BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Leave gun rights the same

You can keep guns as long as you have a legal permit or license.. but anyways. Gun's provide great risks to the owner and those around them. How can the government be sure that the owner of the gun is in the right state of mind to keep the gun. There are no tests to see if a person is fit to do so. Things that could go wrong with a person possessing a gun is when a person tries to rob a store or someone, hurt those living in their homes or those around them, and/or hurt them self. Now, I know people would like a gun for reassurance and for something that may save them in a situation. But in a situation when you think you may need to use a gun, if a person is seemingly following you, or a person seems to want to rob the store you are in, most people are quick to act but not in the right way. For example: You've probably heard of Trayvon Martin, a teenage boy who was shot by George Zimmerman, part of a neighbourhood watch. He thought Trayvon Martin had a gun in his pocket. Key word: Thought. He hurt Trayvon Martin with his gun and killed him when all that was in his pocket turned out to only be a can of arizona and a bag of skittles. Zimmerman was quick to act but not in the right way. If this accident happened with George Zimmerman, an honored member of the neighborhood watch and an adult. What may happen? Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.businessweek.com...
Teachers should be allowed to hug kids not in a sexual way.

Please don't forfeit, it ruins the debate. As I was saying, even though many schools are against this, they would label things not accurately. For example: there was a 6 year old boy that got charged with sexual harassment for kissing his "girlfriend" on the hand and she was ok with it. It would make sence as long as the teacher doesn't touch her pupils rear end, it should be allowed.
Teachers should be allowed to hug kids not in a sexual way.

I see that the action can be labeled wrong by many people, but there is a big difference between hugging a student around the back and hugging a student near their rear end. And 80 percent of the time catholic schools allow hugs to student in a non sexual way. There has even been public schools on the news stateing that they allow hugs. If some schools do allow it, I think the schools that don't allow it should ask themselves why is it not ok to give a hug not in a sexual way?
Teachers should be allowed to hug kids not in a sexual way.

I accept the Challenge.I am strongly against this. This propasal of teachers not being allowed to hug a pupil, has been put in place because it has happened before. The classroom enviorment nowadays is poor and you always get one or two 'picky pesky rats' who will jump on the first opportunity to get someone into trouble. If a teacher hugs a pupil then it puts them in real bad position and potentially puts them at risk of suspension. For example i take this from a teachers: Do's and Dont's ACT 1999: It states; This is Sexual Harassment! -Asking questions about a student’s, supervisee’s, advisee’s, or employee’s personal sex life. -Refusing to stop sexual remarks when asked. -Overusing sexualized content in teaching, such as frequent sexual examples to illustrate more general points in class. -Making personal sexual comments to students, supervisees, advisees, or employees. -Unwanted touching of students, supervisees, advisees, or employees.
Are you socially engineered? That's good, I guess. However, you're not unique, so you don't matter.

The title of this debate asked a question and Con answered. Pro disagrees with Con but failed to present the Burden of Proof (BoP) that Con's answer is a lie or demonstrate otherwise. Pro also claimed that Con is “not unique” and “don't matter.” Again Pro failed to convince Con by such claim due to the lack of BoP.Pro feels “we are metaphysical creatures,” where Con understands we are also physical creatures in a physical universe. We are a way for nature to see and experience itself. We enjoy the discovery of the Laws of Nature via the scientific method. Engineers' uses those physical Laws to develop physical infrastructures in technology, food production, and medicine. Even Tesla made contributions to technology and played a part to make Debate.com work. That reality, is not metaphysical. All those who contribute in making this world a better place to live, via improving the standard of living, are all “unique” and do “matter.” Yes, that includes Tesla.In closing, Con finds Pro “unique,” and also, Pro does “matter.”
Are you socially engineered? That's good, I guess. However, you're not unique, so you don't matter.

You are socially engineered. People that take things literally and base things off of society's reality is socially engineered. You do not think outside of the box. There's no freedom for your thoughts, hence why you take things literally and have no respect for poetry and the realism within allusions that are far stronger in expression than simply taking everything on a physical level. We are metaphysical creatures - learn your place.
Are you socially engineered? That's good, I guess. However, you're not unique, so you don't matter.

