BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should guns be legal

1. i will make it clear that i do not use facts and statistical data because i believe that there is something more than plain facts. moreover, just because one fact stands over all, does not mean we should ignore the rest of the truth right? 2. i understand that a need for a weapon is indispensable, but i see that you failed to tell me why it should be gun? because the criminals have guns? how exactly do you fight with a gun? in most cases, the attacker is the one who is more ready to shoot, because crime always take place in ambush scenario. when the gun is pointed at you, while your gun is somewhere in your cabinet, securely locked so your children cant reach it, or somewhere in your underwear to conceal it, and the moment you want to take it out, the criminal has already planted the bullet inside your brain. BOOM!! no self defense. SURPRISE!!! thirdly, the best option is surely to enforce the law and security, heavier punishment for crimes which involve gun will work too.
Should guns be legal

firstly, a true law-abiding citizen would know how to make a law measure to solve a problem. acting as a vigilante with a murderous weapon while the police is there is surely not what a law-abiding citizen would do.' This statement was not based on facts. In almost every case a citizen only uses weapons when the police were not there. Secondly,you are just giving your opinion. There is no evidence to back you. Guns have saved innocent lives countless times. 'Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence...from the hour the pilgrims landed to present day,events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable...the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil. - George Washington
Should guns be legal

firstly, a true law-abiding citizen would know how to make a law measure to solve a problem. acting as a vigilante with a murderous weapon while the police is there is surely not what a law-abiding citizen would do. secondly, having more guns will not solve any problem either, and if anything, will only create more chaos and disorder. there is no guarantee that these so called 'law-abiding citizens' will stay sane while they know that they live in a country where everyone has a gun concealed behind their back and the criminals run amok with more murderous type of guns which overpower the citizens'. even though there is a regulation to make sure that only sane person can have a gun, it will only nullify the first objective; that everyone, without exception, should be armed with guns to be able to protect themselves. now it is clear that allowing ALL citizens to have guns is wrong, and restricting the rules will only result in some people do not have a gun and cannot protect themselves.
Should guns be legal

Actually a Harvard study shows that countries with gun ban have higher crime. Russia has 4 times the crime as the USA and has very strict gun control. Norway, Finland, Germany, and France have low murder rates. Luxembourg has a total handgun ban has a murder rate 9 times higher than Germany. Criminals always get their hands on guns,the only thing banning guns does is stop law abiding citizens from getting them. The criminals still use guns so what does this solve? You said that rules were meant to maintain order and could be change. The constitution was made to protect human rights. Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither. -Benjamin Franklin
Should guns be legal

1. rules are made to maintain order, and it can be changed based on a situation. if there's chaos or disorder created by the rule, the rule can be revised even if it is a constitution. now, due to guns possession, citizens tend to use guns even for small or minor conflict. it is true, maybe at first they use it for self defense, but as time passes their intention has changed. and their role has been shifted from defender to attacker. 2. most countries where guns are allowed have more crimes than those who don't. Brazil, Africa, and America are the perfect example of this. how come? because the criminals know that the citizens have guns, thus they have to have more guns. guns possession does not ensure safety. the criminals use more advanced type of guns which are more dangerous while the government only allow his citizen to posses a standard gun.
Free Will

You are messing with the wrong debater here... I have fate backing me ------>The case against free will begins with understanding insanity and how people with higher sentience than an animal but lower sentience than the average human operate. Whether it's Down's syndrome etc. you will see that the more people are able to access mentally, the 'freer' the will appears to society.It is such that Fate sets you up to make decisions again and again and yes the 'option of chocolate' exists in your perception but in reality to Bob, the option was never a real option at all even if he felt that it was.Pro concedes (so I won't provide proof unless demanded to) that the chemistry of the body and biochemistry of the brain's neurones and physiological interactions of neurones etc. are the entirety (yes entirety) of what leads people like Bob to end up picking vanilla and even to want ice cream in the first place (their memory of ice cream is being triggered in some shape or form by a combination of hunger, perhaps heat or perhaps an urge to feel child-like again). Pro concedes these influence the decision but says they see no reason to think that a person can't still choose between multiple options in how they respond to those thoughts and desires. Well here is where the flaw is:1) The 'response' is part of the result of the desires and thoughts.2) There is no 'responding to one's own response unless Pro means in hindsight. Bob easily could regret choosing vanilla later on and this would in no way at all prove free will but instead encourage us to think Bob was trapped in a limited mindset and body chemistry that made him go for Vanilla on impulse combined with lack of an urge to prevent that impulse.So in other words, Pro is saying that because there are other options I (Con) am denying that the individual responds to the 'choice' and 'chooses' as a response to their thoughts and desires. Where Pro is going wrong is that the very response itself is chained to said thoughts and desires.The remainder of Pro's Round 2 has been annihlated by this fantastic, eloquently written rebuttal. I thank you for thanking me for reading this masterpiece.http://www.youtube.com...
Free Will

