BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On the basketball, the person who make 100% 2 points shot, is better than who make 50% 3 points shot

"First, I didn't say that 2 pointer miss all his 3 point shots, is impossible.It is possible that 2 pointer miss all his 3 point shots, but it is also possible that 2 pointer makes all his 3 point shots."Concession! :)"If there was defenders, 2 pointer will be difficult to make shots, but 3 points shot is physically difficult because shooter needs more power to throw the ball to the rim and needs more control to through hoop, in addition 3 pointer has defenders too. The 3 pointer doesn't have many defenders but it is still difficult to take shots."Who are you to judge the proportionality defenders vs. distance from hoop to the effect on the average scoring abilities of a player? This is a plainly unsupported statement."Your 3rd rebuttal is right."Concession! :)"In my game scenario which is on round 2, the person who has to pass 2 pointer or 3 pointer, passed 2 pointer because 2 pointer makes 100% 2 points shots.This means the person trusted 2 pointer because 2 pointer will make points.The trust means the 2 pointer is better than 3 pointer because 2 pointer makes 100% 2 point shots and 3 pointer makes 50% 3 point shots in this case."My opponent doesn't deny the reverse game scenario in which 3pointer is better than 2 pointer. This means my contention stands untarnished above my opponents resolution. Good game! (bro-fist)
On the basketball, the person who make 100% 2 points shot, is better than who make 50% 3 points shot

First, I didn't say that 2 pointer miss all his 3 point shots, is impossible. It is possible that 2 pointer miss all his 3 point shots, but it is also possible that 2 pointer makes all his 3 point shots. "Furthermore, isn't it more difficult to get closer to the basketball basket to shoot a 2 pointer instead of staying outside the large semi circle (removing the hassle of having to get past a lot more defenders and ptoential ball stealers)? " If there was defenders, 2 pointer will be difficult to make shots, but 3 points shot is physically difficult because shooter needs more power to throw the ball to the rim and needs more control to through hoop, in addition 3 pointer has defenders too. The 3 pointer doesn't have many defenders but it is still difficult to take shots. Your 3rd rebuttal is right. In my game scenario which is on round 2, the person who has to pass 2 pointer or 3 pointer, passed 2 pointer because 2 pointer makes 100% 2 points shots. This means the person trusted 2 pointer because 2 pointer will make points. The trust means the 2 pointer is better than 3 pointer because 2 pointer makes 100% 2 point shots and 3 pointer makes 50% 3 point shots in this case.
On the basketball, the person who make 100% 2 points shot, is better than who make 50% 3 points shot

I can't believe you're even trying. . >_>Possibility is based on probability, meaning even if there is a 0.0000000000000000000001% chance that mister 2pointer misses all his 3 point shots in the equal shot scenario, it is still possible. Telling me that this is impossible is extremely fallacious and cannot be logically proven. Although my above argument is technically enough, I will discuss further discrepancies in your statements. Furthermore, isn't it more difficult to get closer to the basketball basket to shoot a 2 pointer instead of staying outside the large semi circle (removing the hassle of having to get past a lot more defenders and ptoential ball stealers)? For my 3rd rebuttal: If I could draw a diagram this explanation would be easy. Let me try to visualize it for you. Let's say we are starting at the halfway point on the basketball court. To have your shots become 2 pointers, you must move around, let's say, 20-50 feet. Shots made from 10-19 feet from the halfway point qualify as 3 point shots. To actually get to the 2-point shot area, a player must pass the 3 point shot area. NO EXCEPTIONS. Basically, let's say we have 100 players. 60% of players go for 2 point shots and 40% go for 3 point shots. 100% of the 2 point shotters have an opportunity at making a 3point shot before making the 2 point shot. This means that 40 players who have the opportunity to make 3-pointers actually do so while 60 players who have the opportunity to make 2 point shots ALL had, simultaneously, the opportunity to make 3 point shots.100 out of 100 players had the opportunity to make 3 point shots while60 out of 100 players had the opportunity to make 2 point shots. :)
On the basketball, the person who make 100% 2 points shot, is better than who make 50% 3 points shot