According to Pro, Con is one of all humanity who is “not unique” and one that does not “matter.” On the other hand, and with all due respect to Nikola Tesla, Pro referenced Tesla as “one of the smartest minds” as if Tesla is unique and matters. But how could that be? Tesla, like all humans according to Pro, are "socially engineered ... not unique," and "don't matter." So why would Pro reference Tesla? He must be unique and does matter, why single Tesla out from all who don't matter? Thank you Tesla, for proving Con's argument, the title of this debate, does not matter.
Are you socially engineered? That's good, I guess. However, you're not unique, so you don't matter.

You are literal-minded - being literal-minded is the epitome of regression. Nikola Tesla, one of the smartest minds to ever live, warned us about this, himself. Evidence is shown by this in particular: -The implied Pro's title response to Con is, "That's good, I guess." Con is pleased that Pro finds my answer "good." - This is incorrect. When we communicate, we can say yes, while meaning no or vice versa; we can emphasize words; we can allude and imply; we can use inanimate objects as examples for animate object behavior; we can create distinctions; we can use reverse-psychology; we can communicate our point of view, another person's point of view, a dog's point of view or even imagine what it may be like from an ant's point of view. Therefore when I said "That's good", I was alluding to the fact that you think it's good, so I'll say it's "good" simply to get your hopes up and crush them at the same time. Everything else has been taken literally by you (don't matter; dark matter;). I am a man that is beyond the literal-minded era. When you discuss with me, you will understand the difference between what is a parable and what is practical. Otherwise, you have failed to understand the context of my argument, thus rendering you a liability to our discourse. When I speak, you will understand me like you would while reading someone's literature - the message may be covered in a world of dragons, castles, magical powers, but all of that is really emphasizing what is otherwise a mundane message. So for an example, when someone says a person is a vampire, they do not mean an actual vampire - they mean the person's characteristics are very similar to a vampire - more over, the vampire is a dream symbol; the dream world is a system of subconscious symbols; these symbols represent parts of our reality, therefore if you're going to argue with me, you're going to need to need to learn how to distinguish reality from poetry.
Are you socially engineered? That's good, I guess. However, you're not unique, so you don't matter.

Hello Aerogant (Pro), it is my (Con) pleasure to explore your logic, highlighted in the title of this debate, why Con is “… not unique, so you [Con] don't matter.” I'll start with the title's imbedded question, “Are you socially engineered?” The answer is NO! Con is not “socially engineered!” The implied Pro's title response to Con is, “That's good, I guess.” Con is pleased that Pro finds my answer “good.” Con takes issue with Pro, by the fact that Con is genetically “unique.” Relative to the phrase, “so you [Con] don't matter,” is not true, for Con does matter in this debate; otherwise, Pro will be debating with a wall, an object that cannot generate “words,” or generate “thoughts,” or generate “actions,” or have any “desires,” no “lifestyle,” no “friends,” perhaps, fire may be its “enemy.” Pro said Con is “dark matter,” this is a false statement. Con, like Pro, gives off radiant infrared energy that is visible with an infrared camera. With that said, Con accepts this debate, just to find out what Pro's game is. By doing so, Con is looking forward to a learning experience.
Are you socially engineered? That's good, I guess. However, you're not unique, so you don't matter.

If you are socially engineered, you cannot think about life; you cannot live life and you cannot define life for yourself or for others. Destroying your ability to create your own experience based on your own analysis destroys your ability to shape yourself, others and the world. It's the same thing as having someone else do the work for you - in this case, however, you're being spoon fed complacency. Opinions of yours will not matter, for they are not yours - you cannot argue them more than what those who had lead you could provide. This renders your humanity obsolete - humans live; humans think; humans fight; humans love - you do not live; you do not think; you do not fight; you do not love because you do not live; you do not think and you do not fight. So you're nothing. Your words are nothing. Your thoughts are nothing. Your actions are nothing. Your desires are nothing. Your lifestyle is worth nothing. Your friends are nothing. Your enemies are nothing. You are the result of never becoming - you cannot be anything without a beginning; there's no beginning to your story, so there's no middle or an end to it either. You are dark matter - you're just "there". Wasting flesh and matter for what? The cowardice in believing others over yourself - then attacking those who address your sheep-mentality, while you let your rulers shear you, but will not for the life of you let people that are trying to save you near you. Why? Because you assume that since shearing doesn't hurt, it's friendly - when truth hurts, it has to be the enemy.
The three little pigs are criminals

