BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We Should Legalize All Firearms

I do agree with you that "military weapons" are dangerous if used incorrectly. However, isn't this the case for all other weapons? It's actually probably easier to do more destruction with a machine gun than an RPG. This is due to the fact that with an RPG, you can only hold so much ammunition while machine guns can hold hundreds of bullets within something as small as a breast pocket. Also, on the topic of self defense, think about your typical hunting rifle or something of that matter. These guns fire extremely slow and the bullets hardly do more damage than a powerful paintball gun. I think it is necessary that we carry "military grade weapons" which are DESIGNED to kill people, do damage, etc. Hunting rifles are only meant to kill small rabbits, not full size humans in bullet proof vests and helmets. Imagine this: if a robber came into your house with a pistol, he would easily be able to take you on 1v1 if you had a slow hunting rifle. But, if you had an RPG, you would easily wipe their sorry face off earth. Additionally, I know that house robberies and people breaking in is uncommon, but people like to have an extra sense of security within their homes. People will overall be happier and more trustworthy if they have a reliable form of self defense such as an Uzi or grenade launcher. I completely understand that we are not in a war zone, but why do we have a war on drugs? With advanced weapons, your every day civilians will be able to kill all drug dealers and this could turn the tides of the war. Drug dealers would not step a foot into our border due to a large amount of people carrying military grade weapons, easily being able to wipe out an entire drug cartel. I know that there are people who would abuse the strength of the more powerful weapons, HOWEVER, this can be solved by doing more extensive and strict background checks on weapons deemed "military grade". People also want the thrill of being able to shoot bigger and badder weapons. Your average hunting rifle or small handgun is no different than some nerf gun you could pick up at wal-mart. These guns get boring after a long time. People want something more exciting to shoot. With more people buying these exciting weapons, the economy will surely be booming. Conclusion: Legalizing all firearms will overall benefit the country through a sense of security and boosting the country's economy. There would be extensive background checks for the more "dangerous" weapons, preventing people from "abusing" them.
We Should Legalize All Firearms

Before I begin, I will state that I approve of gun rights.Argument: While there are great guns that are appropriate, the ones you mentioned in your example are unnecessary. Grenade launchers? Rocket Propelled Grenades? This is utterly ridiculous. These weapons fall in the "military weapons" category, these weapons can kill large numbers of people, maim, and destroy property. We are not in a "war-zone" where having these weapons are vital, we are a nation of civilized people, I can understand AR-15s, but not Kalashnikovs. And automatic firing guns, they are extremely dangerous. You need a gun to protect yourself from intruders and crime, not for a private military war campaign. Conceiving the idea that all higher class weapons (such as military used) should be used as self defense is utterly preposterous. Conclusion:The pro person needs to provide a better argument in the next round of this debate.
We Should Legalize All Firearms

I believe that the United States government should legalize EVERY firearm (i.e AK-47s, grenade launchers, RPGs, uzis, etc.) Guns are an integral part of American culture. Too many people want to ban all guns because they keep getting abused. Easy solution: just send them to jail! Sometimes a hunting rifle is not enough for the shooting range when that's all you have been doing for years. Instead, machine guns are vastly more enjoyable. Even for those who want more, something like an RPG is a great weapon to test. Additionally, classic hunting rifles are quite hard to kill deer and chicken. RPGs and Uzis are weapons that easily kill these animals. Some of the first hunting techniques came from the use of these weapons and it is important that we continue to maintain this tradition that our ancestors created.
National Security Ought to be Valued Over Freedom of the Press

Seeing as how my opponent has forfeited the last two rounds, I'm guessing he won't respond to this one either. So technically I could say whatever I wanted to and get away with it, but in the interest of fairness, I guess I won't. First off I would like to point out that the "show previous arguments" button does very little when there are no previous arguments... Let that be a lesson to all of you who see refutation as an option, not an imperative. Corny joke, corny joke, filler, filler, filler. Am I at 5,000 characters yet? No? Okay, filler, filler, filler. Getting old yet? On the bright side, with all of this filler, the glass could not be considered half empty. So anyway, with all of the puns aside, I still feel as though I should prove further that National Security should not be valued above freedom of the press... But my fingers are getting tired, so I shan't press the matter further. And in the incredibly sophisticated English accent I say, Vote Con! I feel like an anarchist saying that because cons belong behind bars, although I would be lying if I said we didn't have more than a few in public office. Live long and prosper, it has been a pleasure typing for all of you faceless internet users :-)
National Security Ought to be Valued Over Freedom of the Press