" 3 pointer makes 50 3 point shots, scoring 150, 2 pointer makes no 3-point shots, 0 points. 3 pointer than makes 100 2 point shots, 2 pointer also makes 100 2 point shots. Total score: 3 pointer = 350 points 2 pointer = 200 points 3 pointer is better. The person who makes 2-point shots, while at 100%, may not be able to match it with 3-point shots. " You are right in this scenario and it could happen, but why 2 pointer makes no 3-point shots? It is possible to have the 2 pointer makes 3-point shots. We only know 2 pointer makes 100% 2 point shots and 3 pointer makes 50% 3-point shots. In the game: 2 pointer and 3 pointer are same team, their team should make basket either 2 points or 3 points, both players are free and they are standing on their shooting position. In this case, if someone in their team has to pass 2 pointer or 3 pointer, the person will pass 2 pointer because 2 pointer makes 100% 2 point shots. If I saw long span, 3 pointer may be better than 2 pointer, but 2 pointer has more opportunity to take shots and 2 pointer always make shots. So, 2 pointer is better than 3 pointer.
On the basketball, the person who make 100% 2 points shot, is better than who make 50% 3 points shot

This is untrue. Your statement is based on the assumption that the person who makes 50% 3 point shots only shoots 3-point shots while the person who makes 2-point shots only shoots 2-point shots. It is possible to have the 50% 3-point shotter also e able to make 100% 2 point shots.It is also possible to have the 100% 2 point shotter miss 100% 3 point shots.Here's a scenario: Person A (we'll call him 3 pointer) and person B (2 pointer, obviously), are both called to the basketball court. Now to make the shooting fair (instead of have 3 pointer only shoot 3 point shots and 2 pointer only shoot 2 point shots), both players are to shoot 100 2 point shots and 100 3 point shots.. a total of 200 shots per player. This comes down to simple math: 3 pointer makes 50 3 point shots, scoring 150, 2 pointer makes no 3-point shots, 0 points.3 pointer than makes 100 2 point shots, 2 pointer also makes 100 2 point shots.Total score:3 pointer = 350 points2 pointer = 200 points3 pointer is better.The person who makes 2-point shots, while at 100%, may not be able to match it with 3-point shots. This is only a possible scenario, but it is enough to win me this match,Here's how you might have had a better chance of winning:The topic should have instead been: "In basketball, the person who makes 100% 2 point shots is most probably better than one who makes 50% 3 points shots" You put: "is better". Sealing your loss in the absolution of your statement.
As the government of a fictional country, we should ban sales of firearms for civilian use

Okay. Let's dance. You seem to put a bit too much faith in the legal authorities and their ability to respond in a timely manner. The problem is that when seconds count, they're only minutes away at best. (First, you have to be able to physically dial 911, then it's the "Hello, 911. Police are being dispatched." *Police are called up and a patrol car deployed*, *Distance and traffic*) The sudden attacks would still happen, but the police can be somewhat lax in arriving quickly, because they're going to spend more time identifying the bodies than securing the perimeter, because the people that did have guns and didn't get shot are going to be shooting the idiot. Also, individual establishments are entirely free to say "Keep your guns holstered/sheathed," or make patrons check them at the door. Here's a trick, though. Were we to let the arms industry in fully, someone would take them aside and point out that maybe they should include an instruction manual that has the words "Don't be an idiot" in big bold letters printed somewhere on it. Protip: Fictionland is always being threatened by its neighbors that covet its wide tracts of land. Sure, they're at peace right now, but what of the moment after the next? You are assuming that the gun is going to be used for self-defense. There are some that use it more often as a fashion accessory, which says to the people around them. "I am armed and know how to use it." This has a side-effect of deterring the common gain-motivated criminals, who upon realizing that at least one person in the area is armed, will stop to reconsider their plan to rob the place. Who said it had to be a psycho planning on killing things? Seeing as most common criminals rely on intimidation to do their dirty work, having another gun pointed at them is a blow to their plans on the level of "We can't do it now." Would YOU go into a building with at least two guns you know of with their wielders having more than enough justification to shoot you?
As the government of a fictional country, we should ban sales of firearms for civilian use

