BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Picture Art is no longer a job.

The quote-on-quote General flaw my Opponent has stated that I have generalised art, While I can see why, That is simply not true, Deviantart and tumblr had huge numbers in their prime, Tumblr had 748 million users, And deviantart not highest ranked of every art website. And you state that they are just 2 of the websites, If 2 of the biggest art sites are starting to fade, Wouldn't that mean that art websites as a whole is dying? Sources Deviantart: . https://www. Similarweb. Com/website/deviantart. Com Tumblr: . https://www. Statista. Com/topics/2463/tumblr/ My opponent also states that people buy art to decorate their homes, Design their websites, And see their ideas in reality, But this doesn't really change anything I'm afraid, An argument like the first one would require a source that says that people have new art rather than old art on their homes, As for the second one, The only art any website would need is a logo, And I imagine buying a template would be just as effective for any minor website, You also state that people could pay artists to see their ideas into reality, This is rather hypocritical considering you criticized me of generalizing, Because from what I see in commissions that reason is a minority. "Even if the art on these sites are based off preexisting characters, Is not each piece of art the creator's original work? If that were true, Anyone who has drawn a tree would be considered "unoriginal"" Considering they have a design basically already blueprinted, Its far from lazy, But I hardly would call it original. And comparing trees (which is normally used for background) is not a good comparison, Considering that is what most artists do when they practice. , You can't really research a design. "This contention is a simple analysis of the status quo. The Art Market in 2018 reported a 12% increase in total art sales after a small dip last year. Clearly, People are still appreciating and buying art. " you do realize tumblr and deviantart just started to collapse last month right? People keep leaving both sights, I expect next year is going to be more than just a "small dip" "The profession is changing and evolving. " Art Jobs reverting to the online web isn't really a counterpoint weather it is collapsing or not . "An artist is well paid for his work" while that is true, Once again, That doesn't debunk the argument that it is dying. to conclude my argument, I would like to state that pro"s rebuttals could be seen as decent in the voter"s eyes, Most of his arguments against the idea that picture art is dying is statements that have nothing to do with the current number of artists and the artists buying them.
Picture Art is no longer a job.

Picture Art used to be seen as a huge job that you could be rich if you were good enough, But now ¨art¨ as a job is dead, Allow me to make my pointsThere's no reason to buy Picture art. People used to buy art because of 1 or 2 reasons: It was painted well, And it had some deep meaning behind it, Well, In present time we no longer have those reasons to buy art. you can find decent painted art with a simple Google search nowadays, And if you want to keep one who could just save the image in your folders, Sure, You can pay artists to commission, But most of the commissions requested turn out to be fetish requests, It becomes such a problem it makes up over half of Deviantart, Search up anything on there and you'll find at least one fetish picture, And that sort of scares people away from the site. nowadays art with deep meaning is dead, People almost ever make art with meaning, And when they do its usually poorly made, The most meaningful art that has been made nowadays is a furry crying about how they are the punching bag of the Internet (no shade at any furries though, Its just complaining about how your fan base is hated isn't really anything new)No one is interested in Picture art anymorewhen people look for art, They usually go for styles in cartoons, Anime, And video games, Sometimes even online animation, But most of the Internet are forgetting about art, Deviantart and tumblr are dying, And notebook doesn't have as many users as them because they don't allow fetishes and porn. For Picture Art, Originality is deadgo on any picture art website, And its going to be covered with fan art, OCs for their fan art, Fan comics, Fan fiction, Anthro versions of animal characters, The most original things that have Picture Art has is its furry art. if you draw art, I would reccomend you get a backup or secondary job, Because Picture Artists who solely have that job will not make it far I'm afraid.
Without God, There Could Be No Objective Morality

Thank you all for so many kind and intelligent posts. My engagement on this site was intended, from the beginning, to be a nothing more than a temporary experiment. I didn't know specifically when it was going to end, until this evening: My girlfriend, Bhaktin Caroline, said something to me that inspired me to make tonight the end of the experiment. Bhaktin Caroline matters much, much more than this website. If you are still feeling overly attached after I leave, I apologize, but I will still be leaving nonetheless: I won't be engaging in any further debates, arguments, or conversations on this site, and nor will I be reading any further posts uploaded by its kind and intelligent members -- starting now. You can argue amongst yourselves, from now on. Good-bye! =)
Without God, There Could Be No Objective Morality

This is wrong. Systems of punishment were well integrated into society and there was a sense of "justice" - infact, the Romans had the Corpus Juris, which lasted for hundreds of years and was an inspiration for all. It is true that in the Bible, there are the Ten Commandments - which have worked to assist our foundation of law - but the truth is that most of these commandments, save for "do not worship false idols", and other insignificant and irrelevant commandments were not the prime mover or an initial source for the eventual development of the legal system across Christendom and the world. Even Constantine, who was the first Roman Christian, did not fully implement the commands of God - and we do not do it today, nor do Christians, because then they wouldn't eat shellfish, as is commanded in the New Testament. There was objective morality developed by the Romans and the Greeks which eventually became more civilised and less backwards - but God didn't help this.
Guns should not be banned

