BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Second Amendment should not end where the workplace begins

Let"s take the example of the two businesses that fired their employees for bringing concealed weapons to work: Wells Fargo and Walgreens. These are both corporations. Now a corporation cannot exist through private contracts alone. In fact, a corporation can only exist through government interference in the market. It is through a government charter that a corporation gains rights like personhood. The states grant right to a corporation through a charter. The charter allows them the following: "(1) the right to own property, make contracts, and sue and be sued, as a unitary entity (or legal "personhood); (2) the right to centralized management of this property; and (3) the right to establish and enforce rules within its jurisdiction beyond those of the laws." [1] The first right allows the corporation to enter into contracts as an individual, independent and wholly separate from the managers. The second and third rights allow it to have governing authority over property and people. Neither Wells Fargo nor Walgreens can exist in a free market because a state has to sanction its authority. Who are the owners of a corporation? Managers? No, they are not held liable when the company engages in what is called "legal risk taking," the corporation is. Do shareholder own corporations? No. Owning a share is different from owning an asset. If I own something, I can (a) use it, (b) exclude others from it (c) lend it to others on my own terms (d) borrow it. At the same time, the corporation as a legal entity continues to gain rights that share surpass the workers. Say someone robbed Welles Fargo, who pays? The FDIC. Pro"s argument is property rights should not mean employees should end once you enter the workplace. Private entities like corporations are not truly private, nor are they public. However, the law allows protections and benefits (see 1-3 above), something only available by the government. Second Amendment rights and civil liberties in general should not be negated because of property rights, especially in instances like Wells Fargo and Walgreens, where ownership and control socialized: those who control it do not own it and thus do not bear the direct economic or legal consequences of their control. Corporate property is only private in the sense that it is not public. Here no one owns the house but someone does make the rules. [1] David Ciepley, Beyond Public and Private American Political Science Review Volume 107, No. 1
The Second Amendment should not end where the workplace begins

Let's focus on the debate at hand. And I feel this is a debate about employer rights and not just the second amendment itself but the Bill of Rights in its entirety. Now we have basic social rights that are granted to us that are written into law already. You cannot be fired or refused hiring basing on gender, race, or age. But employers have certain right granted them who they can hire and fire within reason. Also depends on if they working in a Right to Work State. We have the 1st amendment. I have the right to say what I want when I want, and my employer has the right to put a speech policy in place telling us if we swear, we could lose our job. But that 1st amendment is there. Some swears actually offend people and based on that, our rights end where individual's rights begin. Given that information. I think if an employer doesn't want an employee to carry on their premises (especially a bank) it should be in a policy. An employer should not have to spell out that they don't want a gun in their establishment especially in a place that is vulnerable to high risk Larceny as a bank. Dress code is another thing that is placed in a lot of policies. We as an American have the right to dress how we want but if we want a job, we should abide by the policies in place in order to keep our job. So this isn't so much a work place right but a question on what our employer's rights are. An employer can tell you what to wear and What to say/not to say. (1st Amendment) Search your work computer and even monitor you while you work. And even search your personal locker if you have one. (4th Amendment) Hot Dog on a Stick makes you wear that absolutely horrible uniform (8th Amendment... Cruel and Unusual) So naturally, The 2nd Amendment's Right to Bear arms could be placed in that same Policy. Don't like the policy. work somewhere else. Now of course once you are off the premises They should not have the ability to invoke those same restrictions in your every day life that our Bill of Rights grant us. Unless you sign something that says you would abide by some honor code in which case you can accept or reject that job and find somewhere else to work. So no, I don't think it is right that someone get fired for carrying a weapon even though they were legally able to carry it, but that isn't a question of discrimination as the company would have equally fired ANYONE carrying a weapon on the premises. And since there is no civil rights being violated, the company exercised it's right to "fire". So it's basically a question of what are the rights of the employers. Do I think it's right that someone can be fired for being too good looking? Nope. But I'm sure though if the person cared enough they could fight it in court. just because a company fired someone doesn't mean it will stick if that person decided to fight against. All in all I don't think an employer should be forced to allow a weapon of any sorts (permit or not) as it's "His/her House, His/Her Rules". http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Second Amendment should not end where the workplace begins

