BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control

In your position you state that the freedom to bear arms violated their right to life. This is a fallacy. It is completely wrong to assume that all gun owners are denying people the right to live. It is not the gun that takes the life, it is the insane person wielding it. Next, why are rights not absolute. They should be. If rights are not absolute then what stops the government from taking all of them. In stating that rights are not absolute you are contradicting your main point that,"Rights will prevail until it hurts for someone's rights." If your rights are not absolute then you have do not have them, including your right to live. This makes your entire argument a fallacy. Your second point is almost as much of a fallacy as your first. So it's the government's job to protect our rights. Well then why are you proposing that the government take away our second amendment rights? Also the second amendment's purpose is to protect the people from the government. One flaw in your thinking is that government is perfect. The government always wants more power. As I pointed out in my first argument, "The first steps all in communist takeovers started with a gun ban. Nazi Germany or Stalin/Soviet Russia." Now for my points. 98% of all shootings happen in gun free zones. People with malicious intent will exploit any means to hurt or kill. This is not the fault of the gun, but once again it is the insane person is is wielding the weapon. We cannot ban guns based on the premise that they kill. Car crashes and drugs kill more people per year than guns. Crime rates are nearly double in cities or states with stricter gun laws. Just look at New York vs. Texas. This is pure fact that proves that the second amendment is absolutely necessary to reduce crime, and lead to a more uplifted society. We can not allow the government to take or regulate our weapons. It would result in in the end a society with no rights, lots of crime, and general unhappiness.
Gun Control

Rights will prevail until it hurts for someone's rights. ( Harm principle ) Ladies and Gentlemen : This is the stance which I am going to prove throughout this debate. Even the opposition had agree that freedom to have a gun is a right which enshrined by the constitution. But in this debate I base my arguments on mainly two burdens. 1) Rights are not absolute & those can be limited according to the necessity 2) Its government's legitimate duty to protect its people ( paternalism ) and their rights : mainly right to life which is violated because of not controlling guns
Gun Control

Gun control is a bad idea, and unconstitutional. In the second is reads,"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Not the last sentence NOT BE INFRINGED. It is important to keep the second amendment, and follow it original idea. Without this in place we would become a communist society. What would stop a government takeover when there is not armed people to oppose it. The first steps all in communist takeovers started with a gun ban. Nazi Germany or Stalin/Soviet Russia. This is why gun control is intelligent, and should not be heeded.
morality is a gift that fits the century

Morality cannot be a "gift that fits the century" as the statement makes no logical sense. In order for the statement "Morality is a gift that fits the century" to be true, "Morality" must be truth apt, it must be cognitive. Beyond that, if it is cognitive, it must also be shown to be true. My opponent hasn't provided ANY evidence that it is cognitive or, if it is cognitive, that it is true. Now, to support noncognitivism via emotivism: When someone says that X is "wrong", "unethical", "bad", etc. they are saying it because: 1) They have a negative emotional response to X 2) They hold a desire in which X conflicts 3) They were told that X is wrong In the case of 1 or 2 (while ignoring 3) you will find that people without negative feelings towards X or without a desire in which X conflicts will not say that X is "wrong". In the case of 3 you will find that they cannot actually say WHY X is wrong, or if they can they will not understand it (as they are just answering the question with something they were told, not something they believe). This means that moral statements can best be thought of as statements of emotion or desire (even if those emotions and desires are not your own). This is why we see so many people making different moral claims, especially when they were raised in different ways. It is a reflection of emotions and desires, and thus is noncognitive. I could go on to support the case, or even try and make a better one, but my opponent made NO case, and so even a crappy case in favor of my position is all that is needed in this debate.
Ban junk food from schools.

okay now I have repented, and now I will talk about my last reason. The fact that freedom of choice should be given in a freely manner like that is too much. Why would there be a need for the choice of Junk food in school when the junk can be changed to something like Healthy pizza and baked potato? They are still pretty good tasting without all the added calories and cholesterol. Junk food really doesn't have any beneficial nutrients,and f there is,there are so many better foods to substitute it. Fats are essential to the body you may say,and yes,I agree. Therefore the processed,non-natural oils found in junk food should be thrown away and changed to something like almonds. That way,the junk food is actually not needed in systems) The end
Ban junk food from schools.