1) Pro paints a picture of a secure society guarded by honest armed citizen vigilantes. Is this really the U. S. A? 2) So Pro admits that gun free zones is a fanciful idea. A rapist is a rapist, That is a separate issue, Indirectly related to the proposition. 3) I've never heard of a spoon mass killing. The victims would need to be very compliant. 4) Britain has strict gun control. Crime rises relative to the decrease in investment in the Police. Crime rate is in no way relative to whether or not the public is armed. 5) I said remote and indiscriminate. I did not say massive and horrible killing machines. Pro is sensationalising. Also once again Pro is somewhat counter-intuitively promoting gun death statistics as a positive indicator of the benefit of liberal gun laws. So 7105 people died, But that's ok because 5594 of those deaths don't matter. Only 1421 good guys died, That's all right then! 6) I think that it's fair to suggest that people do not experience the weapons effect when the pick up a spoon to eat their breakfast or when they get in their car to drive to work. I would also suggest that a road rage incident where both parties are carrying guns has a greater potential of escalating into a more dangerous situation. 7) Name an example of what? 8) We are discussing guns not cars. Is Pro advocating stricter laws on vehicle ownership? Maybe Pro should put that topic up for debate next. Good guys with guns eventually stop mass shootings. If mass shooters did not have access to guns they would not be able to mass shoot in the first place and the mass shooter only becomes a criminal once they have mass shot. 9) The only reason legislation is not able to deter gun crime is because the Country is awash with weapons. Obviously legislation will only work if the gun itself is removed from society. Pro always seems to assume that the good guy will always get the bad guy. That's the stuff of movies and T. V. And not the reality. The bad guy is just as likely to shoot the good guy. They both possess guns that have equal potential to wound or kill. 10) A good guy shooting someone who is suicidal is somewhat counter-productive, Ha ha. Seriously though, Suicide is not relevant to this debate. 11) There are 4 billion reasons why the U. S. Administration would not want to impose a gun ban. 12) We are seeing more mass shootings today: A) Because social perception and social values have changed. B) And because inappropriate people have easy access to guns. 320 million of them in fact.
Guns should not be banned

1. I did respond saying that good guys are to VAST majority of good gun owners who stop crime. 2. I never said that where shootings take place defines gun-free zones. Where did you get this assumption? And you are right, Gun free zones are a fanciful notion. Amanda collins was walking back to her car after a night class in gun-free zone. She did have a gun but being a good citizen she did not break the law. She was raped. The rapist got away and murdered another woman a few months later. 3. How? 4. You can say that but: Britain banned guns-more crime- again Criminals find a way and can always get pass a ban. Theres a higher potential for gun use but does it correlate with actual gun crime statistics. 5. You say that they are massive horrible KILLING MACHINES. But is that true. Lets take the scariest of all RIFLES. Knives, Blunt Object, Personal Weapons ALL kill more than scary rifles KILLING MACHINES. But, But what about handguns. 7105 people have died with handgun homicide. But wait 80% of gun homicides are drug related, So no only 1421 people thats not gang violence and oh its less than knives. All of this is happening when gun ownership is going up. 6. The Weapons effect is not just guns. What about road rage? If gun ownership is going up, Wouldn't there be more aggression. Is this happening? No 7. Please name an example. 8. Gun chaos? How, How often do you die from car crashes, Not often right. Well getting killed by GUN CHAOS is way less. Your sick of the car analogy because it sums things up nicely that guns are not as harmful as people seem. Good guy with guns stop mass shootings. The criminal could have gotten the gun illegal and no good guy has a gun in that case. 9. "We're not discussing criminals. " You brought up the point about criminals. What you are saying is that citizens should not prevent gun crime but rather Legislature. Citizens have been stopping gun crime since the beginning of civilization and cops show up AFTER a accident. Legislature trying to deter crime has most of the time failed, Even in liberal states like California and Massachusetts. The job of the Legislature is that every citizen has the right to be protected. 10. Banning guns does not deter suicide, Even looking at states it shows the same thing. 11. The Legislature are afraid. They know that when a huge push for gun control happens, That people buy more guns and makes the process difficult, Again disarming 320 MILLION guns is hard. If guns existed before why are we seeing mass shootings mostly today.
Guns should not be banned