Due to the forfeiture of the last round by my opponent, this debate deserves a negative vote. But in the interest of fairness, I will continue. My opponent gave me very little to refute in the last round as far as quantity, but to begin I would like to address his 1st argument. It was a bit confusing, but I believe he was trying to say that if a government does something, then it must be in the interest of the people. However, we can see by the case of the Watergate scandal that the government does not necessarily have our best interest. And I do offer my most sincere apology at any offense taken at the joke about the Constitution, by saying that it was considered a periodical I was not meaning how it should be, I was merely making a theoretical example of how things are. I would greatly appreciate an argument by the affirmative at this time.
A Zygote is a Human Being, Abortion is Murder

My position is that it is a Person, Not a human, Who deserves moral consideration. Therefore, The unjustified killing of a non-person is not murder, And therefore not morally wrong. At the moment of conception, The zygote is not yet a person and by extension, Does not have the rights normally granted to a person. I would argue that a fetus should only be granted personhood after six weeks of development; this is when brain waves start to occur.
A Zygote is a Human Being, Abortion is Murder

The debate is predicated on the set definitions of "organism", "murder", And "justification". Organism: an individual (genetically distinct entity) constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of parts or organs more or less separate in function but mutually dependent: a living being Murder: the unjustified killing of a human being by another human being Justification: The action of showing something to be right, Reasonable, Or morally acceptable. The opposition is free to contest the definitions provided they supply a scientific, Not semantic, Justification for the challenge. My position is that human life begins at conception, And to unjustifiably end that life is murder. Con will be arguing against human life beginning at conception, And that unjustifiably ending the life is murder. If con concedes to it being murder, Then the discussion is open to the subject of what constitutes justification. https://www. Merriam-webster. Com/dictionary/organism
DDO vs Edb8

Resolved - DDO is better than Edb8This is a shared BOP and a comparative debate about both sites. Rules:1. Forfeiting results in a loss of conduct or possibly the debate2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. No K's of the topic7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions8. The BOP is shared9. First round is acceptance only. This debate has been set to be impossible to accept, so if you wish to do so, say so in the comments. If you find a way to accept the debate without me approving it, you will FF the debate. 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss of a conduct point and due to the severity of the breach may merit an entire FF of the debate.
The modal ontological argument is sound

My opponent has forfeited. Since he has therefore dropped every single one of my arguments from last round, by his rule, he has also conceded them. Pro has failed to adequately defend the paradox, and has made zero attempt to refute any of the six clear logical errors it commits. By his definition of "sound" therefore, the argument does not hold and therefore Pro cannot meet their burden. I hate winning on technicalities, though, so I invite my opponent to actually post something (preferably a counter-argument) in the final round.
The modal ontological argument is sound

(P1) It is possible that God exists.God qua a necessarily existent being doesn't contain any apparent contradictions. Therefore, under modal logical, such a being exists in some possible world. Possible worlds are used to express modal claims[1] like contingency, possibility, impossibility, and necessity. Objects (or worlds) that are possible are said to exist in a possible world. (P2) God is not a contingent being.This is true analytically from the definition of God. (C1) Hence, it is necessary that God exists.If God can exist in some possible world than he exist in all worlds. A being which exists necessarily can't be said to exist in only some worlds since it entails contradiction; a being can't exist contingently and necessarily at the same time.(C2) Hence, God exists.The argument itself appears intuitively valid. Therefore, if the premises (and C1) are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily.==I apologize to Con for not being able to post a more comprehensive argument. The premises are themselves mostly self-explanatory and the soundness of the arguments is intuitive. I'll be able to post more specific analysis in conjunction with Con's counter.=====Sources===[1] http://plato.stanford.edu... (Sec. 2)
The modal ontological argument is sound

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for giving up his time to both host and compete in this ELO tournament. It's a great honor to face him in the first round of the tournament. It'll also be interesting to do a philosophical topic again - I'm a bit of a fan of ontological arguments as some of my previous debates will demonstrate. My opponent has stated the argument quite well, and since they don't clash with my argument I'm going to agree with them all. The rules also all sound reasonable.
The modal ontological argument is sound

This is for R1 of SPinko's ELO Tournament. The resolution will cover the soundness of the modal ontological argument. Pro will defend while Con will seek to refute.Modal ontological argument-(P1) It is possible that God exists. (P2) God is not a contingent being, i.e., either it is not possible that God exists, or it is necessary that God exists. (C1) Hence, it is necessary that God exists. (C2) Hence, God exists.God for all intensive purposes is defined as a being which is necessarily existent i.e., exists in all possible worlds. While other characteristics are generally ascribed to God (transcendentalism, moral excellence, omnipotence, etc.), this debate will only deal with necessary existence since all other characteristics are irrelevant to this specific proof.Sound- An argument is sound if it is both valid and all of its premises are true. An argument is valid if its premises logically necessitate its conclusion ===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance/clarification. Argumentation begins in R2.5. Primary BoP to affirm is on Pro.
Should Libraries Carry offensive Books, Music, Movies, Magazines, and etc..