They wont feel guilty as if they have been getting junk food then schools suddenly take it away then it becomes something they will try to get which could cause them getting in to trouble for.Having the junk food with the healthy food is supposed to teach the students a lesson in healthy eating, everything in moderation. Sure junk food tends to have more fat and sugars than say bananas, but if you eat only bananas, you miss out on some nutrients, same goes for an all junk food diet. Teachers, administration and lunch ladies should be educating students about healthy eating at school.Junk food should not be banned because if kids want to eat junk food they can. The parents decide what the children eat, Not the principle! The principle is not the parent of the children. If parents ok it and let the kids have it in moderation it is ok. Just because a kid eats some junk food doesn't mean they will get chunky fat.Students should be smart enough to know that too much of any kind of food is going to make you gain some extra pounds. Junk food isn't good for you, but it also won't necessarily kill you, if in moderation. Students who study hard and really work for their grades, should be able to treat themselves to a nice treat during lunch, aka a form of junk food. If people do not like junk food then they should not eat it. If parents are worried about their kids getting fat by eating junk food then the parents should be the ones worrying about it. You should be allowed to eat what you want and not have bans on food just because other people do not like it.
Ban junk food from schools.

I do understand where you are coming from,however, think about it this way, by banning junk foods (defined as foods with too much fats,too much sugar and too little nutrition according to the RDI(Recommended/Reference Daily Intake), this means that the school is not encouraging these foods for the students in the school. While I do believe that schools should not keep tight control over what a student eats, I believe that at least,by changing the meal menus in the school, this means that one less big organisation is not for junk food,and it makes it less acceptable for youths to be extravagantly eating junk food as some may feel guilty about sneaking in junk foods. They are of course, able to still eat all the junk they want outside school, but at least inside school, you know that there are less chances of it happening. I believe that pizzas, hamburgers and tacos are some of the foods that are actually both junk foods and a perfectly good meal,depending on what ingredients are found in the food items listed above . A great example would be changing the sausage bits of the pizza to something like white chicken breasts that have been boiled properly,and adding broccoli to the pizza, as well as using whole grain wheat for the base. The cheese,being high in protein, garnishes the whole meal perfectly. This is still a pizza, but so much more healthier yet still sounding pretty appetising, so then cafeterias can still serve students delectable foods without destroying their livers like deep fried chicken nuggets and processed sausages do. Another thing is that students may be having all the junk food they want because the health issues are still not seen on their bodies yet. Just like drugs,one May believe that it does not affect them because they do not feel the effects yet. We humans have a very strange way of attaining realisation,because sometimes if we do not see it happening,we will never be convinced that that particular consequence will hurt us no matter what other people say. This is why by the time addicts realise what they have done to their bodies, they already cannot turn back. Just like junk food, when one finally realises they are not right somewhere, it may already be too late, he or she cannot erase the diabetes away anymore. So then, they may start blaming schools for saying it's okay to eat junk foods, which could be avoided by banning them in the first place. By saying that "it is not alright to be eating foods too high in saturated fats, sugars and carbohydrates", students are more compelled to think that "it is not alright to be eating junk food" too,and though this may be argued to seem something minute, it is still a progress towards getting off the junk food spree.
Ban junk food from schools.

By banning junk food you're just making kids more sneaky, because nobody's going to give up junk food. I mean what are they going to do, check everyone's lunch everyday to make sure it's all healthy food? That would consume so much time, why don't you just cut it down and let the kids eat what they want at lunch, but they have to have a healthy snack in the morning like most public & high schools do, but then again were in high school you're not going to control our decisions for much longer let alone what we eat. Most teenagers smoke weed, and it's illegal, but it doesn't stop them because most feel like it doesn't affect them, neither does junk food, so in the end, you can't change what we consume.It may make sense for a school board to ban junk foods in some cases, but there are several issues that should be considered. To begin with, there is the problem of defining junk food. Are we talking about potato chips, soda, and pastries? What about fried chicken fingers, cheeseburgers, and pizza" foods many school cafeterias serve?
Ban junk food from schools.

I am for the ban of junk food in schools because by doing so, the younger generation are not as exposed to very unhealthy foods as they are as of now. Yes,there is definitely no way that people will never ever ever eat junk food because I mean, Mac Donald's, Burger King, Wendy's, etc. are found almost anywhere however, by banning junk food in school,students have lesser chances of being exposed to junk food school is a place where students go to almost everyday of their lives,and seeing junk food sold in the cafeteria may make students who are not yet exposed to junk food become more and more curious,and more and more interested in what junk food taste liken taking the first step to buy them,they may realise that it doesn't taste as good as they hoped it would be, or,they may become addicted to the taste,and crave for more(and example is the documentary "Super sized Me",where the test subject did indeed become addicted to eating processed foods from Mac Donald's").This will then become a cycle that is similar to being on drugs,where one will not be able to resist the want to have the same particular type of food (in this case,the unhealthy overly processed foods).This leads to possible eating disorders and may cause health issues like diabetes(Type 2) as well as obesity,which causes a chain of other health issues.
An omniscient God would have no logical reason to test anyone