Con argues that people lack free will. Con's main argument seems to be this: "If there is a will beyond the given body's biochemistry, brain's construct and chemistry as well as life experience and memories up to that point then what is it? How can will escape its past? How can you gain the freedom to make the decision beyond the inevitable one you'd always have made in that scenario?" In response: I argue that the will is the aspect of the person that chooses how to respond to a situation. So certainly one's biology, past experiences etc. affect the type of thoughts and desires one has. Yet, I see no reason to think that a person can't still choose between multiple options in how they respond to those thoughts and desires. For example, say Bob had the thought to go to ice cream parlor because for whatever reason he just happened to think of ice cream and his taste buds are inclined to like ice cream, especially vanilla. He can still assess the idea of going to the ice cream parlor to get vanilla ice cream and choose whether he wants to do that or think about doing something else. Now say he chooses to think about doing something else. The idea of that other consideration will probably pop into his mind without total control, but he has some control over this process is my point. Bob is constantly interacting with the thoughts and desires that pop into his mind. So overall, while there is a level of determinism in the thoughts and desires that come about for Bob. Bob still has free will in how he chooses to respond to those thoughts and desires.
Free Will

Good theme tune to this speech --------------->What I am going to explain to you is going to horrify you. When I first realized it, I cried (real tears) and begged any God out there to help me and free me from the hell that the truth is... Then I realized the Gods themselves lack free will and that the ultimate power is the fate we are all enslaved by. At first it was horrific, terrifying... Then it became 'just alright' a thing 'I could handle' and then... It evolved into the most beautiful truth I have ever uncovered in all my years of breaking apart reality and the corrupt lies that government tells us (I'm a flat Earther among other things).Let's start at the basic thing that made me cry:We are all slaves, we have no say in our actions and if someone molests their child and a gang beats them up out of 'vigilante justice' then both the pedophile and the gang were enslaved and neither really to blame for the evil or good acts they did.This is, at first, horrifying... If no one had control over their evil actions then every single person we've ever punished was wronfully treated... You know you get raped and worse in prison right?So what? That's the next step... How can you cope with this ultimate inescapable enslavement to fate, the one true power? You must submit, you must accept... There is no other choice. Even if you 'deny' it to your dying breath you were enslaved to always have done so given your DNA and life experience (both physically and psychologically).It's a cruel reality, merciless even to the God(s) within it. They control everything except themselves... The irony of it is so cruel they must go insane realising that those worshipping them are deluded!God didn't choose to be the cruel figure of the Bible, nor to drown the world in a flood with Noah's Ark as salvation God was a helpless, corrupt power-figure enslaved to act as he/she/it/they acted due to how fate programmed him/her/it/them to act.Understand that given the brain chemistry, body chemistry and life events leading up to that moment... Bob would always have chosen vanilla... This is the brutal truth that you free-willers want to escape and you can't no matter how hard your pathetic slave-mouth moves or puppet-fingers type... You are a slave in the construct and by god are you helpless to evade it...I am sorry to tell you but the 'proof' of there being no free will is that will itself is dependent on things that leave it anything but free. There is no will with no body and no brain as well as no memories in that physical brain. You can romanticize it being a metaphysical soul but even that metaphysical soul is a slave to its own programming via fate and the Matrix coding.I ask you this:If there is a will beyond the given body's biochemistry, brain's construct and chemistry as well as life experience and memories up to that point then what is it? How can will escape its past? How can you gain the freedom to make the decision beyond the inevitable one you'd always have made in that scenario?You are a rat in a maze that you can't escape and the scientist isn't God but fate itself and fate is a merciless entity, believe me...http://www.youtube.com...
Free Will