Open To Thought: First of all, you did not define what "Offensive" means like I asked prior to this round. I will be going with the first definition listed at this site- http://www.merriam-webster.com... An Impossible Feat: You see there is a problem with the subject at hand. Books can not attack people. So for inanimate objects to attack someone is unheard of. So the least of our problems is children reading this book, when they may well be destroyed before seeing the book. As a Matter of Fact: I feel as if I must address this. Most libraries, since we are speaking generally, do not carry more than books or Ebooks. I myself have never been to a library that has music or movies. Its either I live under a rock or there aren't that many since I have never seen a library quite like that. In Defense of Smaller Folk: The fact of this all is that the children need not to worry about offensive material, unless they go too close of course. This means that in turn the libraries can have offensive material, just have it locked in boxes to keep the children from coming to any rate of harm.
Justin Bieber should rename his fans "Babies" to reflect their mental age.

My opponent brings up a few interesting arguments. I would like to first point out that his video source cant really be trusted. In videos like those or some made by famous youtuber kassemG, the editor can pick and choose stupid answers given by the people they interviewed. They may have talked to over one hundred people and only used the stupid sounding responses to portray what they wanted to their audience. It is a common practice done in media outlets. Pro claims beliebers are incapable of speech but as seen in this video:. http://www.youtube.com... A belieber does in fact speak. Even if what she is saying is retarded, she is exhibiting the ability of speech. I have already proved that a baby does not have the same capacity of rational thought as a 12-15 year old. Pro points out that cutting yourself because of someone's actions is stupid. He fails to recognize that it is a cognitive choice to cut themselves that the fans are making, as stupid as it may be. A baby is not capable of that same type of decision making. "My decision to use the word "baby" to describe these people is not purely based upon their mental capacity. Con proposes the word "idiot", but it's more an insult to the idiot than it is the baby when you choose my idea. "I would have to disagree. Idiots generally deserve to be insulted and I think we can both agree that beliebers are certainly idiots. I would still have to reject the notion that infants posses a higher mental capacity or exhibit similar behavior to the extent where 12-15 year olds can be called the same thing. Also while pro claims that his word choice for the fans is not based solely on mental capacity, mental age is in the resolution as a bases. Even if you want to differentiate the two it would be impossible to argue that 12-15 year old bieber fans cant talk, walk, aren't potty trained, and cant make basic rational decision's. In conclusion, babies are not capable of the same idiotic decision making that bieber fans are and so the fans should not be called babies.
Justin Bieber should rename his fans "Babies" to reflect their mental age.

I thank con for his response.Con is right that 12-15 year olds don't generally share the mental capacity of an infant, but in some cases it's reasonable to make an exception, such as in the case of Justin Bieber's fans.Bieber fans are incapable of some things too:Speech: "Beliebers" are clearly incapable of this as when approached by Justin Bieber, despite the fact that he's metres away from them, will scream instead of say something normal (1), such as "Oh, I am so shocked", which you would be, if you saw a famous guy like Justin Bieber.Reason/Critical thinking: Bieber fans are incapable of this too. For example, these two female nutters are shown here blindly defending their Hero (2). This is devoid of any rational thought or critical thinking whatsoever.Of course, the term "baby" is used by me to ridicule the fans of Justin Bieber, because babies are notably devoid of rational thought and they also cry a lot. The only problem with it is that it is offensive to babies, as the average baby possesses more rational thought, control of their emotions and intelligence than a Justin Bieber fan. The reasons I chose the term "Baby" are in the first round.As every sane person knows, cutting yourself because Justin Bieber told you to is extremely stupid. This is why you never catch babies self-harming, but you do catch Bieber fans doing it. Babies also do not copy Justin's habit of smoking pot or whatever dumb stuff he's up to at the moment.Genuine baby's thought pattern:-Sees Justin Bieber doing dumb stuff-Doesn't copy and just turns over to Thomas and FriendsBieber fan's thought pattern:-Sees Justin Bieber doing dumb stuff-Copies and waits for him to do another thing for her to mindlessly copySo you see, babies do possess a superior mental capacity, but I do have reasonable reasons for proposing the term "baby", as stated in the first round.My decision to use the word "baby" to describe these people is not purely based upon their mental capacity. Con proposes the word "idiot", but it's more an insult to the idiot than it is the baby when you choose my idea.Thank you.Sources(1) http://www.youtube.com...;(the video) (2) http://www.youtube.com...;(the second video)[You may have noticed that I've made certain phrases such as "Justin Bieber" and "Bieber fans" bigger than other words. This is so that in the unlikely event of a Bieber fan ever does come across this debate whilst it's in the voting period, they will just see those words, think "Ah, how I blindly admire that Justin" and give me all seven points. I just hope con doesn't steal my strategy in his final round.]
Justin Bieber should rename his fans "Babies" to reflect their mental age.

