BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Guns... US

"Criminals wont know if they are attacking an old lady, or an old lady packing a .45 Springfield in her purse."First of all just because a conceal carry law is passed doesn't mean everybody and their sister is going to buy a gun. Second of all it's not like the only people with the guns are old ladies. The criminal attacking her might just as well have a gun (which he is probably more skilled at seeing as he is a criminal.) This law not only lets old ladies have guns, but it lets robbers, thieves, pickpockets, and murderers also carry guns quite easily.Imagine a room with 100 people. It could easily be peaceful with no problem whatsoever. In the most dramatic situation there could be a fist fight. Now imagine giving every single person in this room a gun. What started as a fistfight now turns into a shootout with every single person shooting.Imagine a robber robbing a store with a gun. A civilian now easily can also have a gun. So they might try to take the law into their own hands and try to shoot the criminal. This could turn into a massive shootout and bullets flying everywhere because everyone has a gun that they are shooting http://chartsbin.com... Now look at this chart of murder rates per country per 100,000 people. Some of the lowest murder rates are in countries with the strictest gun control, like Japan(0.45), China(1.21), United Kingdom(1.57), ICELAND(with 0 murders but extremely strict gun control.) Then look at the countries with the highest murder rates, yet have virtually no gun control. Democratic Republic of the Congo(34.99), Venezuela(47.21), Columbia(40) Zimbabwe(34.29). The U.S.(5.22) is arguable about whether it is high or low, but when you look at other countries, you can tell that the murder rate should be much lower.Guns should not only be restricted but they should be banned because what is the point of giving people deadly weapons when you can remove all the deadly weapons. This means remove all weapons from the criminals too. One of my opponents arguments is deterrence. There should be extreme punishment for the posession of a gun. Using deterrence, guns can easily be removed by society.Thank you,SeelTheMan
What is better, Communism or Capitalism

My opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is what really happens. "There is no high class in society, only middle, meaning less poverty, less unemployment. The ideal communist worker will work and act to support the betterment of his community, and put personal interests 2nd. Government tries to get rid of private property and distribute its goods equally." How would you ever enforce this? How would you get rich people to give and live? "These type of economies are also very stable. Meaning no sudden depression." Why have they failed? I am in favor of sharing but I see NO healthy, stable communistic states and I do see that communism stifles creativity
What is better, Communism or Capitalism

What I'm taking from what you've said is that your basically stating an intro the debate. So I'll start off stating my opinion about Communism and Capitalism. Lets start of with economics. There is no high class in society, only middle, meaning less poverty, less unemployment. The ideal communist worker will work and act to support the betterment of his community, and put personal interests 2nd. Government tries to get rid of private property and distribute its goods equally. The government owns the companies, so if production needs to be shifted into a different area, the government is capable of doing it quick. These type of economies are also very stable. Meaning no sudden depression. I await your argument, by telling me your opinion.
What is better, Communism or Capitalism

Let us begin by being clear as to what, we are applying Communism or Capitalism. All "countries" are, "claimed land on a ball in space, with people and that which sustains people" land, water, air, people, peace, maintenance Governing & maintaining a population, so that is does not destroy the rest of the items on the list, in an economically-effective & sustainable way, is the goal. Applying communism comes from a decent impulse inside some of the people but it has not been shown to be effective. Capitalism has many appealing features & can be much more motivating for a significant portion of the population & allows for more job-tailoring. Being that neither is ideal, does it seem wise to list pro & con for each & weigh the list?
U.S. Ctizens Have And Ought To Have The Right To Bear And Keep Arms

1. Should you choose to have me, I will accept your challenge. 2. I do not know what you mean by positive argument as each and every one of these I've looked at (and I've looked at many) simply have an acceptance of the debate in round one and the arguments begin in round 2. However, if this is explained to me, hopefully my response in this round can be erased and I can post a new one.
U.S. Ctizens Have And Ought To Have The Right To Bear And Keep Arms

