BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Role of Propaganda in the Media.

This debate will concentrate on the topic of propaganda in the media, the argument will be: Has propaganda in the US media created limitations on democracy? I will be arguing that through the creation of an uninformed electorate, democracy in the United States has been obstructed. This is evident in the selection of representatives who advocate policies that are contradictory to the best interest and/or opinion of the voter. I leave the challenger to expand on my brief statement and present the first argument. Definitions: -Propaganda: Information of a biased or misleading nature used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view. -Media: The main means of mass information. (e.g. radio, television, newspapers, and the Internet) regarded collectively. -Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Note: All sources must be cited, sources must be objective and unbiased.
Gun Control

I thank you for your prompt reply and for being courteous. Point 1. I will leave it up to the voters to determine who has met the burden of proof on this point. I have posted 3 separate links and one of them cite the FBI crime report as their reference. You have posted the same news article twice. Point 2. Your assertion was that they handed guns out like candy. You have now backed away from that and modified your statement to selling them where candy is also sold. You have declared this as "irresponsible". No matter what Federal Firearms Licensed dealer sells you a gun, you will be subject to the same NICS check. This means that if I purchase a pistol at 'Bob's guns' or 'Walmart', I will still be required to follow the same rules and will be subject to a records check. I should also like to point out that candy has nothing to do with it. I take it that you would be just as displeased if a gun store also had a .25 cent bubblegum machine by the counter as you are at a "supermarket" selling guns? If so, what is the correlation to candy and firearms that has you so upset? If not, what amount of candy sold constitutes cause for concern? Point 3. I have cited my sources and stand by them. You are still conflating murder with homicide. In the link you provided ( I will re-post directly below) they clearly state "homicide" and not "murder". "According to homicide data collected by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, and compiled by The Guardian newspaper" http://www.washingtonpost.com... Definitions: Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Homicide: The killing of one human being by another. http://dictionary.reference.com... Note the difference here. One is unlawful no matter what. Murder is unlawful; homicide on the other hand, does not carry the prerequisite of "unlawful" to the definition of the death. What this means is that not all homicides are murder, but all murders are homicide. This is a very important distinction when citing gun homicides. Furthermore, if you look at the UN study that your link cited and scroll down to figure 1.3, you will see that North America has the lowest rate of murder in the Americas. You will also see the North America has a lower murder rate than the world average. That bears repeating; The average murder rate of the world is higher than that of North America. We also have a lower murder rate than Eastern Europe, Central Asia, South, East, West, and Central Africa, and even lower than the Caribbean. In fact, when broken down by country, the US is not even in the top 100 for murders. http://www.unodc.org... Again, that was information garnered from your linked source. Thank you for your careful review if the sources I provided. I look forward to the next round.
Gun Control

Point 1: False: People are more likely to find themselves in unsafe situation if armed, they are more likely to cause harm than prevent it. Compare the states with any other country with gun control and the numbers are incomparable. 9,000 deaths from firearms in the US compared to two and three digit numbers in other western countries (source: http://www.theguardian.com...) Point 2. Guns are available in super markets in America - where they also sell candy. This is very irresponsible. Point 3. Actually no, an officer killing a person is not listed under murder - the numbers I gave you were legit murders.
Gun Control

Hello and thank you for this debate. I look forward to debating you. Point 1. People are generally safer and less likely to become a victim of crime if they are armed. Guns are not used more often in crime than defense. "According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year" . http://www.hoplofobia.info... According to the FBI, gun crime is down. "The new study found U. S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence -- assaults, robberies, sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found. " . http://www.cnn.com... According to the Crime Prevention Research Center and backed by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, concealed carry permits have risen from about 2.7 million in 1999 to 11.1 million in 2014. This does not account for the States like AZ that have no requirement for a concealed carry license. . http://crimeresearch.org... Point 2. Guns are not handed out like candy. Without valid evidence to support this claim, I am forced to dismiss it. Point 3. Yes, 11,000 (or there about) gun homicides are committed every year in the US. I make the distinction between homicide and murder (as stated by you) though. Your link even makes this distinction. Why is it relevant? Because a percentage of those gun homicides are deemed justifiable. When the police shoot an armed suspect to death, that homicide is recorded in those 11,000. So is the homeowner shooting the person breaking into their home. So no, there are not 11,000 gun murders per year. All of that has little to do with my point of view though. Our Constitution must be amended for lawful gun control to be enacted. Without a Constitutional amendment, nothing can legally change. I would also argue that any current restrictions on firearm ownership is unconstitutional. There have been many judges that have pushed the gun control agenda via judicial activism and I believe they were violating their oath of office in doing so. That being said, the 'pro gun control' agenda is not centered around Constitutional amendment and therefore it is wrong and no one should support it. Notice how Constitutional amendment is not a bullet point. . http://www.ncsl.org...
Gun Control