Thank you for this interesting topic to debate. I know it is very tempting to ridicule Biebers fan base. It is justified in many cases. But to state that 12-15 year olds have the mental capacity of an infant is incorrect. An infant 0-3 years old is in the learning process of its life and is incapable of many things. Things such as speech, reason, and critical thinking. These are things that begin developing during the infancy. [1] Teenage girls 12-15 have already gone through this development process and therefore already surpass the mental capacity and age of an infant. As before I mentioned reason. A baby might cry at a Justin bieber song because it bothers them in an audible sense (noise vibrations/irritable). Teenage girls are crying from a emotional response they are feeling in their head from having some sort of connection to his music. This may prove that the girls are tasteless and possibly insecure. But it does stem from their ability to reason. Also we may remember the time when bieber fans cut themselves over their idol. A baby does not have the same mental capability to do something like that. Those girls did that action in response to an action Justin took. It still required them to use reasoning and thought. If a baby watching tv saw Justin smoke pot he would probably just go about drooling because his mental capacity during the development period does not allow him to comprehend what is happening. On the other hand the girls can understand and take action because of their understanding, even if those actions they take are extremely stupid. If anything he should change his fan bases name to "idiots". It just wouldn't make sense to call them babies as a reflection of their mental capacity. Thank you. Sources:[1] - http://www.babycenter.com...[2] - http://my.clevelandclinic.org...
Justin Bieber should rename his fans "Babies" to reflect their mental age.

Justin Bieber had a hit song ("lol"!) called "Baby" (1). Baby, coincidentially, is also a good representation of the mental age of his typical fan.At time of writing Justin Bieber's fans are called "Beliebers" which is a stupid name to call them because there isn't a single "L" in "Bieber", although his fans haven't worked that out yet. Justin Bieber recently announced his retirement from music, but he has now returned (2). This would be a good opportunity to rethink the name of his fans. Here's how they could advertize it:The Biebs is back! (By that we mean Justin Bieber, don't get your hopes up)Back from retirement after a day or two (nobody really checked)!NEW name for his fans!So you see, Justin Bieber really should change the name of his fans to "Babies".Thank you.Sources(1) http://www.youtube.com...;(the video)(2) http://www.nme.com...
East Asian Cuisine is the most superior of all Foods

Let get this cook-off heated up. Now, it is obvious to me that this is largely a subjective topic. I personally love Asian food, but I snapped this debate up because I like to argue these sorts of topics. So with that point, let me begin my arguments… ARGUMENTS (This was harder than I thought it would be…) Adaptability I challenge my opponent to name one traditional East Asian dish which has been adapted so widely and with so much variance as the Pizza. A pizza is still a pizza, whether it has chocolate sauce and bananas as a topping or donor kebab meat (which is popular in Sweden). Variety While I acknowledge that there are many types of noodles, they do not meet what I would call variety. What I mean is, that the Italians have mastered the obvious art of pasta making. From flat sheet pasta, used to make lasagne to tiny macaroni pasta, there is an extreme range of types of pasta. My research seemed only to indicate ingredient variety and some basic thickness variety in noodles, rather than a huge range of shapes and ingredients. With that said, there is little doubt that the shape of what you’re eating has an effect on your experience, but the most common explanation for this ‘difference’ between pasta is the way one particularly type holds the sauce compared to another. Ingredients Again, while I acknowledge that East Asian food has a many types of ingredients, I’d still like to make a point of this. Italy was the cultural centre of the world for a thousand years, thanks to the Roman Empire. It is also located far closer to the region of the world known as “The Fertile Crescent” [1] [2] [3] allowing it to have access to a much larger range of produce. REBUTTALS “Japanese are known for their exceptional Kobe Beef” I fail to see how this is really relative. Italians could certainly use Kobe beef in one of their traditional dishes. “Eastern Asian Cuisine is also rich with thousands of years of culture and diversity and is not as limited as its Italian counterpart. ” Italian cuisine is also rich with thousands of years of culture. I could claim that given the range of cuisine within a much smaller area, Italian cuisine is far less limited. “While Italian Cuisine borrows heavily from other cultures (ex. g Etruscan, ancient Greek, ancient Roman, Byzantine, Jewish and Arab cuisines. )” In the previous sentence you suggested that Italian cuisine is limited in its diversity. What the? “East Asian cuisine is completely original and has developed through years of trial and error. ” This doesn’t make it better. SOURCES [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://ed101.bu.edu... [3] . http://img1.loadtr.com...