My argument is less radical than it may appear. First, constitutional protections would not hinder business given the very broad scope of an employer"s power, they would still be able to fire you but not for owning or carrying a weapon. The immediate response is likely the following: this is an infringement on private property and owners. But is this really the case? Is the private sector crumbling before the unlimited power of employees? No. Not at all. In fact, the opposite is true, employers have all the power. You may or may not realize it but if you work in the private sector, you give up most rights and concepts of personal autonomy. Unless have union representation or work under a government contract, which continues to decline year by year, your employer does not have to tell you why they fired you. Consider the most intrusive piece of legislation to the private sector in terms of government expanding its reach into private business Civil Rights legislation. Because of that, your employer cannot discriminate based on age, sex, or race. Now did this restriction cripple business? Do businesses, private employers, and corporations have other methods for firing an employee? Yes, in fact, if your employer cannot find other reason to fire you, they should probably not be in any position of authority. The law today allows employer to fire you for your appearance, meaning fat, thin, ugly, or attractive.[1] [2] Your employer can fire you for smoking at home, using drugs, or engaging in risking behavior including skiing in your free time. [3] Pro takes the position Second Amendment should not end where the workplace begins. I believe this first round illustrates that this is a sensible idea. Even with these extensions, employers will still be able to fire but not taking a firearm into the workplace. Here are two cases to consider: A bank manager at Well Fargo was fired for bringing a concealed weapon to work, even though she has a permit and the bank does not have a weapons policy. [4] Another case involves a pharmacists at Wal-Greens fired a weapon when an armed man attempted to rob the store. [5] Is Con going to argue that preventing employers from firing these individuals because they carried a gun to work or discharge their weapon for a legitimate purpose places to much burden on private interests? I hope not. I am arguing for what I believe are small and reasonable protections. Should guns, speech, and privacy continue at work? That is the central question. We often talk about rights, every year some incident inevitably breaks out where we talk about [1] The legitimate under law practice of firing people based on appearance http://jobs.aol.com... [2] Article on women can be fired for being too attractive http://abcnews.go.com... [3] A national public radio interview about cases where employees were fired for smoking and skiing http://www.npr.org... [4] Case of a bank manager fired for bring a gun to work http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [5] Pharmacist fired to trying to stop a bank robbery http://www.bna.com...
The Second Amendment should not end where the workplace begins

Context to consider before the debate: People often ridicule the NRA and Open Carry groups as extreme but I think this is shortsighted and misses a real opportunity: creating and coalition between left and right to expand civil liberties into the workplace. Originally, the Constitution protected one against federal government action but later extended to states. Every few states have Guns-at-Work laws, and even those have every heavy restrictions, usually limited your weapon locked inside a glove compartment in your car. I am very interested in everyone"s thoughts surrounding the Second Amendment and whether it should end when at the workplace. My position is the Constitution should apply universally, including institutions or non-state actors exempt by law. Rounds, Rules, Requirements First Rounds: acceptance Second Round: Major Arguments Third: Other arguments, rebuttals, and relevant remarks Con position: I want to debate anyone with a strong belief in Second Amendment protections. Rules: So, to be clear: I do not want to debate anyone with anti-gun attitudes or beliefs. I want to debate a pro-gun advocate. By accepting this debate, you agree to the rules and requirements stated above. Violations of these rules will be considered invalid and irrelevant and result in an automatic loss. Refer to additional remarks posted in the Comments section for clarity on the debate.
Hot Male Model Debate

You can and will only post 4 pictures in each round. These pictures must be of male models. These models must have some form of clothing. No pornography1 male model a round. No hyperlink picturesNo arguing that the debate is sexist and/or whatever, if you fail to post pictures of hot models-I WIN. A violation of these points shall result in your forfeiture of the debate. This debate shall be judged on who's model's are "hotter" or "Sexier" than the other for each round. whichever contestant wins the most rounds will win the debate.
Battlefield is a better game series than Call of Duty

I believe that in the game series Battlefield with the developers by DICE is a more delevoped and better constructed with all of the factors included game, than of the game series of Call of Duty with the developers like Treyarch, Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Studios. The games I will be using in my debate will be dated back to the first game on Pc and Mac Battlefield 1942 to the newest instalment Battlefield 4. You can do the same with the first Call of Duty game to the newest, Ghosts.This debate will be 4 rounds long so my opponent must be up to the challange. My opposer may start first.My debate will be split up into 3 topics. Con may have the same plan if wished. #1.Realism#2.Combat/Wepons #3.Terrane and vehicles P.S: Retaliation is adviced and may the best debator win.
Battlefield is a better game series than Call of Duty

