BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun rights

That is in fact my very point. And yes, Hoover was a fan of gun laws. Before Franklin was elected to replace Hoover as president and fix the damage that Hoover had done, Hoover had adopted(more like put in place) restrictions on gun usage. Hence disarmament. Times are changing? What, may I ask, is your theory on how the US and its' citizens will react when Obama takes away all of our guns? Many people will be unhappy. Several already are. Facts and accounts have shown, that gun restrictions are already having an impact on our society. These restrictions have, indeed, led to a higher rate of robberies than before these gun laws. The murder rate too, has increased. What do you think will happen if the only protection that anyone is allowed to have and use in their own home is just suddenly stripped away?
Gun rights

Hmm... Hi, I'm Nyx, and I will be arguing this debate with you. :) Since you didn't really specify the BOP or the format of the debate, I'm just going to play it by ear. So, first off, I would like to point out that I'm pretty sure that this sentence is weirdly formatted "I argue the point that gun laws should not be restricting". Restricting what? And the purpose of gun laws is to be restricting, that's the whole idea of gun laws. You could say, I think that we should do away with restricting gun laws, or you can say we should do away with gun laws since they are restricting our freedom. Just pointing that out... :). And also, I would like to challenge you on how you said "Our president is practically forcing us into disarmament like Herbert Hoover." Hoover was a fan of gun laws? I didn't think he was that kind of guy since Hoover was republican. I concede that the second amendment clearly states that we have the right to bear arms, but the times have changed. Amendments are repealed. Look at the eighteenth amendment, the prohibition of alcohol. That was a terrible idea, and so we repealed it. Con, times have changed, and now in this day and age, there are a lot of crazies out there, crazies who, in their insanity, could kill someone, or a lot of people with the pull of a trigger. Just a simple finger twitch, and boom, someone's dead. A gun ban, or more restrictive gun laws, could limit the number of guns in circulation, therefore making it harder for someone to obtain a gun, and maybe saving lives.
You just lost The Game.

With only 15 minutes between arguments, I can't tell if I have time to read links or not. If the link is an essay that goes on and on, I won't have time to read it before posting! But at the moment in time, I am playing a game of monopoly with my wife, but I am winning so it isn't possible for me to have just lost, though it is possible I might lose some time in the future. But I don't know of any other games of which I am playing, unless I left my playstation on...nope. So which game?
should you have to pass high school to get into a good job

I disagree with my opponent. My opponent states that you are not intelligent if you pass out of highschool that is an untrue claim. My opponent also states it is unlikely to get a job at a huge company and you will no do so well for yourself. History would tell us otherwise. Dave Thomas is the founder of Wendy's. He was a highschool dropout. Wendy's is the third largest burger chain in America. I would say he did okay for himself. Thus, in order to start up your own restaurant chain would take some if not a lot of intelligence. To be the CEO is a good job and if it is the 3rd largest burger chain in America the job is at a huge company. THus, my opponent is wrong. My personal favorite is Quentin Tarantino. Quentin Tarantino built up his film knowledge by working in a video rental store in Manhattan Beach, California. He quit going to Narbonne High School in Harbor City, California in his freshman year. Being a successful director and making a ton of money I would say once again he did okay for himself. The resolution has been negated and so have the lack of opposing arguments. Thank you vote neg :)
It is more desirable to vote for me than to vote for my opponent

1. Better at debating While I do agree that you have a very high elo. I will say that you are a good debater, but this does not make my ability any worse. This is my first debate, but I am not a nunexpeirienced debater. you with have to trust me on this next point. I am currently on my schools debate team. I have won a round 8 of the 10 debates so far and one of the best debaters on my team. I have read around 70 or more debates on here in the last few days. 2. More desirable user. This is simply an opinion. To some you may be a more desirable user but to others you are not. While it is true that you have posted on forums many many times. This does not mean I simply do not care, but it so happens that I have looked through al the education, society, and arts forums. Sadly I have only found out about website recently, so my numbers are very low. 3. Name This is just an observation but you have a name in which certain people may dislike.
It is more desirable to vote for me than to vote for my opponent

