BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gun control

Firstly, it was completely unnecessary for the pro to become offensive. It was, after all, they who requested a debate, so it seems rather churlish that they should then be offensive toward someone who simply took them up on their request. It will not take long to address the arguments made, as virtually no argument WAS made. Firstly, his opening statement, after the personal attack, was that "most Americans own guns". This is simply factually not true. Some 25% of Americans own guns, so three quarters of Americans don't. Not only that, but a very small proportion own a hugely disproportionate number of the total guns, some 3% of Americans owning almost half the guns in civilian hands- https://qz.com... But exactly what point this is supposed to prove, I am unsure of. Around 50% of the European population had Black Plague at one point, this hardly made it desirable!! This falsifies his point that it would be impossible to change the second amendment. Various polls have shown that a majority of Americans favour stricter gun laws, around 66% in fact, with even 50% of GUN OWNERS supporting tougher measures. http://time.com... It would only take the political will of a party that truly represented popular view and a constitutional convention would be achievable. After all, the President, hardly a liberal, recently stated he favored guns being taken away from some individuals- even saying he was in favour of this WITHOUT due process! Yes, he quickly back-tracked, but imagine if he thought it was a point that might aid his re-election? His last statement is, of course, correct but irrelevant. Yes, tightening gun laws would result in fewer people having guns- people who currently have that right. Rights are enshrined by legislation and change. Americans used to have the right to own slaves, now they don't. Americans used to not be able to marry someone of the same sex, now they can. Right can change.
gun control

The US constitution is a man-made document that has been amended several times. The fact that something is currently allowed under it does not make it a permanently enshrined right- your country is governed at the will of the people, and if there is sufficient will then the constitution can and has been amended to add or curtail rights. If guns don't kill people, only people kill people, why does your military give it's soldiers guns? People can only kill of they have means to do so, and the military give their members guns because they are the most efficient, portable weapon to allow a single person to effect the maximum casualties. The idea that it should remain an inerrant right for an individual to be given the capability to inflict multiple fatalities is just insane. The idea that gum laws don't work is falsified by the fact that every other developed country has much tighter gun restrictions, and doesn't suffer the gun violence the US does. At least you support mental background checks- this is not supported by the NRA and the US government has shied away from any measure not sanctioned BY the NRA, a multi-million dollar donor to republican politicians.
kalpna chawla to india

Ok, I really don't know what this debate is about, since it seems to be only a question about how a certain Indian has or has failed to show gratitude to her native country. I will say that she has given some positive attention to India simply because my opponents complaints giving positive comments about India would not carry as much weight except for the fact that this woman who is sucessful in the world is a product of Indian culture. But then, I could say my opponents argument is in favor of a person living in a way that shows their gratitude to their native land. Apparently this sucessful woman not showing enough gratitde is an example of why it is bad to not show enough gratitude. I really don't see the point, and I extend my round one argument which is basically "so what" about how she does or does not show gratitude to her native land. If you know your sins are forgiven and you are going to heaven, then you know you are forgiven and you can forgive a person for not showing what you feel would be appropreate gratitude to her native land.
You Choose the Topic!

Having limits is not equatable to losing a right. Me losing the right to vote is not the same as me not being allowed to call someone the n word. The reason our jail system sucks is not because the institution of jail is inherently flawed. It is because of the way we use it. When people do drugs, we just keep sending them to jail instead of rehabilitating them. Some crimes needs more rehabilitation than jail but that doesn't mean we should get rid of jail. Also, what would we do if people didn't go to jail anymore? With my morals argument, you seem to be missing the point. The point is that assuming all felons is unfair. People have this misconception that the only felonies are murder and rape thus felons all have bad morals. This is untrue and this is bigotry! These people already have served their time. They've already been punished! Taking away a person's right IS dehumanizing them. Stop saying voting is a privilege--IT IS NOT. (All caps for emphasis). Election swaying goes the other way around as well. But even worse. It disenfranchises the poor, minority males, and likely Democrats. What the governor did was wrong but not nearly as bad as what is happening in states where felons cannot vote: "And don't fall for the line that the nation's original plan called for denying felons the vote. In 1800, no state prohibited felons from voting. On the eve of the Civil War, 80% of the states did, largely to block African Americans, who though rarely allowed to vote were disproportionately represented among felons. Today, the impact of these laws still falls disproportionately on poor, minority males, a fact that seems to have skewed more than a few elections. Anyone familiar with the details of the deadlocked 2000 presidential race will recall that tens of thousands of likely Democratic voters were disenfranchised because of Florida's laws against voting by felons. A relative handful could have made Al Gore president." http://content.time.com... "Consequences to your actions." Like I continue to tell you, these prisoners have already served their punishment. The 8th amendment says that punishment should not be cruel or unnecessary. This violates the 8th amendment. "Again, jail doesn't always work. Plus I don't believe people should be in jail for a long time, but at the same time I believe in justice." Once more, the institution of jail is not the problem, the problem is the way we use and handle it in America. Onto your conclusion: OI think that it is immoral to take away people's rights. I think it is wrong to make someone follow the law but then not allow them to be part of the law process. No, taking away someone's right to vote will not kill them but that doesn't mean it isn't affecting their life. How horrible it must be to sit and watch, disenfranchised, as your country votes and makes decisions for YOU but you can't have a say.
You Choose the Topic!