My opponent’s counter-argument revolves around semantics, which is a pity. The argument suggests that my arguments, demonstrating what tests would be logical to conduct, are in fact “teachings/revealing”. Based on the definition of test provided by my opponent: “The means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness of anything is determined; a means of trial”, there are semantics issues that are apparent. Firstly, the definition does not specify who is determining the nature of the results; the definition does not specify whether the tester or tested are determining the results. Relative to this definition, I could say I conducted a test in order for the tested to determine something. Secondly, my opponent’s counter-argument revolves around the presumption that the tester (God) is the one determining the nature of his test results (determining what humans do in response to his challenges): “The problem with this, is there is no reason to conduct a test outside of conducting it for the pupose of knowing the conclusion”. As demonstrated above, this undermines his argument as the definition of “test” has become incorrectly parsimonious. Lastly, his whole counter-argument is based upon the definition of “test”, which I have refuted just now. Hence, my opponent has not addressed my argument yet and thus, I extend my original argument to the next round. I urge my opponent to use the definition he has provided for this argument, not the inaccurate one that has plagued his counter-argument argument.
An omniscient God would have no logical reason to test anyone

Rebutting my opponent's arguments:1) "So, my premise is now that God has a logical reason for testing humans outside of conducting tests so as to know the conclusion."The problem with this, is there is no reason to conduct a test outside of conducting it for the pupose of knowing the conclusion. Examples:a) The only reason to test someone's trust would be to know if they trusted you or notb) If you knew 100% that a person trusted you, you would have no logical reason to test thema) The only reason to test someone's skill at Baseball, would be if you didn't know how good they were at baseballb) If you know exactly (infinitely) how good someone was as baseball, there would be no logical reason to test them2) "God does not test to increase his own knowledge; rather, God tests us to increase our own knowledge and understanding"The problem with this argument, is tests are to see how well a person can use/ remember/ apply the knowledge they already have. There is no logic in giving someone a test to increase their knowledge.Teaching/ Revealing vs Testing a) If person X acts with the purpose of increasing Y's knowledge, then person X is teaching/ Revealing.b) If person X acts with the purpose of finding out mow much knowledge person Y has or how person Y applies that knowledge, then person X is testing.Example:You can't give somebody an math exam (test) with the purpose of increasing their knowledge, I mean you could do it, but it wouldn't be logical (which is the context of this debate). The exam's only logical purpose would be to test how they apply the knowledge they they already have, not to give them more knowledge because that would be teaching/ revealing.Logical steps:1. Person X acts in a way with a purpose of increases the knowledge of person Y = Teaching/ Revealing/ Giving clues2. Person X acts in a way with the purpose of gaining knowledge about how well person Y can apply the knowledge they already have = Testing Conclusion:1) It would not be logical to test someone with the purpose of increasing their knowledge (this would be Teaching/ Revealing/ Giving clues) , it's only logical to test someone with the purpose of finding out how they can apply the knowledge they already previously have obtained.2) As it stands in this debate, an omniccient God would have no logical reason to test anyone.
An omniscient God would have no logical reason to test anyone

I agree with my opponent's argument to some extent. An omniscient God is all knowing and it would seem that he would have logical reason to test us for his own benefit (as he already knows the outcome). However, there may be logical reasons outside of conducting tests so as to know the conclusion. So, my premise is now that God has a logical reason for testing humans outside of conducting tests so as to know the conclusion. For this argument, I must stress that the nature of this argument assumes the existence of an omniscient god, hence the resolution (so I don't have to prove that an omniscient God exists). I’m going to reference The Bible’s God as he is an omniscient god. The Biblical God is omniscient (King David talking to God): “Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You, but the night shines as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to You” (Psalm 139:12) So, what is His purpose for testing us? C1: God wants us to experience victory God does not test to increase his own knowledge; rather, God tests us to increase our own knowledge and understanding: 1 THESSALONIANS 2:4“. . . even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who tests our hearts”. He wants us to know that by following his commands in the times he tests us, we can achieve victory (over the devil/sin). To elaborate, victory could not be achieved if there was no test (i. e. possible outcomes could not eventuate if there is only a solitary outcome). Without testing us, we would not be able to achieve victory. Therefore, it is a necessity, logically, for God to test us to achieve victory. C2: God has plans for us Again, God tests us so for our own benefit, not to increase his own knowledge: “‘For I know the plans I have for you,’ declared the Lord, ‘plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future’” (Jeremiah 29:11). These plans are a requirement for us to “prosper” as God is all knowing, and therefore would know what is best for us. Conclusively, it is logically necessary for God to test us if it is within his plans (which are what is best for us). So, God has logical reasons outside of increasing his knowledge; he tests us so that we may know certain things as we are not omniscient. Furthermore, His methods are the best as He is omniscient and has our best interests in mind (Jeremiah 29:11).
An omniscient God would have no logical reason to test anyone