Now that we've gotten that out of the way...Why I Am More Desirable to Vote For Than My Opponent1. I'm empirically a better debater.It's more likely that I am warranted to win this debate namely because I'm good. Not to toot my own horn, but it's solid fact that I've been warranted to win ninety-five percent of the debate's I've participated in. Currently, my Elo is 4,658--more than twice the average Elo---and I am on the front page of the Debate.org leaderboard[1]. On top of this, my win-loss record is 60-3-3, my three losses only being from unstructured or joke debates, such as-A) a haiku battle, andB) a debate where I defended the position that my opponent would win the debate anyway.Whereas my opponent has failed to participate in a debate thus far, leaving her Elo at an intimidating zero.2. I'm an overall more desirable user.This one is admittedly a bit difficult to prove. What makes a user "desirable," anyway? This question can be best answered on Debate.org by measuring commitment to the site and relations to other users. The only fair way for the voters to decide upon those factors is to be presented with basic statistics:Forum Posts:Pro: 3200 Con: 0Duration of Membership:Pro: One year.Con: Six days.Friends:Pro: 198Con: 2The numbers speak for themselves. My commitment to the site has already proven exceptional, while my opponent's is yet to be proven.For these two reasons, and more which I will present later, it is more desirable to vote for Pro than to vote for my opponent.Source[1] http://www.debate.org...;
It is more desirable to vote for me than to vote for my opponent

First off, let's establish that I'm nice enough to not burden my opponent with having to present an argument this round, as I am letting this round be counted as a tie....Which is my way of saying I got busy. Please do not vote based on this round. I ask that my opponent not present any arguments until later on, and I promise that Spring Break will give me enough time to keep this awesomeness going.
is this story to confusing? or readable

Despite this, I think it is something I can at least reply to and so have 'accepted this debate'. My immediate knee-jerk reaction to this story was to look rather confused, and attempt to figure out what it was you were saying, however after a second (and third) reading, I think I understand the general consensus. As you have created this debate as Pro, however have not stated what Pro is regarding this debate, I will assume you are simply asking a question and not posting a position. If this is incorrect, I ask that you correct me in the second round and I will attempt to rectify my response. Regarding
is this story to confusing? or readable

...Hypnotic Gaze Of Green Gem Snake Eyes... Stage 1. The portal entrance on winter rose mountain, into the dark of snake maze. no one has ever died in snake maze, although many have come close to death at the silent white and black snakes hiding in the noises of falling winter rose leafs, and slithering in darkness of the maze. Stage 2. A microscopic lightning strike from the center of a spider trophy. caught in a spiders sticky web, in a tunnel with stone columns of snakes with fear full eyes, and the light of a cave exit at its end, a giant spider reveals it self and offers you a choice, it says you must go back into snake infested tunnels, or jump from the edge of the cliff at the end of the tunnel, but if you free me from my chains with your sword, and help me escape in a jump from the edge, to land on the ground camouflaged mattress, i might be able to get us down without having to jump, and i will grant you a power to control flames and become engulfed in them, a body of ancient fire. stage 3 and 4 in progress.
Questions for Christians (2)

1) Is Anne Frank in hell ? 2) How about other kids? If a boy dies at age 3, and he comes from a Muslim family, does he go to hell? 3) How can you be sure Ra (Egyptian God and the first monotheistic one) doesn't exist? 4) According to Christianity, hell is for non-Christians, and is supposed to be a very evil place, to make people suffer. It doesn't matter what they did. It doesn't matter what they believed, it doesn't matter who they really were. It's just like Hitler's death and concentration camps. Do you think it's moral to believe in a Nazi God ? 5) What is your #1 reason you believe in the Christian God? 6) If non-Christians go to hell anyway, does it matter what they do with their lives? Can you see an old Islamic man raising money to help the poor people in the neighborhood and say: what does it matter, he's going to hell anyway? 7) Do mountains have a life meaning? How about monkeys? How about babies? 8) Do you have non-Christian friends or loved ones? If no, why? If yes, how can you believe in a religion that tells you these are evil people who will be going to hell? 9) Are earthquakes, tornadoes, accidents etc. are caused by God? And if yes, why are there earthquakes, tornadoes and accidents? 10) If God has a master plan, why bother praying? 11) Does God talk or talked to you? 12) If god told you to kill your son/daughter/mother, would you do it? 13) If god told you to kill me, would you do it? 14) If you were born in Syria, do you think you would be a Muslim or a Christian? 15) If someone would have hurt you, would you hurt him or his newborn child? Because God, according to the bible, punished David's newborn son, because David slept with his mother while married to another man. (some claim he even raped her).
Questions for Christians (2)

This won't be a classical debate, but will be a series of 35 questions to a Christian that will apply, and accepts these foundations for himself: -I believe in God -I am a Christian -I think everything the bible says is true -I believe in heaven and hell -I believe heaven is reached through salvation (meaning only believing Christians go to heaven and all believing Christians go to heaven) -I believe Christianity is moral. I am an atheist, and I am trying to understand the Christian logic and morality, and I would thank very much whoever accepts this debate.
should there be a limit to how much violence is shown on tv to children

