you asked a question, if a car jacker should pull a knife what will you do? Now ponder on this question, what are the works of the police? When a car jacker pulls a knife, his not trying to kill you rather he is trying to scare you away and if you are wise, you allow him and call the police because that is their work..let me ask you this question, do you know that Americans constitute of children, old men and women and young boys? And students? So what you are saying is that fire arms should be given to children? Yes because the are equally Americans..indeed do you know what happens, they will misuse it to other dangerous things
Americans have a right to own firearms

Negative the American Revolution was our battle with Britain over our independence and even if that were said during the war it was not adopted into the constitution which is the foundation of how the country is run. I'm not sure what you mean by students There is no guarantee that people will not harm themselves or others with knives either and yet they are perfectly legal. A weapon is nothing more than a tool, it is the will of its wielder that determines how they are used. According to the FBI statistical analysis gun related crime has been declining over the last 10 years or so. http://www.fbi.gov... http://www.bjs.gov... It comes down to common sense, for example: If a car jacker pulls a knife on you would you prefer to have no weapon or would you rather protect yourself with a gun?
Americans have a right to own firearms

Indeed, the 2nd amendment stated that but then do you know what the first american revolution in 1776 states?there is no right to own firearms that is recognized...now when you say americans, you are talking about the people, both young and old and equally students. So if students are allowed to own firearms because they are equally americans what will be their fate when they grow up? Do you know they might wound themselves? Indeed americans should not be allowed to own fire arms rather the military and other civil defence
Americans have a right to own firearms

The 2nd Amendment clearly states "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (1791) Notice how it differentiates "the people" from "the militia". It is speaking of American citizens. This amendment was originally created in order to protect the people in the event the government became tyrannical and history has proven that disarming a country does not bode well for its people such as the holocaust in Nazi Germany. http://www.infowars.com... http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com... Germany is not the only country to fall victim to gun control http://www.youtube.com... You made the comment "do we know how dangerous it is" but im not entirely sure what you mean. Are you referring to the people being allowed to own them in general?
Arguments Against the Capital Punishment are Weak

Hi, thank you for replying. I shall start by saying that I will not respond to your being 'against the jail system... and fix the jail system'. My focus is on the controversies surrounding the capital punishment, not reforms on our incarceration institutions. I urge you to stick close to the sole subject matter too. You seem to be okay with the fact that innocent people are prosecuted wrongly, so I'm moving forward from that contention. Your main issue seems to be the 'questionable' benefits of death penalty and who/what is the 'greater good'. You said, 'But the thing is, these two things are totally different, with fire and driving, the benefits are undeniable. With the death penalty, the benefits are highly questionable. You said it's for a greater good, but what IS that greater good?' In your consideration of the benefits of fire, you suggest that as long as I can prove that the benefits of death penalty is comparable to that of the use of fire, I would prove my point that the capital punishment is desirable. Like allowing the use of fire, the retention of death penalty would bring vast social and economic benefits to society. The use of fire helps in cooking, freeing up land for commerce (through deforestation) and for fuel production. All these are economic and social benefits. This is similar to the death penalty. I do not know why you belittle the 'taking (of) tax payers money'. In Singapore, the cost of keeping an inmate is about SGD100 a day. This includes food, lodging, land use, amenities, healthcare, even educational opportunities. This translates to SGD36,500 a year. Multiplied across the globe, the total cost is more than SGD160 million each year. The actual figure need not be accurate; the important thing is that this amount equates to massive opportunities costs. The money can be better spent on bettering education or healthcare for other citizens, even saving lives for example if used for cancer research or financial aid to the poor. It can also be used to save dwindling economies such as in America or Europe, saving the economies from collapsing and destroying the financial livelihood for numerous families. Why should we spend the money on, instead, keeping convicted murderers, rapists and drug traffickers alive in prison? From another perspective, if Mr. X killed and raped your son, why should you, through taxation, fund X's accommodation, food and counselling expenses in jail? Would that be fair to you? To push this even further, what if you suffered from an illness and require expensive healthcare. You are now downgrading the healthcare you receive and lowering your survival chances for the murderer of your son. I have proved that the benefits of the death penalty are not questionable. On both utilitarian or 'just desserts' considerations, the death penalty can be seriously defended.
Arguments Against the Capital Punishment are Weak