I am pro gun control, because it is a fact that the possession of guns is more likely to cause than security. (source: http://www.theguardian.com...) Guns are dangerous weapons designed to harm other people, there is no reason why this should be handed out to civilians as if they were candy. It's irresponsible and dangerous. 17,000 murders occur on average every year in the states (source: http://www.disastercenter.com...) 11,000 of these are caused by firearms. (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...)
The Death Penalty

Once again, my opponent concedes all the points he made in the last round and has but one left. "Denmark is also a close-knit community with little money and a family-like quality to it. Singapore is, however, stricter and has stronger and scarier rules than Denmark." Exactly my point. Looking at individual countries means absolutely nothing, and no valid statistical correlation can be drawn. Thank you for agreeing with my argument. "The reason there is no statistical correlation between the death penalty and crime rates is simply because we do not use it enough to make such a correlation." Basically, you are saying "Let's keep killing people until I win this debate". We're talking about taking a person's LIFE. Not implementing new rules and making them harsh to test the waters. *** I have debunked two of my opponent's bible quote arguments. I have debunked my opponent's argument about the death penalty being a deterrent for murder. I have debunked my opponent's argument about BTK. I have also debunked my opponent's example of Singapore with the counterexample of Denmark. My opponent however, has not responded to any of MY arguments. 1. Wrongly accused people should be set free, this cannot be done with death sentences. 2. The life sentence is as great a punishment as the death sentence. 3. The life sentence is cheaper for tax payers than the death sentence These were made very early on, my opponent had 2 chances to respond to these, and he chose not to. I believe I have made my argument clear. Thank you.
The Death Penalty

My opponent concedes all his other points in favor of one that I have already, in a clear fashion, said was invalid. Though I have clearly stated that there is NO STATISTICAL CORRELATION between the death penalty and crime rates, he refuses to give up the point even though it renders his argument void. However, I will play by his game. My opponent's argument is that Singapore, the happiest country in Asia, has strict rules regarding everything and thus, it proves his point. http://en.wikipedia.org... Denmark is not the happiest country in Asia. Nor is it the happiest country in Europe. Denmark is recognized as the happiest country IN THE WORLD, and they have abolished the death penalty for over a decade. That having been said, I reiterate: There is no statistical correlation between the death penalty and crime rates.
The Death Penalty

http://abcnews.go.com... Singapore is the happiest country in Asia. Singapore has strict and harsh rules, including the death penalty. If you do wrong, you get whipped, if you do really wrong, you get killed. Using fear, Singapore has created a happy and safe enviroment. The US, is, however, not so happy. We have loose and bending rules. If the death penalty was instituted in each and every case of murder where the murder has either confessed or has been proven guilty with little to no room for escaping that judgement, fear would set into murderes and would lessen the crime rate. The problem is simple: The death penalty is not used often, and does not strike fear into the hearts of criminals as much as it should.
The Death Penalty

Should a man be killed for his actions? I, for one, think so. If you believe in the bible, as many of us do, you will know it specifically states "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'" Mathhew 5:38. This basically means "if you kill someone, you yourself should be killed". Now, going back to the bible, it also says "And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away." Mathhew 5:30. This basically means "If you have harmed another, repent by be harmed yourself." With these statements from what many consider "the good book", many would be in favor of the death penalty, now wouldn't they? Well, the bible isn't the only reason for the death penalty. It just backs it up. The second reason, and most important, is fear. If murders knew that they were going to get killed after killing intentionally, the wouldn't kill. Many murders could have been stopped. For example, BTK, incase you don't know of him, was a mass murder from Kansas. BTK was captured a few years ago, and he killed many people over a period of years (he stopped for about seven years before starting once more). When sentanced, he recieved three life sentances. That may seem like much, but it allows him chance for escape, and chance to kill again. If the death penalty was put upon him, this would have been an example for other potential murders, and murder rates would have dropped for at least one year, until another murderer sprang up, killed, got caught, and was killed. Those are my reasons for the death penalty.
Capital punishment to criminals should be banned.