Ok this is the last round. DEFENSE 1.Anti-Bullying Ok you say that these anti-bullying shows would be able to stay but that would be going against your own argument. You say that ALL shows that contain violence will be banned. This would say that these shows with bullying in them even with the opposite idea of violence would be banned still. 2.Resolution For this I think that this is also a false accusation because a lot of people who watch movies and tv shows want to watch how the problem is solved. If you don't there is no point in watching the show. Ok, to my challenger I wish us both good luck
should there be a limit to how much violence is shown on tv to children

refutes 1. Anti-Bullying i dont think you understand what im tryings to say like when you said if this challenge were implemented in the actual world that would be taing away those shows . what im trying to do is stop violence not the anti bullying shows so those shows can stay just other show which contain violence. 2. Resolution you say all shows with violence 9 out of 10 shows have a resolution that is correct and false at thee same time because those 9 out of 10 shows resolution dont come until the end of the series making by then the children which we speak about have a short attention span to move on and who says they just dont pay attention to it i mean be honest what would they rather see two people talking about how sorry they are or them punching there faces let the kids decide.defending1. Understanding i had actually said if there is no shows with violent there would be no need for bullying and if bullying come from various reason no matter what you say it always ends with violent or sometimes starts with it so these shows will come in handy but there really isn't a need.2. Violence U say that but who are you to tell how each kid process information given so you wuldnt know the way they view it not you and there are some parents who pay little attention to what there kids watch because of many reason with the world being so busy.here they are now lets see what you got.
should there be a limit to how much violence is shown on tv to children

Ok since my friend didn't listen. I will refute his arguements now he will refute next round and i will defend my arguements on my last round. If he wants to he can refute and defend in the next round. REFUTES: 1.Understanding In this section you say if there were no shows with bullying, people won't need anti-bullying shows. This is a false accusation. Bullying and other forms of violence happen all around the world for various reasons, some being family issues. So these shows still will come in handy because they will still need to find out how to handle these conflictions. 2.Violence This section also is a false accusation. Most children should be able to realize that everything they see isn't meant to be copied. If they are under the age of maturity level there parents/guardians should be supervising what the children watch. Ok these are my refutes. Hopefully my challenger follows my debate structure as in above.
should there be a limit to how much violence is shown on tv to children

understanding: I understand what u mean about anti bullying show but do you really think people will even need those shows if violence like that wasn't even exposed to children at a young age not even making them think about a thing of bullying because in there child hood violence like that was never exposed on a daily basis every time they put there eyes in front the TV so on the contrary it will reduce bullying rate. Violence Like l said before there wont even be a need for resolution if violence wasn't expose, lets be real here most of these kid after they come home from school go straight to the TV not even worrying about the contents that it has on and all that contents flowing in there brain and then guess whats next the world on there friends and family until they realize somebody is going to get hurt. World all i have to say last is there is a lot of violence in the world and by this being put into effect that will reduce by 43.7% because the children define the success of society so by helping them now from this exposure to violence are we not helping the world?
should there be a limit to how much violence is shown on tv to children

Ok I thank you for challenging me to this debate. I will start with the argument of anti-bullying shows. 1.Anti-Bullying Shows Ok, so everyone who has a child or has a younger brother or sister you may know of the new anti-bullying segment in Sesame Street. If this challenge were implemented in the actual world that would be taking away those shows. These shows are ment to help kids to help stop bullying. This also brings me to my next point. Article about "The Good Bird's Club": http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2.Resolution All shows with violence 9 out of 10 shows have a resolution that helps stop the violence. So this is also related to the Anti-Bullying Shows argument I had brought up above. If this challenge is implemented this will take away that part of the show where they are shown how to resolve violence. So my challenger is also my friend and this is his first time on this site so make sure next round you refute or argue against my arguements
should there be a limit to how much violence is shown on tv to children

ideas children should not be exposed to the amount of violence that is shown because some kids like to mimic of some shows which can lead to potential thoughts of those vilent act such as bulltying another.injuries : kids can become who have wild imagination will believe any thing they might see on tv making them attempt what they had seen such as a karate move that had been used on a friend because it was "done on tv" making me think i can do it, it will not only put another friend in danger but your self who might mess up the move thus hurting your self.future: if a child is exposed to so much violence on tv and has now become a adult those episode of wacky cartoon going out there way to hurt another are now clicked in your brain making you a victim of violent thoughts in your head even though it was just something silly like tom and jerry taking a giant hammer and wacking one another and evrey thing come out peachie but taking a gun and killing an innocent human being and takeing there life and then waiting in prison for thing to become peachy just like in the cartoon.
Sexual Education Should be Taught in Schools