In conclusion, while both games have pros and cons, our personal opinions on these two games do not really matter beyond us. As Pro didn't refute my original argument, and in fact agreed with it, the resolution has been negated. I would again like to thank TheSupremeDebater for issuing this challenge, and to thank anyone who has taken the time to read this debate. I hope it was enjoyable for everyone.
Battlefield is a better game series than Call of Duty

First off, I'll say that I am a fan of the Call of Duty series, and consider those games more enjoyable than the ones I have played in the Battlefield series. Despite that, I do not feel either game can truly be considered better than the other, at least not beyond personal preference. Consider this: - For any product to be considered better than an alternative product, it must achieve its goal to a higher degree. - The goal of any game is to provide entertainment. - Whether or not a person finds a game to be entertaining is based on their individual opinion. - To determine the degree to which a game entertains, one would have to know all of these opinions. - Without polling the entire gaming community, one could not know the degree a game entertains. - I am part of the gaming community and have not had my opinion included in such a poll, for any game. - No one knows the degree to which any game entertains. - No game can truly be considered better than any other game. - Therefore, Battlefield games cannot be considered better than Call of Duty games.
polygamy is the male's nature in human society

You're still being a hater though, you don't need that To win a debate. Anyway I never said I was going To put up new arguments and the point of rounds 2 and 3 is To developp the arguments exposed in round 1. As you can see that's what I did by coming up with some new exemples. I think you didn't understand what I said about physical supï¿½riority. I said male are stronger physically than female and I never talked about physical human superiority among spieces. Then about polygamy is indeed not always needed but it sometimes can be beneficial to a couple. For exemple some couples are free and have other sexual partners but their relations still stay positive. To answer about cavemen what I meant is that you're insulting and deteriorating them White they're the origin of human. Moreover it s a stereotype To say that they only thought about sex. They juste wanted their species To live. So what you are saying since the begining is "poudre de perlinpinpin" as our great french president Macron said I hope you are going well and don't step on a lego or thumbstack whatever it is stay well.
polygamy is the male's nature in human society

Oh, excuse me if I insulted you, moron, because you DEFINITELY aren't insulting the whole of the female gender. And since when is physical strength the sole judgement of who is the superior species? By that argument, us humans are mere fish compared to a gorilla, or lion. And it doesn't matter that we wouldn't be here without cavemen, it's like comparing your 5-year old past self to the current you. And I'll clarify the same-sex marriage thing: if you have the male gender as a superior class, and give it more rights than the female gender, that creates a second-class citizen, much like not allowing LGBT people to marry. And while you call me out for only having rebuttals, I see no new arguments in your Round 2 section. Finally, polygamy is unnecessary and unwanted in the modern world, because with the human's growing population, all we need is maybe 2 children per couple, that's it. P.S. I take back my previous statement about a Lego. I hope you step on a thumbtack. See you in Round 3!
polygamy is the male's nature in human society

Dear "theantiweaboo" (what an interesting name I must say), I'm sorry I misspelled gender, as a non-native English speaker and a bilingual (french and english), I sometimes switch words from one language to another (genre is gender in French) and make small mistakes. Anyway, I see in your answer, that you haven't suggested anything really except rebutting my arguments, so I am still waiting for some ideas and arguments (maybe a lack of imagination or inspiration). About my first argument, this is a very scientific point of view and is not arguable, as the goal of life is to ensure the posterity of your species. Indeed, one female might not be enough because a couple is not always compatible genetically and as a consequence another female is needed. To answer on what you said about what society I was talking about, well human society as it is clearly exposed in the motion, but more precisely, in the 21th century. The majority of the population has more than one sexual partners (women also). Moreover, you talk about "cavemen" in a rather pejorative way. May I remind you that they are our ancestors, which means: no cavemen, no humans in 21Th century. You also make a parallel with same-sex marriage even though we are talking about polygamy and male/female relations. I hope some clearer explanations because I am not making the link. To come back on male domination, you cannot deny the fact that male is stronger physically than female, even if I agree some there are some exceptions which prove the rule. polygamy is male's nature in human society. Sorry for being late answering I was away for the weekend. I hope you don't step on a Lego because I am no hater (You kinda insulted me throughout your whole text, it's kinda rude, I didn't, I think it shows a weak mindset)
polygamy is the male's nature in human society