You are right, I should have referred to it as a right, but isn't the freedom of speech a right also? 1st amendment and the basis of United States, but how come there is limits? Shouldn't we be able to say what we want? Shouldn't we be able to go on a public beach with a microphone, screaming curse words? That may not be the best example, but you get the point. There are limits. I was wrong to say it was a privilege, but it should be taken away at certain times. Jail is not enough. Google this: "how many people in jail go back to jail" It will only take 10 seconds. "Who are we to say that felons don't have good morals?" Let's look at your examples. "Thomas Jefferson had slaves, he wasn't felon but I wouldn't argue those are good morals" We are talking about felons, not non-felons. "Donald Trump grabs women by the p*ssy. He isn't a felon but I would't argue those are good morals either" Again, we are talking about felons, not non-felons. "People make mistakes, people also commit horrible crimes. But regardless, we can't dehumanize them" They have to understand there is consequences to your actions. The more serious, the more of the punishment. I agree saying we can't dehumanize people, which is why I'm against solitary confinement. Removing voting privileges isn't dehumanizing a person. "We don't get to decide who votes to benefit ourselves" THIS IS MY STRONGEST POINT! In the 2016 election, the Virginia governor pardon 60,000 felons to help swing the election to Hillary's side. That is exactly what they are doing. They are deciding to choose who votes to benefit themselves by giving back the right. The original goal was to pardon 200,000, but it they only reached 60,000. This is exactly what you are against. Here is my source: http://dailycaller.com... Google: "virginia governor pardons 60000 felons to swing election" "We allow the democratic process to occur because we are a democracy" Nothing more that I can say that I said before. Consequences to your actions. "You serve your time in jail and then you are released. Your punishment should be over." Again, jail doesn't always work. Plus I don't believe people should be in jail for a long time, but at the same time I believe in justice. Side Note: Please put your sources if you're going to put any information in the last round, and don't forfeit this far into the debate please! Conclusion: On (my) morality point of view, I think a human way (not the best but efficient) to punish someone for a felony is to remove the right of voting. Not extended jail time. Not solitary confinement. But remove something important without completely ruining the life of the person.
You Choose the Topic!

Obviously we shouldn't jail people forever (unless they have committed a VERY serious crime) which is why we have the 8th amendment. However, stripping them of their right to vote is cruel and unnecessary punishment. Voting is not a privilege, voting is a right. If you were born in a country you have the right to vote in elections. Would you argue that the right to a fair and speedy trial is a privilege? Or that the 2nd amendment is a privilege? Or that the 1st amendment and all our freedoms are just privileges? Who are we to say that felons don't have good morals? Thomas Jefferson had slaves, he wasn't felon but I wouldn't argue those are good morals. Donald Trump grabs women by the p*ssy. He isn't a felon but I would't argue those are good morals either. People make mistakes, people also commit horrible crimes. But regardless, we can't dehumanize them. We can't say, "Oh you committed tax fraud? You are no longer an American citizen! Haha, go to jail and when you come out you don't get to vote because you don't count anymore." We don't get to decide who votes to benefit ourselves. We allow the democratic process to occur because we are a democracy. You serve your time in jail and then you are released. Your punishment should be over.
You Choose the Topic!