I am compelled to tackle 2 points of contention: 1) Selling guns in the black market 2) Guns being a deterrent to potential violence and a tool for defense 1) If we are to agree that the authorities can never completely wipe out black markets especially pertaining to guns, this does not mean that people on the streets are helpless to shooting attacks. Law enforcers will still be equipped with guns (AND properly trained to use them ethically and effectively) and they will still be around to protect the people. It is not as if we are all just sitting ducks waiting to be shot at. EVEN IF there is no one around to save you, having a gun will mean nothing if attacks happened all of a sudden, and they usually do. Unless you plan on having your weapon out at all times including in the cafes and at schools which people around you WOULD NOT appreciate. 2) EVEN IF you buy a gun for defense purposes, that is exactly the kind of argument everyone makes to justify buying a weapon. Psychos and murderers conveniently exploit this. Wouldn't it be easier to enforce, if guns were only allowed to be used by the authorities and not just every layman who walks into the store to buy Kalashnikovs. Your final word about "a rifle behind every blade of grass" is true if we were in war-torn areas like Vietnam (a long time ago) and Afghanistan. In these instances, it would be great for everyone to cheap in to defend the country. But the fact is in Fictionland, we are not at war right now. We are just civilians going to jobs and having days out with our family and friends. We do not want to go out having to worry about the next shooting spree. What kind of a country are we building if every day, you have to arm yourselves for the simple fact that "you know, some psychos gonna be loose today." You ended by saying that you would feel safer armed. Yes, coming from a person who has been trained to shoot since a kid. But not everyone has had access to that kind of education. Thank you.
As the government of a fictional country, we should ban sales of firearms for civilian use

Those gunmen are going to go nuts anyway. They will get their hands on firearms courtesy of the black market, as stated before. It's not hard. The restriction on firearms will only hurt law-abiding citizens, as stated before, It's fairly easy to trace "Oh yeah, this guy whipped out a gun, got a few shots off, and then the building got a few new and interesting holes in it." I think that the authorities would forgo prosecution in favor of corpse disposal in this case. Nice attempt at a trap. Presumably, kids would have a parent present for this kind of thing. I mean, I've known how to shoot a rifle (M1 Garand) since I was a little kid (I was 7), but I had the basics of gun safety drilled into my head before I even laid eyes upon it. Presumably, any parent intelligent enough to be able to afford a gun would have their children read the manual. It was a place where people went to hook up and have sex. Basically, it was a haven for libertines. The thing about your analogy is that it is flawed. People are imperfect, true, but the big thing about guns is that in the hands of a big guy, they make him more scary, but in the hands of some weedy guy, they're an equalizer that put him on par with the aforementioned big guy in terms of shooting power. God made Man, Sam Colt made him equal, and John Browning made him civilized. (Read: Sam Colt introduced widespread personal armament, and John Browning made, nay, set the standard for military-grade gear.) The speed limit is completely arbitrary for sure, but it's a nice standard. Earthquake-proofing is an insurance policy. Keep 'em both. A major plus to public armament is that having "a rifle behind every blade of grass" (attributed to Isoroku Yamamoto, Fleet Admiral, IJN) would deter foreign powers from invading. Would you take an army into a city with a gun pointed out of every window, nook and cranny, and then deal with the actual military? I too believe in safety. I feel a lot SAFER when I am armed.
As the government of a fictional country, we should ban sales of firearms for civilian use