1) Pro did not directly respond to my questioning. Nonetheless all the people responsible for gun deaths are people with guns. 2) I refer you to the response I gave earlier. Similarly, A zone where there are shootings is by definition not a gun free zone. 3) Pro's spoon reference is down right stupid. 4) The more guns there are, The higher the potential for gun use. It's a pretty obvious and self evidential statement. 5) We're discussing guns, Not cars. Once again Pro's response is down right stupid. 6) Cars again? And I was referring to what is known as the "Weapons Effect". Research shows that the mere presence of weapons increases aggression. 7) Highly likely. I refer you to point 6. Also, Unlikely and doesn't are a direct contradiction to each other. 8) Pro 's comments are somewhat counter-intuitive to say the least. Pro uses mass shootings as evidence of the benefits of gun ownership. Bad guys shooting good guys shooting bad guys. Gun chaos if you ask me! 9) We're not discussing criminals. We're discussing every Tom Dick or Harry being allowed to run around with a gun. It's the job of security organisations to prevent crime and not the job of Tom Dick and Harry. 10) How is suicide in Lithuania and Japan related to U. S. Gun law? If Mexico has the strictest gun control laws, How come there were 11, 309 gun murders in Mexico in 2012? Does Pro think that if all Mexicans were armed, Then the Mexican gun murder rate would decrease? And Pro finally adopts a disturbing tone, With their obvious racist and white supremacist suggestions. 11) And what about the 4 billion reasons?
Guns should not be banned

1. The good guys are the VAST majority of gun owners who stop 800k to 2 million violent crimes each year. 2. No, Gun free-zones make up 96% of mass-shootings and women get raped in gun-free zones. 3. No, Mass killings can be committed with a SPOON. 4. Back it up with evidence 5. Untrue, Cars are more dangerous than guns 6. Where do you get that and you are safer with a gun or next to someone with a gun than you are in a car. #1 again 7. Very unlikely, And doesn't happen. 8. No, It saves lives. Look at the mass shooting at a college in the US where a Good guy stopped a bad guy, Or how mass shootings that have low death tolls compared to others are stopped with good guy cops stopping the bad guy. 9. Criminals find a way. Lithuania has one of the world's lowest gun ownership rates (0. 7 guns per 100 people) but its suicide rate (by any method) was 45. 06 per 100, 000 people in 1999, The highest suicide rate among 71 countries with available information. Japan has a low gun ownership rate at 0. 6 guns per 100 people and a high suicide rate of 18. 41 suicides per 100, 000 people in 1997. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and yet, In 2012, Mexico had 11, 309 gun murders (9. 97 gun homicides per 100, 000 people) compared to the United States that had 9, 146 gun homicides (2. 97 per 100, 000 people). Gun control laws are racist. Current gun control laws are frequently aimed at inner city, Poor, Black communities who are perceived as more dangerous than white gun owners. In the late 1960s, Gun control laws were enacted in reaction to the militant, Gun-carrying Black Panthers. The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, Blacks were never allowed to own guns. In 1831, A law was passed that prohibited free black people "to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, Any military weapon, Or any powder or lead and all laws allowing free black people to possess firearms were repealed.
Guns should not be banned

1) How do you decide who are the good guys? As intent is not always obvious. Intent might also be latent, Especially in those with undiagnosed mental health issues. 2) Aren't gun free zones somewhat fanciful notions in the first place? Especially in a society awash with guns. 3) No guns no mass shootings. You can't remove people from the equation so removing guns is the only other option. 4) More guns = more potential. Less guns = less potential. 5) Guns are remote killing devices and indiscriminate in the wrong hands. 6) Guns also have the ability to heighten senses and thereby irrationalise perception. Therefore, A good guy with a loaded gun in their hand is likely to become over confident and irrational. 7) Good guy + gun could easily = bad guy. 8) Bad guy + gun + good guy + gun = potential x 2. The potential for an armed confrontation to escalate fatally is greater when both sides are armed. Of course it's no good just taking guns off the "good guys". Banning guns also means taking guns off the bad guys. Does the U. S. Administration and Legislature have the will to do so? I can think of 4 billion reasons why it doesn't.
Guns should not be banned

Conclusion: There's no point in going around the houses again with the same old rhetoric. For me guns are simply a manifestation of mans basic instincts. The inherent necessity to kill or be killed. We like to think that as a species we are advanced and civilised. Our intellectual specialism has no doubt allowed us to live immensely different existences to that of our organic cousins. But despite all our supposed morality we still possess the same old instinctively acquired information that we have always possessed, And unless we are genetically engineered to remove that information, I expect that we will always be the same. In this respect the good guy and the bad guy are exactly the same. Good and bad are simply socially contrived misconceptions that disregard the reality of the human condition. A gun is an inanimate object and will remain inanimate until it is in a persons hand. Once there it becomes a killing device that is subject to exactly the same subconscious, Primeval stimuli as the club or the spear was once subject to. Guns are as guns do and will no doubt remain so, Until such times when we have devised a more advanced personal killing device. And man is as man does and for the time being will remain so. And mans love of guns is simply a manifestation of his inherent selfishness. And he will not give up his guns, Because his selfish worship of the four billion dollar god, Is an emotion far greater than his respect for his fellow man or his fellow beings. Amen.
Guns should not be banned