This is a specific debate about free will. I will take the position that humans have free will (in the libertarian sense of 'could have chosen otherwise') and furthermore that the argument that free choices would amount to random or unexplained choices is not a compelling argument. Say Bob is presented with the choice between chocolate ice cream and vanilla ice cream. Bob chooses vanilla. Now surely there is a reason why Bob chose vanilla. I maintain that the reason why Bob chose vanilla as opposed to chocolate is because that is how Bob chose to use his will in those circumstances. Now the determinist may argue that my answer is incomplete or amounts to randomness. However, I disagree. It's not random or unexplained. Bob deliberately chose to align will with choosing vanilla and that explains why he made the choice that he did. So overall, I am maintaining that the determinist needs to explain why libertarian free choices amount to random/unexplained choices.
Free Will

Con says that body and biochemistry are the entirety of what leads to Bob picking vanilla. I don't agree with that point as that would be materialistic materialism which I reject. Con then says that the consideration of other options is itself also determined. I agree that this is the position of determinism, but I don't see why I must agree that determinism is true. I still think it is entirely plausible to maintain that while a person's mind is influenced by desires and considerations outside of their initial control, a person is presented with competing desires and considerations that they then freely choose among. I see no reason to give up that conception. The strongest argument against this view of free will (I think) is the argument that free will amounts to randomness, but I don't think that argument follows. So, I think free will can still be maintained and in fact I think it best explains our experience of how we make choices.
abortion

First off, thanks to my opponent for the challenge. I would hope that he would have been more considerate with the time limit - but alas, I have accepted. So, now to my argument. A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb. What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.
children need to be taught to be more tolerant at school

In many schools, children bully others for things that are ridiculously sexist or intolerant. for example many boys at schools tease other boys for listening to the "wrong music" ie: female vocals and for watching "girl movies". It's ridiculous and completely biased. Children are almost forced to become their stereotypical gender role.For example; say a boy watches ugly betty, he is instantly an outcast. Another thing, homophobia is common in schools. The derogative term "gay" is sometimes used literally or in association with the gay community. eg:"OMG you watched the secret life of bees instead of fast& furious! you are like the gayest guy on Earth". If children are using the term gay without any implication on the sexual , orientation then they probably just caught on with everyone saying it . but if they are making negative implications on the gay community then something needs to be done about it. Some children are so unfamiliar with the actual gay community that they break out into laughter whenever they are studying a gay writer or gay is used in some form in schoolwork. Children need to be taught to be tolerant about these things and become familiar with them before young children turn into racist intolerant little George Bushes!
children need to be taught to be more tolerant at school

While I do not agree with you on some of your arguments, I do agree that children do need to be taught not to always worry about what others may think of them. However what you are doing in one of your arguments, that is, comparing our generation to preceding generations is not a good way of judging our tolerance. As everyone knows, past generations were VERY VERY intolerant not to say, more violent. This comparison of us to past generations obviously makes us look like angels, however anything compared to that would look heavenly. It is similar to comparing Gordon Ramsay to the nearest Chinese takeout store. Whether we look good in contrast or not we must know that the intolerant behaviour in our schools may not be completely personal. Even though it is a well known fact that it is impossible to have a unanimous healthy mind among all, it is the schools liability to ensure that the children attending are not growing up in a hateful environment. We must do our best to help children understand other people and accept them. And I know many MALES who like evanescence and bjork and beyonce OK? you're being a bit biased there.
children need to be taught to be more tolerant at school