Just because everyone else has weapons does not mean you can stop violence. In fact, many terrorists and gunmen do not even worry about being killed. They go in fully expecting to be dead at the end of the day and as long as they have taken as many lives with them, or made as much noise in the media, then their mission is accomplished. This is the kind of scenario that will pan out should a room suddenly turn into a warzone because someone pulled a trigger. In fact, we think that it will make it hard for authorities to actually prosecute a guilty party since everyone would be shooting and killing off each other. Surely my opponent is not suggesting that even kids below 18 years old should be allowed guns. And that was immediately after he said buyers need to provide ID. Seems like contradicting statements to me since he alludes that any age group can own a gun. "Also, the degenerates present were there to get hot loads on/in them anyway, so..." What does this sentence even mean? I sure hope my opponent keeps this debate as respectful and as civil as it should be. The problem with my opponent's arguments is that he continuously falls back onto the idea that 'it's not a perfect world. We can't stop underground sales so everyone should be allowed on board'. That, to me, is like saying we can't stop accidents because people are imperfect. So get rid of the speed limit. We can't control the weather. So don't bother having special structures on buildings in the case of earthquakes. A challenge is that people who are in the guns business will lose a lot of money if we ban guns. That is why I have set the scope of this debate to Fictionland where the firearms industry does not have a rich history and is being debated on whether or not it should even be allowed to exist. Notice that if we were to look at how this will impact the economy, jobs etc. this would be a more complicated matter but we will not be going there. As such, I stand firm on the basis of safety.
As the government of a fictional country, we should ban sales of firearms for civilian use

By keeping the sale of firearms open to all, it provides a massive deterrent against would-be violent criminals. By taking the example of nuclear warfare, the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) comes to mind. The comedian who comes in thinking "All right, I've got a gun. Time to start shooting people in a crowded area!" may get to shoot someone, but is now facing so much firepower from the crowd that he's dead within seconds. Background checks are needless and should be removed. You should be able to buy firearms as long as you provide ID. Tell the kids in Connecticut that they should have been armed. That would have put down more than one mad dog. Your pathetic attempt at linking the use of firearms on unarmed crowds to the use of firearms in an armed society is insulting to the memory of said kids. I see lots of complaints about the usage of guns on unarmed people, and he pledged himself to ISIS whilst calling 911. Also, the degenerates present were there to get hot loads on/in them anyway, so... By banning the sale of firearms, we are restricting guns to criminals, as the law-abiding citizens now have no means of having ranged equalizers, while smugglers will do a brisk trade in the underground. People are inherently violent, so if they're as violent as Pro says, they need to take into account that everyone has an itchy trigger finger, and if they do anything, said itchy trigger fingers would have the moral high ground, as now there is a reasonable fear for one's life. Unless Fictionland has literally perfect border police interdicting every single bit of contraband, in which case, presumably every other branch of government is so super-efficient that every single citizen could walk down the streets loaded for bear and it wouldn't raise concern because the police are so good at their jobs, there will be contraband guns readily available anyway. Thank you. References: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil...
As the government of a fictional country, we should ban sales of firearms for civilian use

Firearms are a big hazard to the lives of the people of Fictionland when it can be bought like groceries. Using real world events to provide some basis, the people of the USA have recently been shocked by the shootings in San Bernadino and the attacks in Florida, where a young 22-year old celebrity was murdered and at least 6 innocent people of the LGBT society were killed. The opposition would lead you to believe that background checks are carried out on people before they are allowed to purchase a firearm. However, there are many dangerous firearms that can be bought and obtained on the same day as long as you have provided an ID. This was certainly the case in the firearms which were used in the incidents as mentioned earlier. They would also lead you to believe that if everyone had guns, we could potentially save one another. Maybe so in Hollywood movies, but tell this to the kids like the shooting in Connecticut. Even if we were to impose a more rigorous background check procedure in our home of Fictionland, it is impossible to detect every crazy person on the street. The "gay club murderer" who said he was pledged to IS was never even detected by the CIA (arguably the most intelligent agency in the world), and no one had the slightest clue he had the potential to kill in cold blood. By banning the sale of firearms, we are removing the threat of violence. Yes, human beings kill, not guns. But today, we can already agree on nuclear treaties, wearing safety belts and heck, even using condoms. Just because the threat does not actually cause something, it does not mean we would not take protective measures to actually prevent a scenario from happening altogether. This is especially so when people are inherently violent and complicated and you cannot trust everyone to behave in the best of nature. Doing so would be an act of blind innocence. Thank you.
As the government of a fictional country, we should ban sales of firearms for civilian use