1. Actually yes, USA founded on guns and whiskey. 2. No you don't get it, The first person, If had a gun in that situation(which she couldn't). She would have put down the rapist. 3. It was an example 4. Prove 5. "Guns are remote killing devices and indiscriminate". Ok. 5594 of those deaths are different and combating that requires different procedures. 6. Anything can assault people in a road rage incident. 7. An example of when that happened. 8. Its an analogy. Plus Mass shooters can get guns illegally. 9. Criminals generally don't spend enough time on their gun skills compared to citizens. As well as conceal carry arms. 10. Suicide is very prevalent. 11. Tell me one 12. So its not all about guns. Inappropriate people shout not have guns. Making my point
Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting

For my first debate, I would like to challenge a conservative with a strong commitment to the 2nd amendment. Opening Arguments in first round. In the wake of the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting (in which the gunman legally obtained weapons that granted him the means to murder 49 Americans and injure 51 more) and other mass shootings in recent years that seem only to intensify in frequency and damage, I will argue that gun control, at least its consideration in Congress, is a necessity. What type of gun control is needed? I believe the federal government should implement a universal background check system, close gun-purchase loopholes, and ban the purchase and sale of assault rifles. Only providing prayers to the victims of these tragedies is no longer an acceptable response. We cannot preserve absolute gun purchasing freedom at the expense of innocent American lives and our inaction in preventing mass shootings is shameful as well as complicit in their occurence.
Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting

My opponent claims to not argue what the resolution says but to argue what is said in the comments. Then what is the resolution for? Since the resolution is not to be ignored, my opponent is arguing that it is necessary. He also says that I'm taking it too literally. What else is it suppose to mean when you say necessary? If you meant to say that we SHOULD have gun control laws, then in that case the resolution should have been changed to ought or something of that sense. My opponent then says that he used to necessary to mean urgency, importance, and passion he feels for the issue, but in that case it is pro's fault for framing the resolution in that way. It is obvious how someone can not see my opponent's deeper meaning, but take it to actually mean required. Therefore the debate should stick to what the resolution stated. My opponent says that I have no evidence that programs that teach people about gun violence is effective, which is true I don't have empirical evidence, however it's logical to say that if we have people teaching others why gun violence is bad and what happens to offenders, that less people are going to commit such things. Then my opponent says that we need to ban assault rifles to stop mass shootings. The concept behind mass shootings is that it ends life which is why it's bad, so by that logic if banning handguns saved more lives, then why wouldn't you ban handguns. And that poll that is cited is meaningless considering it's not that high of a percentage, and that more people does not dictate what is right. And my opponent later says he's not trying to strip people of their constitutional rights, but doesn't my opponent agree that lives are more valuable than a rule that is written on paper? So why not ban the more killer weapon if what my opponent's goal is to save lives?
Gun Control Is Necessary In Light Of Orlando Shooting

Regarding my opponent's very literal interpretation of my argument: As clarified in the comments prior to the debate "I'm arguing gun control laws, including but not limited to the examples provided, should be passed by Congress. I made an additional point that there is a refusal in Congress to even discuss these possibilities at the moment." I do not argue that gun control legislation is necessary for our day to day existence, I argue that gun control legislation is necessary to improve our country's safety from mass shootings and gun violence. Furthermore, necessity was the word of choice to imply the urgency, importance, and passion I feel for this issue. Now that this clarified I am happy to debate the actual issue. My opponent argues that "We are teaching people about safety, and other methods. We are instilling things and discussing things which can help stop gun violence without having gun control." While I have no problem with educating people about guns there is no indication that it is effective by itself at curbing gun violence and preventing mass shootings. I contend that in addition to prayers that education, "other methods", and "things" are not enough. My opponent asks why I would ban only assault rifles as opposed to all guns since they represent a relatively small number of gun murders. First, an assault rifle ban would be a policy specifically intended to combat the mass shooting epidemic the US is undergoing seeing that they are the weapons most commonly used in mass shootings: http://www.motherjones.com... In addition an assault weapon ban is obviously a more realistic proposal than banning all guns. This is corroborated by the article provided by my opponent that cites a poll in which "59 percent of likely voters say they favor a ban." I am not trying to ban all guns and strip Americans of a Constitutional right. But seemingly all other rights are subject to regulation and adaptation and the refusal to implement anything or even discuss implementing anything sort of regulation for this particular right is costing innocent lives and that is unacceptable.