In this debate, my opponent and I will argue the accuracy of the resolution (The people of the United States have and ought to have the right to bear and keep arms) as it relates to U.S. law. Rules:1.) The first round for Con is: acceptance and a positive argument.2.) As I am the holder of the burden of proof, it stands to reason that Con will not make any positive arguments (one that builds Con’s case, rather than countering mine) in the last round, as I would have no chance to answer them.Important definitions:1.) Right to bear and keep arms: an enumerated right of a U.S. citizen for the personal ownership and use of a firearm. Of course, this is exactly what Con and I will dispute, but for now, this definition will simply give clarity to the meaning of the resolution and the intended result of my argument as Pro (I.e. to prove this definition). 2.) Firearm: A weapon (in this debate, it will be restricted to handguns, long guns, and automatic rifles) capable of firing a lethal projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant. [1]Sources:(1) www.thefreedictionary.com
Animal testing for medical research

I look forward to an excellent debate! Thank you Con. Now, according to your conditions, I have added a brief outline of the contentions I will present to you, as of arguing that animals should be used in medical research, if necessary: While minimizing suffering and pain, animals are very useful in medical research. Medical research using animals is a vital part of advancing both humans' and animals' health. Animals are one of the most common reasons for sickness caused in humans. If we stop animal testing the human race would possibly wipe out due to deaths from sickness; and because of this human beings wouldn't be able to keep control of the reproduction of animals, leading to many of them dying for their own record! Thus, if there wasn't any animal testing humans and animals both would die for their own record, eventually. What if it were your close relative who were sick, would using an animal make any difference? Animals are also killed in the food industry, for food, and the number of animals used in the food industry by far, outweigh the number used in the medical industry. Medical research can’t use any other alternative. There would be many cures not found if we don’t use animal testing. Also, please note, this is a rough outline of the arguments I will present. I may change, add, or not use some of the reasons provided for various reasons (which I don’t know of, as of yet). I do believe that in the next round you will present your arguments in more detail, to which I then rebut on and introduce more arguments. Also, if don't mind me asking, this is the first time I've had a debate where we are to give an outline of the arguments we are going to use? Thank you, and Good luck!
Animal testing for medical research

This opening round is for definitions, acceptance, and a brief outline of contentions only. I'm looking forward to a good debate.RulesStandard debate conventions apply. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored. DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 10,000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3. Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence or make new arguments in R4. R4 is for summarizing the debate and pointing out merits and deficiencies of the arguments rather than introducing new contentions.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted. My Position I will be arguing against the use of animals for the purpose of medical research for the following reasons: Animals possess the right to not be harmed Testing necessitates significant harm to the animals as a result of experimentation Animals are unnecessary variables that are not required for efficacious research to occur Outlawing this practice would facilitate an increase in animal welfare rights Definitions Efficacious-able to effect something: having the power to produce a desired result, especially an improvement[1] Medical Research-the diligent inquiry or examination of data, reports, and observations in a search for facts or principles. [2] Animal-a living organism having sensation and the power of voluntary movement and requiring for its existence oxygen and organic food; animals constitute one of the five kingdom of living organisms.[3] [1]http://www.bing.com... [2]http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... [3]http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
In times of utter despair, the only thing a person can hold onto is the idea of hope.

When things have gone awry, to the point of no return, survival kicks in. This need to survive is based on hope: believing that you can overcome this obstacle, or navigate the turmoil that life throws at you. Hope is also the basis of of inspiration to overcome this obstacle. Hope and survival are essentially the driving forces of your actions when your in trouble. If you don't have any hope and desire to survive, you essentially admit defeat and get nothing done. The only idea that a person needs to hold onto is hope when in trouble. This doesn't necessarily mean remaining stagnant in your progress of overcoming your obstacle and hoping that something will happen, because hope is the driving force of survival in the first place. The statement doesn't say the only thing you can do is hope. It says the only thing you can hold onto is the idea of hope. Holding onto any other contradicting idea (doubt) can result in not overcoming your obstacle.
Should politician be educated