Short debate. 2000 characters per round. First round is acceptance. This debate uses judge voting and 7 judges have been nominated. Repeat: First round is acceptance. Definition: Sales of firearms for civilian use refers to freely buying and selling all forms of guns and ammunition in stores around the country. Generally speaking, this is a legal activity in America. However, the context of this debate is a FICTIONAL country. What is excluded from this definition is acquiring a private license to own a gun. This is legal in many countries around the world especially for hunters, lawyers and law enforcers. This is not included in the definition of 'sales of firearms for civilian use' since these people have (arguably) a good reason for owning firearms and their background, job etc. are more rigorously checked and validated than the general public. Looking forward to a good debate.
Common Core is bad for schools

The Common Core system is a set of academic standards in mathematics and the English language arts (S1). Common Core gives public schooling the initiative to properly educate students, and prepare students for college. A lecturer at Boston University says that “One of the broad goals is that the increased rigor of the Common Core will help everyone become college and/or career ready,” (S2).My opponent discredits the Common Core standards by saying that "it values tests over learning," and concludes his argument with a snarky "end of story." Firstly, yes, the Common Core does provide standardized testing. However, the Common Core uses these tests to measure the skills of different public schools, and motivates students to improve in contextual learning and critical thinking (S3). Also, it prepares students for other standardized tests such as the PSAT and SAT.Personally, I have found that, over the years, the Common Core and Common Core Standardized Testing has helped me tremendously. It has pushed me to study more vocabulary, improve on document analysis and critical thinking, and prepare better for the PSAT and SAT.Sources:S1) http://www.corestandards.org...S2) http://neatoday.org...S3) http://time.com...
Common Core is bad for schools

While Common Core does set standards for students, many of these standards are not right. Common Core math is overcomplicated, using the method of grouping numbers for basic addition problems which is not the best approach for teaching second graders. There is no need to continue using a system of education that was never peer reviewed and is becoming increasingly unpopular. Common Core brings the American education system down. It is simply something that looks good on paper but not in practice.
Abortion should be illegal.

1. It doesn't matter for how long we've done it, it's still wrong. Jesus Christ, you libs really like to pull up history a lot. So what that a hundreds( and even thousands) ago we did abortions? Back the then the world was in a lot worse shape than we are now. Now, everyone has equal rights. Much of this stuff in the first paragraph does not even matter to us right now. 2.I don't understand how it's the our fault for women getting an illegal abortion, it's illegal. If a woman is pregnant, and is not our fault. It is not our responsibility to make sure a woman does not get pregnant, it's the woman's. Like I saw a little down the page, the woman knows the risk, yet takes it anyway. 3.It is not oppression, and it's not a woman's right. If a woman does not want to have a baby, why is she having sex in the first place? It is not my fault women want to have sex, they KNOW the risk of getting pregnant, they KNOW the ways to prevent it, and the best way is called abstinence. It's not that hard for a woman to not have a child. 4.Actually, the rates of contraception prevalence is significantly higher than what most people think. The rate of contraception prevalence is at a solid almost 80%, but if people would use protection CORRECTLY, it would be even higher. The rate of women getting unwanted pregnancies and NOT using contraception is at a 10.6%.And I didn't see the USA on that statistics chart. These are all from third world or countries in a much worse situation than we are.