First off, I would like to welcome my opponent to debate.org! I hope you will enjoy many debates here and learn a great deal in the process. Not stating a specific resolution, I am going to assume it to be the title of the debate "Children need to be taught to be more tolerant at school." My opponent's entire case centers around intolerance, specifically in regard to kids picking on each other over issues of personal preference. This includes but is not limited to intolerance to musical preference, movie preference and sexual preference. To refute my opponent's argument I will shine a different light on the subject. Fact of the matter is, compared to prior generations, generations today are much more tolerant about such matters, as evidenced by most young people today (generally ages 30 and below) being FAR AND AWAY more tolerant of gays, lesbians, trans-gender and bisexuals. Teasing, bullying and picking on other children is a form of self empowerment however, and children (all people for that matter) do such things to make themselves feel better about themselves or to gain power over another by trying make other people's views less valid than their own. As an alternative to the resolution that "children need to be taught to be more tolerant at school," I propose this: ***Children need to be taught to not worry about what other people think.*** No matter how hard you may try, you will not be able to teach all people to have an open mind and respect each and every viewpoint of others. What you can teach, is that people should be confident in themselves and what they believe and not to worry what somebody else thinks. For example by looking at your profile I see that some of your own preferences are: Music:bjork, evanescence, p!nk, beyonce Sports Teams:sports shouldnt b on TV it wastes time TV Shows:desperate housewives If I were to make a snap judgement, I would say that you are gay for liking those music artists and tv shows as evidenced by the fact that you are male. (What self respecting male would like evanescence and beyonce, or desperate housewives?) However, that doesn't mean that you are in fact gay. But that is besides the point, even though I would make the claim that you are gay all you need to know is... WHO CARES? You will like what you like, and what does it matter that I am judging you for it. You are probably making a judgment call that I am intolerant, or an as$ hole for saying such things, but my statement holds true. What do I care what you think? I have my own preferences and that's fine by me. So In closing, what needs to be taught in schools is something more realistic and feasible than trying to stop kids from picking on each other. That is a fight as old as time itself. What needs to be taught in schools is self confidence, determination, and not to worry about what other people think of them.
Dinasour soft tissues and DNA prove their recent existance

Many examples of soft tissues inside dinosaur bone have been discovered in the past 25 years, including the following: In 1993, dinosaur bone blood cells (Morell, V. "Dino DNA: The hunt and the hype." Science 261(5118):160""162, 1993) In 1997, hemoglobin, as well as recognizable red blood cells, in T. rex bone (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 94:6291""6296, 1997) (Schweitzer, M. and Staedter, I. "The Real Jurassic Park, Earth." June 1997, pp. 55""57) In 2003, evidence of the protein osteocalcin (Connective Tissue Research 44 Suppl. 1:41""46, 2003) In 2005, flexible ligaments and blood vessels (Schweitzer, M., et al. "Soft-tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex." Science 307(5717):1952""1955, 2005) (Stokstad, E. "Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue raises tantalizing prospects." Science 307(5717):1852, 2005) In 2007, collagen in T. rex bone (1Schweitzer, M., et al. "Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein." Science 316(5822):277""280, 2007 In 2009, elastin and laminin, and further confirmation of collagen""in a duck-billed dinosaur (Schweitzer, M., et al. "Biomolecular characterization and protein sequences of the Campanian hadrosaur B. Canadensis." Science 324(5927):626""631, 2009) In 2012, osteocytes, actin, tubulin, and DNA (Schweitzer, M., et al. "Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules." Bone 52(1):414""423, 2013) http://www.youtube.com... The fact that these tissues have been found is not of any dispute, but what they reveal is of hot dispute. The obvious answer is that these soft tissues reveal that these dinosaurs did not die out millions of years ago. This statement is supported by Morten Allentoft of Murdoch University, "However, even under the best preservation conditions at 5(degrees) C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA 'strand' after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80-85 Myr old Cretaceous bone" (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...). If these dinosaurs existed only ~4,000 years ago (around the time of the global flood), the findings of DNA and other soft tissues are much more easily explained. The evidence is very clear that these soft tissues could not last millions of years, especially when considering more realistic conditions as opposed to "5 degrees Celsius." Soft tissue found in the plethora of unfossilized dinosaur bones, such as a horn of a Triceratops containing unfossilized sheets of bone matrix (http://www.sciencedirect.com...) supports the recent existence of dinosaurs and refutes the geologic column/evolution models which posit that these fossils are millions of years old.