"Polygamy is the male's nature in human society". Wow. Just what society are we talking about? Cavemen? You're limiting a human's potential to what its gender is. And speaking of gender, you misspelled it as "genre". Modern life isn't just a sex-driven eternity of pleasure, you absolute moron. "Sucking is not cheating." Damso's word, I regret to inform you, is not the word of god. And here's another quote, by you; "The male is obviously the most powerful and dominant of the two genres, and therefore has the right to do what he desires..." Good job, you sexist bigot, you've just killed about half of my brain cells. By making women inferior to men, that creates a second-class citizen, like not allowing same-sex people to marry. Now, I don't want to utterly destroy you in the first round, and I kind of want to see what other abysmally stupid arguments you have, so that's it for now. See you in Round Two! I hope you step on a Lego.
polygamy is the male's nature in human society

The goal of the male is to distribute his genetic patrimony to the biggest number of females in order to insure his posterity. He will therefore be naturally attracted to other females of his society. Moreover, pleasure with the same partner during a whole life becomes less and less enjoyable, as the female gets older and older and less and less attractive. The male will naturally go see otherplaces. The male is obviously the most powerful and dominant of the two genres, and therefore has the right to do what he desires, such as having sexual intercourses with other females. To conclude briefly, male's nature is indeed to have other sexuals partners. To finish, here is a french quote from rapper damso which illustrastes perfectly my saying "sucking is not cheating"
I am Ivo Shandor, The Architect, and my oponent is not.

Rebuttals R1) My opponent has provided no valid affirmation of the resolution- that he is a video game character, with his only evidence being that he has typed out a quote that a video game character supposedly said. I am quite capable of typing: 'it's a-me Mario! ' but this does not prove or even suggest in a way that I am actually Mario. R2) Pro is right here, I am not Ivo Shandor, but it does not matter because he has not fulfilled the entire resolution. Pro has not successfully fulfilled his Burden of Proof and it is fairly certain that he isn't a video game character.
I am Ivo Shandor, The Architect, and my oponent is not.

I am Ivo Shandor (destructor form is The Architect) and this quote proves it-"I am the Destructor. I am the Architect. I will pave over your fields to start anew. I will fill your seas with concrete and stone. I will pierce your world with girders of steel and panes of glass. I will crush your world under the weight of my cities. I will smother your creation under my own!" This quote comes from the video game "Ghostbusters" And by typing it I have made it true. Good luck to my oponent.
there is no need for religion

I think there is a problem with Pros response. Since from the opening around and again the last round Pro spends alot of time arguing that religion can be used for harm or is undesirable or has a net negative effect on humanity and perhaps even humanity would be better without some or all religion at all. I could grant Pro all of that and it would not matter because remember Pros claim that he is seeking to justify is that there is no need for religion. Again same problem with Pros smoking analogy, putting aside the error in equivalence between an addiction of nicotine and the effect that has on the brain and religious belief being an "addiction" once again it's an argument to support that religion is or can be harmful. I did present argument to justify that there is a need for religion in a more generalized way, and those arguments remain barely touched by Pro including the economic, salvation from Nihilistic abyss and the Ka-ching $$$ argument.
there is no need for religion

I appreciate the fact that my friend has accepted that there is no basic need for religion as such. and i consider it as my plus point as i have been able to convince him. But i am not satisfied yet because clearly he is not ready to believe in what i am saying. I will start with an example. Suppose if someone smokes and he obviously knows that smoking is injurious to health but then also he smokes. What is the reason?? The reason is that he is addicted. He want to quit but he cant. Whenever he feel tensed he smokes. He thinks that smoking is making him feel less tensed. The same thing is true with religion. It is an addiction and those who are addicted cant make their way out of it.They think that it is helping them but its not. Religion may have saved some suicides as you think but its not that. Religion tells you lies and gives you false explanation. Religion gives you a false definition of god. If god would have made any religion then he would have told you directly. My friend has also said that what kind of society we want to live in. I will say that i want to live in a society where whatever i do i do with a reason. There should be no religion coming between me and my god. And as far as hope is considered, if you believe in god then you do not require a religion to give you hope. All what i am talking about is that i do not want our future generations to live in a forced environment. they should live freely and think with their own mind and stay true to that, and that does not requires a religion. I do not think i need to elaborate any further, i have made my point very clear. Thank you.