I believe people shouldn't be jailed forever, so have a different consequence like remove voting privileges. I find it on a moral point of view to remove their privilege. Not major privileges that should be accessible to anyone, but only to those who deserve it. Also another point of view is that: I don't want felons voting. Generally felons don't have such good points of view morality and rational wise. Maybe they are power hungry or have no morals. I don't want those people voting. This really can't be confirmed until they do something as bad as a felony. This logic on it's own shouldn't be the reason why felons shouldn't be able to vote, but both logic.
You Choose the Topic!

My opponent mentions how people must learn the consequences of their actions, however, felons have already served their prison time and completed probation. They have already been punished. Why now does the state get to strip them of their Constitutional right as citizens because they committed a crime? A good point Politico magazine makes is the following: "If prisoners remain citizens and retain their civic status throughout their sentences, then it follows that prisoners should enjoy the most basic of their civil rights, the right to cast a ballot. Disenfranchising them creates a class of people still subject to the laws of the United States (they were, after all, punished under that law) but without a voice in the way they"re governed"not unlike taxation without representation." How can we make them abide by the law but then in the same breath say that they don't get a voice in the law. https://www.politico.com... Some people make the argument that felons can't be trusted but this is a silly argument. "We let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war...If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place." It is also unconstitutional because our 8th amendment specifically states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This sort of punishment is cruel and unnecessary. By stripping their right to vote, we are stripping their right as a citizen. Yes, felonies are bigger deals than misdemeanors but to assume every convicted felon is evil is unfair. In a just society, we are supposed to try and help felons become better and improve. We don't continue to punish them even after they've served their time. As Robert F. McDonnell, JD, MPP, MBAI says: " I also believe that once an offender has fully paid his debt to society, he deserves a second chance... It is a mark of good government to restore felons' rights and provide them the opportunity to succeed and become law-abiding citizens again...Therefore, I am amending the criteria used to adjudicate non-violent felons applications for restoration of rights. With these changes, Virginia will have an automatic restoration of rights process." https://felonvoting.procon.org... Barring felons from voting is unconstitutional, unfair, and illogical. We can not allow this to happen any longer.
Jesus Christ Never Existed

Unfortunately, I have run out of time to dispel my opponent's arguments. For clarification, most of what has been recently posted in the comments section by History as IS is accurate. I cannot form a well-thought argument right now, but feel free to see what he has posted if you are interested into looking further into the topic. While my own argument is sadly a default argument, I will bring it up again. Once again, my opponent concedes to his burden of proof. (Or disproof in this case) There is no feasible method to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus never existed. Neither my opponent, nor anyone he knows was alive when Jesus was. He has to time machine, wormhole, or any other device that could possibly transport him through time. He has no audio, visual, or tangible way to PROVE that Jesus never existed. As has been stated, if ANY possibility remains of His existence, Pro has not upheld his burden. Therefore, I urge a negative ballot. Thank you.
Jesus Christ Never Existed

==ABSOLUTE STATEMENT== My opponent has not addressed this, so I can only assume that he agrees. Voters, please keep this in mind. ==GOSPELS== This still does not make a huge difference in evidence. People can write about a deceased person and the person will still have existed. Concerning the tampering of Josephus' writings, you cited no sources on which I could read about it. "Nowhere else in all of Josephus' voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering." www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm Jesus' existence is cited from extra-biblical sources. From a historiography standpoint, this is mostly an 'academic' exercise, since the 'existence' of Jesus of Nazareth could easily be established with only a tiny fraction of our New Testament documents. The mere existence of someone in history is often easily established on the basis of small textual samples (sometimes even single paragraphs). The amount of data we have about Jesus in the New Testament, especially historically 'incidental' data-and the appearances that the authors were not collusive--gives us a very, very high level of assurance in this matter. http://www.christian-thinktank.com... Dealing with sources, mine are completely valid. First of all, there is no such thing as an unbiased source. Your wikipedia answers came from a biased opinion. Second, I can only find Christian evidence on Christian sites. If I look for evidence on sites that agree with you, I am contradicting my own case. Clashing sources are part of a debate. ==MITHRAISM== Jesus was prophesied about long before Mithra was ever invented. Isiah wrote about Jesus in 8 BC. Zechariah was specific about dating his writings in 520-518 BC. In addition, the Psalms were written over the course of about 1500 years before Christ's arrival. Jesus was talked about LONG before any Mithra, Horus, or other false god. www.bibleprobe.com/300great.htm http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... ==CONCLUSION== Even if ALL of my arguments are shot down, the default win goes to me. My opponent has absolutely no way to PROVE that Jesus never existed. My opponent did not live when Jesus did, nor does he have any living friends that did. He has no time machine, and thus no way to disprove His existence. Even so, I have provided quite a bit of evidence supporting Jesus' existence. The resolution remains negated. Thank you.
Jesus Christ Never Existed