First we must look at what defines omniscience, and what defines tests to see if the two are in fact compatiable. Omniscient:"om·nis·cient   [om-nish-uhnt] Show IPAadjective1.having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things."http://dictionary.reference.com..."OmniscienceFirst published Mon Feb 1, 2010Omniscience is the property of having complete or maximal knowledge."http://plato.stanford.edu...Test: "test1  [test] Show IPA noun 1. The means by which the presence, quality, or genuineness ofanything is determined; a means of trial."http://dictionary.reference.com... "test 1 (test) n.1. A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial:" http://www.thefreedictionary.com...; Logical argument: 1) An all knowing God would have infinite knowledge of future outomes 2) A test is something which has a sole purpose of determining an outcome you weren't already knowledgeble of3) An all knowing God would have no use for something which has a sole purpose of determining an outcome he wasn't already knowledgable of, because he knows all outcomes already.Conclusion:An omniscient God would have no logical reason to test anyoneSources (rehashed): http://plato.stanford.edu... http://dictionary.reference.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
The Soviet Union Would Have Lost to Nazi Germany in WWII Without Marshal Zhukov

As Con I will debate the premise that 'The Soviet Union would not have lost To Nazi Germany in WW2 without Marshal Zhukov'. In fact I will partly Debate that there was no correlation between the 'winning' against Nazi Germany, on the Soviet side, potential 'Losing', and Marshal Georgy Zhukov. As for definitions, the terms surrounding this Debate are quite clear, however Pro an I mutually agreed on the definition of 'Lost' being 'annexed'/'been taken' or partly annexed. Kind Regards to Pro, I am looking forward to your Opening Statement.
The Soviet Union Would Have Lost to Nazi Germany in WWII Without Marshal Zhukov

I'm not actually going to be able to debate this for at least another two weeks, however I would like to submit this debate for discussion. The premise of the debate is that the Soviet Union would have lost WWII had they not had Marshal Zhukov. Essentially, had he been purged by Stalin in 1937, died at Kalkhin Gol, or not been promoted etc, then Nazi Germany would have won the war in the East. Note that the premise of the debate is NOT that Marshal Zhukov won the war for the Soviet Union, just that his presence prevented them from losing.
Time has a starting point

Pro postulates only one argument, which I have rebutted twice. They present this evidence two times. Once in the form of a riddle and once in the form a chocolate brownie incident. They assert that: As events have a beginning and an end, therefore time must also have a "starting point" and presumably a finishing point. But quite clearly there is no correlation between the proposition and the supposition here. Because events and time are not the same. When observing or referring to events we may use the word time in glib anecdotes, such as, time seems to be passing very slowly or we're running out of time. But these are not actually references to time, but simply utterances that convey how we are consciously interacting with an event. Time just is. This maybe a very simplistic statement. But I find it hard to explain the reality of time in a more appropriate way. Pro suggests that I am referring to infinity or eternity. But I am not. Infinity and eternity conjure up mental images of an expanding void whose boundaries are always just beyond the limits of imagination. Whereas time is unimaginable. Therefore time cannot be observed, defined or adequately explained. Ultimately, we have to accept that time just is. The need for a "starting point" is nonsensical and irrelevant. .
Time has a starting point

You have literally presented no argument except saying "Time just is." In Round 2, I gave you logical reasoning to why I think it cannot be infinite. You countered with the words "My rebuttal...is simple realism. Time just is!" Look buddy, there's no need to keep on repeating that time is eternal over and over again as proof"that's not proof, that is your position you are trying to prove. It's in the heading. Since it is the last round, I would like you to use it wisely and tell me WHY you think "time just is," or else we will be forced to accept my reasoning because I am the only one that has presented any sort of argument for my position.