I am against Capital punishment, but I am also against the jail system. I believe that we need to abolish capital punishment, and also fix the jail system. You compared fire with the death penalty, but there is a big difference. Fire brings a great benefit to the whole world, and if you are going to use fire as an example, you could use anything. Like driving, the benefits are great and you use it at your own risk of dying. But the thing is, these two things are totally different, with fire and driving, the benefits are undeniable. With the death penalty, the benefits are highly questionable. You said it"s for a greater good, but what IS that greater good? It"s not like the people that would have been sentenced for Capital punishment would be set free into the world, at least not immediately. What harm could they possibly do, besides taking tax payers" money? If you can save some people from death row by reformation, I think it is worth it, even if it costs me and others. There aren"t many people who get executed (in first world countries anyway). If we"re arguing about money, I think there should be a bigger investment in reformation and Jail systems, which can also save lives for the greater good. Unfortunately with Today"s Jail system, it is more likely they would get life sentence without a chance for redemption. If Jails were created better and things like jobs were incorporated into them, where you can work off your time, no matter what sentence, and also earn money by manual labour, it would be much better for this type of thing. I remember there being a great prison in Switzerland which did just this. There were some people who took advantage of the system as a free place to stay, but there we also significantly less crimes and instances where the person committed another crime once released. I think everyone deserves a second chance and if you give those opportunities to everybody I think there will be a positive outcome. Even if the person is guilty, it doesn't mean they can't be changed, and IF they can't be changed then they may stay in a cell or hospital. It is true that some innocent people may be mistakenly executed, and you say it is for the greater good (did I say that already)- But even if there is only a small amount of innocent people being wrongly trialed, who"s to say the guilty ones can't be reformed? There are also people with mental disabilities who need help and haven't got it who might be sentenced. If anything, I say atheism is a reason to abolish capital punishment. If you believe in no afterlife then doesn't that mean every life is precious even more so, and we shouldn"t let someone waste it. I am tired here so excuse me if I didn"t make much sense and I may have been quite repetitive, or misunderstood some of your points, well, see you in round 2
Arguments Against the Capital Punishment are Weak

Thank you for reading this debate. I'm a first-timer here, and I am going to argue that popular arguments against the capital punishment are weak and cannot be truly defended. Some popular arguments I shall dismantle include: 1) That the capital punishment results in the death of the innocent. This is true. Even if our judicial system is 99.999999999% accurate (given the improvement in science and forensic studies, I don't think this is far off the truth but let's just assume this really is the number), if everyone on the planet goes to trial, we have 6 innocent lives taken away by the gallows. But, based on a utilitarian stand, we can and have already accepted the loss of innocent lives for the greater benefit of the rest of society. Like how capital punishment may result in the loss of innocent lives in some countries like Singapore and Malaysia, the use of fire all over the world would open up the real risk of fire accidents that result in deaths every year - deaths of innocent people. But we do not ban fire, showing how we have implicitly or deliberately evasively accepted the loss of innocent lives for the greater benefit. 2) That human life has an intrinsic intangible value, a certain dignity that we must respect. All these are affections or religious assertions. Can the opposition provide other sources that can be defended logically? Even if human life has a special X value that cannot be replaced by economic benefits, can't it be replaced by other X values from other human life? For instance, would you rather spend the money keeping people in jail instead of executing them to ostensibly respect human dignity? That money can be spent on healthcare or education for further generation. It can better the lives of many other human beings and maybe even save their lives (such as using the money on cancer research). The number of lives saved would outweigh the loss of innocent lives, wouldn't it? -- (And any other arguments the opposition can think of)
Pulling out of Iraq soon will be a mistake

Alright, so you already agreed that it is probable that if we leave the government will be overthrown and replaced. And since you agreed with that statement, you also agree with the fact that it is possible that another Saddam regime will rise. By this statement you must be insisting that a Saddam-like situation would be better than what we could be able to create for them with a little more time. Wartime is always hard on a country, but as soon as it does end and the country becomes stable, less lives will be lost. If Iraq is to fall back into its old ways, then people will die consistently over a period of time and that will be worse for the overall public. Furthermore, the beauty of democracy is that it is able to adapt to the country it runs in. The government that was created a little over 200 years ago by our fore fathers would not have run smoothly today as it did back then. Since it's able to adapt to our changing times, it could do the same in another country if it is run properly. Therefore, with more time, a democracy could be built and adapt to the Iraqi people and that would be beneficial for everyone.
Pulling out of Iraq soon will be a mistake

You stated that the U.S military achieved their goal already by deposing Saddam Hussein and that therefore the remaining reason to continue the occupation of Iraq is to ensure the stability of their current government. I believe that the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible because they are not in fact creating a stable nation. You pointed out that when the U.S. leaves Iraq it is likely that the current government will be overthrown and replaced and I agree. However, I don't believe that the current government that the U.S set up is the long term answer for that country so we should not be worried about that possibility. Countries don't usually respond well to being invaded and having a foreign nation pushing a specific government upon those people. If a country is going to be effective and long-lasting then the people must create their own government. After all, the purpose of a government is to serve the people it governs, so how can a foreign nation decide how to best serve a people that they know nothing about.
Pulling out of Iraq soon will be a mistake

It can be argued back and forth to whether or not we should be in Iraq right now, but I contest that it would be a mistake to leave now. John McCain truly said it best, "You can't put a time on victory." The time table presented by Obama would be a mistake. We have had a military victory in Iraq by taking Saddam Hussein out of power, but we are still not victorious in the fact that we need to help them get back on their feet. If we leave before the Iraqi police are capable of ensuring the peace in the area, it is quite possible that the nation will fall into a similar state to the Saddam regime. If that were to happen, all of the men and women that served and died in Iraq would die in vain. Thank you
Pulling out of Iraq soon will be a mistake