The dating of the Gospels do make a crucial difference. Since the Gospels were written at least 40 years after Jesus' death that means that means it was very unlikely that any could have ever met or encountered Jesus if he was real. Just as well, Mark could have easily written Jesus to have prophesied the destruction of the temple when it was obviously going to happen (the Jewish-Roman war) or after it occurred (Source: . http://wiki.answers.com...). Also, Since many documents were later tampered with by Christians during the 3rd and 4th centuries to prove Christian ideas (for example, Josephus' text was tampered with to make a mention of Jesus) the mention of the prophecy of the temple destruction could have been added much later. Finally, you should probably not cite a Christian website as your source when discussing such a sensitive and controversial topic about when the Gospels were written, for it will clearly show bias. (For example, would you visit a Nazi website to learn about the Holocaust? ) As for your argument about Mithra copying from Jesus or Horus copying from Jesus, both myths had been around long before Jesus Christ supposedly lived. Mithra originally came from Zoroastrianism, which had been around since the 5th century B. C. (Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org..., . http://en.wikipedia.org...). As for Horus, he was a central figure of Egyptian mythology, which extends as far back as around 2600 B. C. (Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org..., . http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Jesus Christ Never Existed

Right off te bat, we must realize that my opponent has set himself an impossible goal. He has made the absolute statement that Jesus Christ NEVER existed. He allows no room for possibility. Therefore, if I can show even a shred of possibility of His existence, I have won the debate. ==WHEN THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN== My opponent is incorrect when he dates the writing of the Gospels. Luke mentions the Temple being torn down in its 20th chapter. That prophesy was FULFILLED in 70 AD. Therefore, the gospels must have been written beforehand. In any case, the dates of the Gospels does not make a huge difference. By my opponent's logic, I could not have existed if writing about me is dated after I died. (If I am ever written about at all) Someone could have easily existed even if writings about Him came after He left the Earth. ==Mithraism== My opponent makes the assumption that stories of Jesus were borrowed from other religions. I would first ask for where Mithra is written about. I would secondly point out that Jesus and Mithra could have been the same person, known to different people by different names. With the similarities my opponent pointed out, it is just as reasonable to say that stories from Mithraism were borrowed from Jesus' life. This reasoning is also valid for Horus. Having shot down my opponent's arguments, I bring up the point that none of us were around during the time of Jesus. Neither of us can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that He existed or did not exist. Since my opponent has the clear burden of proof, the resolution is easily negated. Thank you. ==Sources== http://www.carm.org...
Do Penguins Speak Spanish

I disagree. After a new study conducted yesterday at Cornell University, a leading animal studies college, has concluded that penguins, in fact do not speak Spanish. Penguins simply speak the language of their ancient Roman ancestors. They speak Latin. Not just any form of Latin though. Penguilatin. Penguilatin is the language of the penguins. Penguins that speak this language are generally the puffin and the emperor. The other penguins speak regular, boring Latin. Penguilatin is spoken at such high decibel levels that it merely sounds like unintelligible screaming. I will now add a Haiku I have made about Penguilatin Penguilatin yes Penguilatin says the bird But he cannot fly
The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader

Thanks for the debate ApostateAbe. I look forward to it. == Burdens of proof == To prove a historical Jesus, using Biblical passages, my opponent must win that: 1) The gospels are NOT works of fiction. 2) Jesus was ONE person, not an amalgamation of different stories. To prove that this Jesus was a cult leader, my opponent must prove that: 3) The doomsday passages in the New Testament came from Jesus, as opposed to being falsely attributed to him. 4) The early Christians were a doomsday cult (as opposed to being just another Gnostic branch of one of the early "Mystery Religions"). I will question any (and potentially all) of these assumptions, as I see fit. I await my opponent's case.