Your Honour, the Plaintiff makes some controversial statements concerning the circumstances.The Pigs acted in Self defence, as the Wolf was breaking into their house. They had the Legal obligation to defend themselves from an unknown threat in there home, regardless. The Deceased Vandalized and destroyed TWO domains of the Pigs, contempt to destroy the third, Attempted to Eat all three, and broke into my Clients house.I Believe it"s fair to say who is in the wrong.Your Honour, I've provided you and the Jury with sufficient evidence to support and defend my Clients. Case Closed.
The three little pigs are criminals

The pigs did not do a minor death but a major and horrible death. The wolf was NOT breaking private property because the pigs only just decide that their going to build a so called 'house' and so it is not private property. The wolf gave them a warning to get out of their 'house' but the pigs rejected the offer' so it is the pigs fault. The wolf was not stalking the pigs. You have most likely experienced someone chasing you and that is not stalking. No where in the story does it say that the wolf was trying to kill the pigs so there was no attempted murder. Lastly, the pigs have no right to eat the big animal as itis disrestpectful and harming nature. It is already bad enough that the pigs killed the wolf, but the pigs EATING the wolf is disrespectful and unfair to the wolf. To sum up, the pigs had no council permission for THREE houses especially how the material was insufficent, they DID murder a wolf and disrespected it horribly by eating it and thats final!
The three little pigs are criminals

Order in the Court! Order in the Court, God Damn it! The Plaintiff makes incorrect and illogical statements, given the nature of the Wolfs intrusion.Yes, the pigs committed a Minor Misdemeanor by constructed houses without a permit, but the Deceased Defendant was guilty of attempted Murder!The Deceased had no right to destroy the pigs property, and to threaten harm to them. My Clients also wish to state they have the right to defend themselves!Your Honour, my clients DID NOT murder that wolf! The deceased Illegally and without warning attempted to break in to the Pigs house, so my Clients acted wisely and lit the Fireplace in self defense.The Wolf is guilty of the Following charges.Attempted MurderDefacing of Private PropertyVandalismAttempted Break and EnterStalkingAll these added up outweigh the Charge of no building permit pointed out by the Plaintiff.
The three little pigs are criminals

The three little pigs built houses without council's permission. By doing that they are breaking the law which make them criminals. The wolfs words "I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house in" were only words to try and scare the pigs away, they were not words that meant that the wolf wanted to kill the pigs. Vandalism doesnt have anything to do with the wolf blowing down the houses and so I object that argument. The pigs burn, cook and kill the wolf. This is crime as they are murdering an animal and just living happily ever after.
The three little pigs are criminals

Your Honour, My clients are innocent of 1st degree murder. sure, they erected houses without a building permit, but the deceased was intent on Eating them! These are the Deceased last words, and I quote" I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house in"Vandalism in the highest degree! Not only was the deceased intent on eating them, but on house defamation and Vandalism!My clients acted in self defense, and did not murder that Wolf!
Harry Potter should not be banned.

I will begin by thanking my opponent for a very fluent and coherent argument, that has been well delivered and is worthy of respect. However, as this is the rebuttal round, it is my unfortunate duty to now diligently work to tear the said argument apart. Con begins by stating that the Harry Potter books advocate racism. In my understanding of the texts, this is completely incorrect. Reference to blood superiority is often made, that much is true. Yet, throughout the series, it's constantly shown that the protagonists feel that this is unacceptable behaviour. When Draco Malfoy refers to Hermione as a "filthy little Mudblood" (1) she is immediately backed up by Ron, and later supported by Hagrid. The idea that Muggles are seen as inferior is again a generalisation, as whilst antagonistic characters like Voldemort and Grindelwald obviously support this ideology, it is made clear that they are wrong. The villains are plainly not mean to be the role models for children, that is the job of the heroes. It is also worth mentioning that the racist ideas are proven wrong, as Hermione, a Muggle-born, is the most accomplished Witch of her age. Whilst some people call Mr Weasley racist, I rather feel that he is simply naive and fascinated, like a curious child asking why different people look different and have different skin colours. Con then goes on to argue against witchcraft. However, they appear to have missed the fact that the lessons in Defence Against the Dark Arts ARE entirely for defence. For example, during the Duelling Club (1), students are taught only disarming charms, not the spells they will be defending against. My opponent may point out the lesson on the Unforgivable Curses (2), however it is worth noting that this lesson is not being taught by the Hogwarts curriculum or even a member of the Hogwarts staff, but rather by a Death Eater impostor. Therefore, your analogy should read that they teach people how to stop a bullet from a terrorist's gun, unless they have a sadistic, psychopathic and evil teacher. Finally Con argues about disobedience. I would firstly say obedience is not always a good thing. It breeds indoctrination, conformity and promotes authoritarian control. However I would also point out that in the series, disobedience is often punished. When they steal Mr Weasley's car (1) they are almost expelled. When they are caught out of bed with Hagrid and Norbert (3), they are given detention in the Forbidden Forest. When Harry breaks the law for using a Patronus charm outside of school (4) he is expelled and has a disciplinary hearing. Therefore disobedience is not entirely advocated, but neither is it shied away from in a real world that honestly, in my humble opinion, needs more of it. I will once again thank my opponent and await their rebuttal to my Round Two arguments. Good luck, and let's remain civil, which we appear to have been able to so far. Sources (1) Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2) Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (3) Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
Harry Potter should not be banned.