Educated politicians do create an educated environment. It is widely spoken that if a leader is educated , his followers follow suit or at the least to say, such politicians would create an ignition for education. Saying for educated politicians, they would not only encourage people to go in for their education rather they would create a holistic environment where they actually know what problems are and what is to be done and how. Being uneducated would create too much dependency on their secretaries for their materials while being educated would help themselves in what they actually want to speak to the depths of the problems, they may even be able to analyse on their own the problems in the best manner and as not of mere reports of others. Well obviously! Would an educated politician not be able to think in a more specialized manner than being generic in it ? Would such a politician not be felt as RELIABLE by the people ? It ought to be mandatory in each state as a country would then have more of an efficient administration, and who knows not the growth that an effective administration triggers.
Religion ultimately causes unnecessary conflict

My opponent begins by attacking my syllogistic relationship of the religion and the religion and tries to disprove it. However, Religion requires the Religious to even exist: (religious - of religion). If Religion did not exist, there could not be any religious, therefore, religion -> religious. However, the conflict stemming from religion is not utilitarian. In fact, it causes intermittent distress for both sides of the violent conflict, resulting in death and destruction in both sides and both sides at some sort of loss and unhappiness. My opponent then points out the relativity of religious context and that there are both peaceful and aggressive interpretations. However, there could be one violent religious person and a billion peaceful religious people, but the said religion would still ULTIMATELY cause the violence. It is possible to blame YouTube for ultimately causing deaths, but volumes less to blame it for only causing deaths. There is a difference between ultimately causing something and causing something. This difference appears to be misinterpreted by my opponent, but is key to understanding the argument.
Religion ultimately causes unnecessary conflict

== Religion, in and of itself, is not what DIRECTLY starts the conflict. Religious start the conflict BECAUSE of religion. == Now, in the clause, Con specifically stated that "Religion ultimately causes unnecessary conflict". Now, it seems he is more or less back tracking on his statement into a more exclusive indirect approach to religious conflict as such: A causes B B causes C So A indirectly C With A being the religion, B being the religious, and C being unnecessary conflict. The point of my argument is to argue that A does not cause C, because A and B have a loose, and sometimes abstract relationship. Religion, in and of itself, is an institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices, as per our chosen definition of the word. And on the grounds of utilitarianism, I am quick to assume that my opponent understands that the large majority of the worlds populations follows some sort of belief system, ergo, the majority of the world is religious. We see it in Islamic texts about Jihad, a struggle to preserve faith, make community better, and wage holy war. But it is becoming increasingly known to the world that 'holy war', isn't the true interpretation, or, at best, a metaphorical one, depending on whom is cited. Many Islamic scholars claim that the translation relates primarily to political debate and religious debate, rather than an actual militarized conflict. So, here, we have one example of that crazy relationship between religious and their religion. While one side maintains peace and dissent from violence, the other actively uses religious texts to justify it. I heartily doubt that religion is the culprit, but rather, the scapegoat of unnecessary violence. Simply because there is a correlation between religion and unnecessary conflict as we have defined it, does NOT imply that there is a causal relationship, and the Con's choice of defining it as a causal relationship without providing evidence as such is severely unfounded in this regard. He sees the relationship between the two, and rightly so, but fails to see that they are not causal in nature. So the question is restated, does religion and unnecessary conflict have a casual relationship, or is religion merely a scapegoat for religious atrocities, due to it's ability to be interpreted differently. By definition, unnecessary conflict begs for conflict without reason, but merely stating that religious peoples' use of their religion in JUSTIFYING conflict doesn't make religion the cause. Simply because religion is easy to use to justify conflict, with its roots deep in our psychological underpinnings, shows only that it's the good things about religion, love, loyalty, and faith can be twisted and distorted to provide a justification, not a cause, of unnecessary violence.
Religion ultimately causes unnecessary conflict