I apologize for misunderstanding your argument, but it's ridiculous to say that the likelihood of another oppressive regime will be the same whether we vacate Iraq in a month or in a decade. Now, when you're raising a child, would they be better off if you threw them in the streets at five or eighteen? The answer is obviously eighteen because, while their parents have been watching over them, they have gained new experiences that have helped them along the way. By the US staying and protecting Iraq, we're like the parents to a new country and we're giving it time to experience new things and grow. Even thought the insurgency has risen to unpredicted levels, we've been able to hold them off. Not only has the Iraqi government been able to start, but it has grown and the Iraqi troops are also growing in numbers. However, if we were to leave now, the high insurgency levels would easily be able to overcome the Iraqi troops. If the US stays to protect the rising government and continue training Iraqi troops, then eventually the Iraqis will be able to control the insurgency themselves. It goes back to my analogy, you have to train them until they are able to "take on the world" by themselves. If you don't then they won't be successful. I beg to differ that the present-day Iraq is anything like Germany after the first World War. There are two things that differ between the two, destruction and debt. Germany was completely ruined and after the fighting stopped, everyone went back to their countries and left Germany the way it was. The US is assisting in the reconstruction period after the war in Iraq. As a matter of fact, if we were to leave soon, the situation in Iraq would be similar to post-World War Germany. Now on to the debt. After the first World War, the US and its allies demanded that Germany pay reparations. Since Germany's government had fallen and the country was in ruin, there was no way to pay it except to take on mountains of debt. Since they fell in to so much debt, not even 20 years later they found a leader (Hitler), who was willing to risk it all just to get themselves to a whole new level. You see, by you comparing Iraq to Germany, you have only solidified my case that our presence in Iraq is necessary if we would like to avoid another Saddam Hussein, if not even as bad as another Adolf Hitler. The Iraqi government said that they were willing to attempt democracy since they didn't want a corrupt regime, similar to Saddam's, to take over again. Thanks to our help in Iraq, they have created a constitution, created an army and are beginning to experience freedom that they haven't had for awhile. However, as I have proven, if we are to leave now, Iraq will fall into a similar state of corruption. We need to remain there so that loyalists and terrorists will not attempt to overthrow the democratic system and to retake the government. If we stay in Iraq, not only will we be able to get the Iraqis on their feet, but we will also ensure that the men and women that have died there will not have died in vain.
Pulling out of Iraq soon will be a mistake

You began by stating that I had argued that leaving Iraq and accepting the chances that an oppressive regime might take over would be better than securing the long term power of Iraq's current government. However, this is not exactly what I meant. My point is that the likelihood of an oppressive regime coming to power will be the same whether the occupation of Iraq ends in a month or in a decade, so why not give Iraq a head start while also minimizing the tremendous cost that the war has had for the U.S. in lives, money and credibility around the world. When you argue that the U.S. should remain in Iraq in order to prevent a regime like Saddam Hussein's, you are assuming that the U.S. military's presence is in fact decreasing the chances that an event like that will occur. However, mistakes that the U.S. military/government have made, like practically exiling the entire Ba'ath party and disbanding the former Iraqi military, have in fact fueled the insurgency to unpredicted levels. You draw a comparison between Iraq now and the founding of the U.S. However, the difference is that the colonists DECIDED that they needed to create their own government separate from Britain, and they formed a government of their OWN CHOOSING. I believe a more accurate comparison is to Germany after the first World War. We dismantled their government and forced a new one upon them. They did not desire nor were they ready for democracy. Under these situations they did not adapt, but instead elected Hitler within the legal framework of the government we forced them to create. And of course that wasn't beneficial to anyone.
Literature is highly influential in society.

Alrighty then I'll start with The Jungle then It was because of European countries banning meat importation that the entire fiasco regarding food safety regulations began. Therefore, because the European countries started the movement their influence supersedes that of this novels influence. Roosevelt's investigations into the meatpacking industry between 1904 and 1906 were a direct result of these European countries banning American meat products. The Clansman: The reasons for the KKKs revival were social tensions of urban industrialization and vastly increased immigration. These two factors were the reason the KKK was revived. The Clansman did not cause the KKK's revival therefore, the reasons it began again are supersede the influence of the novel. Common Sense: First, the Continental Army was relatively insignificant throughout the Revolutionary War. At it's peak, it had maybe 20,000 men and was plagued with desertions it was the militias who played the biggest role in fighting the British. Second, only 40% of the people within the United States, at the time, supported the Revolutionary War. Another 20% were Loyalist and the rest of the people were neutral throughout the war. The Revolutionary War did not garner the overwhelming support Pro claims it does. Furthermore, the support which was garnered was better gained by depictions of the Boston Massacre or acts made by the British directly affecting the common man such as the Townshead Acts or the Intolerable Acts The Book of Mormon If it was so very influential in the United States, why is only around 1-2% of the total population of the United States Mormon? Because most people do not believe in it. Literature's influence in politics is up for grabs. Nobody can argue that other factors at play when making a political decision.