Harry Potter should be banned by government legislation due to it's promotion of unethical and immoral concepts such as racism, witchcraft, and disobedience. Racism is a tricky subject, as it may appear the book is friendly toward house-elves, but there is much discrimination towards "Muggles" and "Mudbloods", with it constantly being reinforced throughout the book the they're the inferior race! Witchcraft is a rather obvious one, as practicing the dark arts is literally an entire CLASS in the series. I know it's intended for defense, but that's like telling kids today "This is how Terrorists get their weapons, now you can defend against them." Now on to the disobedience, Harry and his friends have disobeyed their teachers, parents, and others several times. When they miss the train, Harry and Ron STEAL MR. WEASLEY'S CAR. When instructed to stay out of the restricted section, they merely use the invisibility cloak to steal the book they want. There's also the use of the "Marauder's map", which encourages bad behavior, making it's user swear they're "Up to no good" before using it. Harry Potter clearly has a negative impact on society, and as such is already banned in China.[1] I eagerly await the next round of debate and thank everyone who is partaking in this debate, from the pro to the voters. Sources [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... Any references to the books can be found in the books, if the specific book is wanted or a source for a fact, post in the comments. (Pro you can just ask in your next argument)
Harry Potter should not be banned.

I look forwards to having an interesting discussion with them. Their query has been addressed in the comments section as promised. I hope that they are satisfied with my ruling. I do not believe that the reading and viewing of the Harry Potter books and films should be banned by government legislation, and this is for several reasons. Firstly, I believe that people have a right to engage in any form of entertainment that they choose, assuming that it is not in violation of another's basic rights. In the UK, we have a law stating that adults have an express legal right to choose their own entertainment (1). I believe that the banning of Harry Potter by the government would heavily infringe upon this right, and that such an action would thereby be immoral. I also argue that Harry Potter is a much loved franchise, and that banning it could have serious repercussions. Harry Potter has countless fans worldwide (2) and therefore any attempt to ban the franchise would be faced with a stout opposition. This could result in mass violence and anger, as rallies would be near impossible to avoid. One can almost picture a large group of Potter fans massing between platforms 9 and 10 of King's Cross Station, angrily waving books in the face of distraught police. This is a situation best avoided. It could also result in some form of black market, leaving the revenues that rightfully belong to Rowling and the Warner Brothers in the hands of crime lords and the like. I also believe that Harry Potter spreads a good message to people, and especially children. It teaches about acceptance, especially through the included themes of racial equality and diversity (3). It also gives children characters to which they can relate, especially throughout the difficult years of puberty, and shows them how even the most unlikely of people has the ability to change the world. It shows the value of friendship and bravery, loyalty and hard work. The tale of "The Half-Blood Prince" teaches children that redemption is valid, whatever evils a person may have committed, and teaches them mercy. I would finally state that Harry Potter is a perfectly entertaining franchise and that banning it would cost us a lot of fun. I look forwards to seeing my opponent's argument and wish them the best of luck. Sources (1) See the Law of England and Wales (2) . http://www.marketplace.org... (3) See JK Rowling's Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. See whole franchise for reference to "Mudbloods/Muggle-borns and Wizarding Superiority.