Religion is defined[1] as a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Unnecessary is defined[2] as "Not needed", and the grounds of what is unnecessary is what is based on utilitarianism: greatest happiness for the greatest number. Conflict, for this debate, is implied to be violent. My opponent initially attacks the objectivity of necessity. However, the most neutral and universal context of necessary is that of utilitarianism and that's what is going to be the criteria of unnecessary; something that causes unhappiness that can be avoided. Utilitarianism will serve as the basis for what is necessary in this argument. If my opponent would like to present his definition of necessary, he may do so and it will plentifully be open for argument, as there are 5 rounds in this debate. Religion, in and of itself, is not what DIRECTLY starts the conflict. Religious start the conflict BECAUSE of religion. Therefore: 1. Religion requires the religious 2. The religious cause conflict 3. Religion causes conflict This syllogism is demonstrates the indirect relationship of religion and conflict. I will assume that my opponent agrees that religion causes conflict. If he disagrees, I look forward to his arguments. My opponent may not, although correctly pointing out, use irreligious conflict as an argument. This is outside the context of the argument, although it is indeed true. Religion is the point at which the cap of a potential ad infinitum is placed. You may say the beautiful properties of the Universe may ultimately cause conflict, but the cap at which it is to be argued is religion and religion only as that is the context of the topic. I look forward to an interesting and a hopefully well-matched debate! [1]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]. http://en.wiktionary.org...
Religion ultimately causes unnecessary conflict

org (Woot, first argument) It would be helpful if the pro would define what they specifically meant by unnecessary conflict, so, in lack of a more personalized definition with which to debate with, I will use a literal definition of the terms, resulting in; UNNECESSARY : not necessary Necessary: of an inevitable nature, and Conflict :a fight, battle, or struggle, esp. a prolonged struggle; strife. (I chose a more physical definition simply due to the fact that a debate in and of itself is a conflict, and I choose not to get into the philosophical ramifications of debating the necessity of debate. =P) If the pro has any opposition to the definition of this term, I ask that they speak out, as it will be the definition I will work with. Lets start: First and foremost, I posit that religion does not cause unnecessary conflict, due to the subjective implications of what people view as necessary. I will not debate that religion does not cause conflict, as that is not the context of the debate, but rather, that simply because a third party views the conflict as unnecessary, doesn't objectively make it so. And as such, I will provide the following two syllogisms : 1. All religions ultimately causes unnecessary conflict 2. All irreligious have no religion thus, 3. All irreligious cause no unnecessary conflict. and 1. Necessity is relative 2. KodyHarris provides a statement on necessity thus, 3. KodyHarris' statement is relative I perceive the first syllogism to be empirically false, as many irreligious conflicts have broken out that many view to be necessary (the cold war, but again, I need the pro to define EXACTLY what unnecessary is), and the first to be true, as via the definition of relativity; (existing or having its specific nature only by relation to something else; not absolute or independent: E. G. Happiness is relative. ) a position that is not absolute, can claim no title to the empirical definition of necessity, as by nature of it's own relativity, Again, Pro, I need you to be more clear on your definitions so I can provide a cogent argument in the Cons defense. Thank you.
The individual does not have free will, everything is pre-determined.

Free Will Argument 1Pro says we don't have free will hes using free will to say we don't have free will. They fact you can disagree with free will, is evidence that free will exists!Free Will Argument 2 If you assume you have free will, and you do, then you can use it to direct your life; thus a huge gain. If you assume you don't have free will, and you do, then you are wasting the only thing over which you have any choice; thus a huge loss. If you assume you have free will, and you don't, there is no loss or gain since you had no choice in the matter. If you assume you don't have free will, and you don't, there is no loss or gain since you had no choice in the matter. Therefore regardless of whether free will exists or not, you should live based on the assumption that you do have free will and that your choices do matter Free Will Argument 3 (Ax. 1) We accept morality on intuitive grounds. (P1) Morality implies rationality. (P2) Rationality implies free will. (C) From (Ax. 1), (P1), and (P2), we conclude free will. Other guys argument Other guy sais since we base actions on emotions we don't have free will. We choose to have these emotions. If Im angry Im chosing to be angry and therefor chosing anything that follows from being angry! The argument dies there. We choose our emotions. If were sad we would choose not to move out the way when a car hits us. We actually do choose in a split second to not get hit by the car!
The individual does not have free will, everything is pre-determined.

Lead us to the pre-determine direction and from there we will debate further. I most of the time get the criticism of lack in evidence and speculation. Well you are an intelligent being so try and figure it out for yourself. I do not use external sources, I simply use what I know now. If you can't prove it wrong just say it.I must add that this is to uncover the truth or at the very least convince the other of her/his wrong.