Thank you! I think this has been my best debate. Rebuttals: 1. "[Close relatives can better] explain what "sex" means or entails." Sexual meaning and sexuality in general is fluid. People have the right to their own opinions and actions regarding how their sexualities should be expressed. It is important to know basic information, and some parents might only tell their point of view, saying that some activities are 'wrong,' while schools would have to follow an unbiased curriculum. 2. "Professionally educated teachers may increase immorality among students in a misguided attempt to educated them about sexual anatomy." Dictionary.com defines immorality as "sexual misconduct[1]." That is also legally called sexual assault. There is no direct connection between learning about reproductive organs and immorality increases. If you have a valid source for this, please provide it. 3. "Home education students score higher on standardized tests and receive a more competent education without professional educators." While that may be true, this is not a debate on whether or not homeschooling in general is beneficial. If a parent has consciously sent a child to a public school, they're most likely relying on that to educate their students. If we leave sexual education up to the parents, there is no guarantee they will get taught about sexual health. 4. "When one educator attempts to impart their view of sexuality to students, that is based on their faith and morals." Teachers at public schools are legally required to follow a curriculum with only a little flexibility[2]. It would defiantly be illegal if their lesson plan was anything that strayed far from fact. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... also http://definitions.uslegal.com... [2] http://edglossary.org... Closing paragraph: Sexual education is a must that decreases the rick of unwanted results caused my sexual activities. Children need to receive it on some basic level so they can understand how their bodies work and how to keep them safe. The only way to ensure kids get that education is to require it to be taught.
Sexual Education Should be Taught in Schools

Having a clear, direct, and purely factual sexual education program in our nation"s public middle and high schools would be beneficial to the kid"s and their parents lives[1]. Middle school is about the time, if not a little later, than when puberty typically starts. Puberty is about sexual maturity, and when adult bodies begin to develop[4]. Huge changes take place in the bodies of children of both sexes, such as girls getting their periods and boys getting erections[4], and they need to know what"s happening. In high school, kids going to be exploring their bodies and engaging in sexual activity[3]. Over half of teenagers have had sex by the time they"re out of high school[2]. Abstinence-only schooling or homeschooling doesn"t always work, either[5]. In fact, teen pregnancies are more common in states where sed ed is required to be taught as abstinence-only[7]. An overwhelming majority of teens actually say it would be easier to abstain if parents and teachers would address sex in an open and honest way[6], instead of pretending it is always a beautiful act of love that only adults engage in. If sex ed were more straightforward, honest, and comprehensive, our younger generations would be much safer in their sexual encounters (which would also be less common). Sources: [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.guttmacher.org... [3] http://www.sevencounties.org... [4] http://kidshealth.org... [5] http://www.christianitytoday.com... [6] www.thenationalcampaign.org/resources/pdf/pubs/countering-the-silence-english.pdf [7] http://thinkprogress.org...
Sexual Education Should be Taught in Schools

This debate is about whether or not sex ed should be required to be taught in public middle and high schools. Pro will take the side that it should, and would benefit the children, and Con will argue either abstinence only should be taught, or there should be no sex ed at all. Round one is for acceptance, rules, and format, round two is for arguments only, and round three is for rebuttals and closing statements. Feel free to add definitions from a credible source or ask questions related to a recent argument in the comments. Please keep a polite way of words, and if you forfeit a round, please specify why in the comments. If these rules are broken by either opponent, voters are encouraged to deduct points from their side.
Students Should Get Paid When They Get Good Grades

I understand it would be good for those who benefit from studying, but we have to look at the full picture. Think about those who study hard and try hard on test but still fail. It wouldn't be fair to those students. Also think of the students with mental disorders, they won't get paid as much as a student who never has to pick up their book but always pull off A's. Also taxes would raise a lot! Aren't adults all ready complaining about how high taxes are? Why raise taxes when students will cheat to get the money?
Students Should Get Paid When They Get Good Grades

Education is a value that is well-respected in America. One that has provided many benefits to the American economy. Recently, Education has been declining in America. 40% of Americans are in the middle class. 1% of Americans are wealthy. We can agree that the 40% is less educated than the wealthy 1%. We have to find a way to fix our problem. One can say we should stress education in our society. But we need to create drive for our younger generation. So lets raise funding for schools. People getting an As will get paid the most that they deserve. So instead of a wealthy 1%, there can be a wealthy 20%.
Students Should Get Paid When They Get Good Grades

The average IQ of a student is 100. This means that students have the ability to make As. And so what if there kids that cannot make good grades. Its the effort that counts. Also when someone cheats, it is very easy to get caught. And if your suggesting that the whole school will cheat, than the ability to get caught is high. We can also refuse taxes for other things if we have too. What matters is the greater benefit of our actions. If we can achieve a wealthy 20%, than we should be able to do it.