The example of deadly cycle of killing you gave, is MUNDANE!! Do you also punish your teacher when she punishes you on not doing homework? YOUR INHUMANITY ARGUMENT A just society, should provide justice to the victim and his family! There are rights of victims and their family too! Hangings or headshots are not that inhumane. Also, many criminals say they should be let free, or be killed. So for them, getting deprived of their liberties is more inhumane YOUR "WORTHY" CRIME ARGUMENT See buddy, we are not saying that a person should get death on stealing a candy. Death penalty should be reserved only for the RAREST OF THE RARE cases. Such cases should include murders in the most inhumane ways or doing crimes which may lead to public outrage. DP should be given when there is a threat to national security or nation sentiments are getting hurt. In short, DP should be given when a serious crime affects more than one people. As long as minors are concerned, laws like the Juvenile Justice Act 2000 of India help. YOUR INNOCENCE ARGUMENT Bro that is the fault of your judiciary and not of DP. Tell your crime departments to carry out better investigations. YOUR DETERRENCE ARGUMENT According to you, if DP doesn't deter crime, abolishing it will do so? By giving DPs, we give a strong message to similar minded people and the world that the respective country is not soft on heinous crimes. YOUR COST ARGUMENTS Don't use lethal injections. Use hangings or headshots. They cost less than a good pizza. Sources: My own brain
Capital punishment to criminals should be banned.

From my point of view Death Penalty should be accepted. Humanity already have evidence of the deterrent effect caused by the death penalty. For instance, according to 'Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Post-moratorium Panel Data' by Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Paul H. Rubin, Emory University and Joanna M. Shepherd, Clemson University and Emory University. Statistics results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders"with a margin of error of plus or minus 10. Prisons waste tons of money by keeping these people who were sentenced to live in prisons for the entire life! They don't work, they don't bring any benefit to the society, but differently from starving people, they still are being given a shelter, food and even being looked after. Death penalty would reduce the spendings that can be used for other, more beneficial purposes.
Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US best interest."

Unfortunately he has once again neglected to state why the plan proposed by the Obama administration is in the US' best interest, instead simply stating the goals of the plan. C1: One error my opponent made was that he said "we are going over there to restablize the government. .. " As I stated before, prior to 2001 the government was only unstable from a western perspective. In reality it was quite stable, but that stability resulted in an environment that was unfavorable. The invasion in 2001 was what made Afghanistan caused the instability you are referring to in the first place. What my opponent perhaps means to say is the current strategy as of 2009 is one to promote stability. C2: Again, I do not believe that the Obama strategy is going to result in a stable Afghan government that will be useful for fighting terrorism and I have given reasons why. I have repeated this ad nauseum, just because you say the plan has goals that are favorable does not mean it's a good idea if you can't prove the plan will work. Is may be an argument ad adsurdum, but If I propose to feed the human race by harvesting cheese from the moon, it is not a good idea just because my goal is favorable. The idea must be practical and possible. My opponent has failed to prove that the idea he supports is practical and possible while I have provided ample evidence that it is not. C3: I have no idea what general my opponent is quoting, but it is not necessary to discuss whether or not the quote is true. The fact that an unstable Afghanistan is a threat to America does not automatically make any plan to stabilize Afghanistan a good idea. Conclusion: While he has restated the purposes of the Obama plan numerous times, my opponent has done nothing to defend the argument that it is in the US' best interests. I would also like to note that while he criticized my use of sources, my opponent did not cite any of his own except for one which I proved not to be relevant to the debate. I have provided many reasons why this strategy is a bad idea. However, I do not even feel that this was necessary considering the fact that in the case of an act of war, the burden of proof should be on those supporting the attacker. In this case, no claims were made to explain why the Obama strategy would result in the mentioned goals being successful achieved.
Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US best interest."

since this is my last thing to say anything all i would like to say is that we are going over there to restablize the government so that in the future we can count on thier help to find terroristist and where they may be hiding. so that we can take them out as soon as possible. thats all we are trying to o so that they can defend them selfs. And as one General said "an UNSTABLE AFGHANISTAN is a threat to us all. "
Resolved: President Obama's plan for increasing troops in Afghanistan is in the US best interest."

Obama's plan Encourages Afghan RESPONSIBILITY by letting them know that we wont give up on them and that they themselves can do this. PRESIDENT Barrack Obama's plan for disengaging from Afghanistan is both a unigue solution for the immediate problem in that graveyard of empires and a needed recasting of the nations foucs in its struggle againstIslamic jihadists. as such, we reluctantly endorse Obama'splan to commit 30000 more U.S. troops to afghanistan as a good-faith effort to make the best of a bad situation notof his making. underpending the idea of surging to disengage is a refreshingly candid and well-considered assessment of the limits of american power and financial means. we have too many othe rconcerns to overcommit ourselves to an Asian occupation. the genuis of Obama's reformulation of the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan is this-- Failure, if it comes, will follow a major surge of U.S. forces for about as long as it took to tame the insurgencyin Iraq. also i would just like to say this many in america and around the world have wondered about MR.Obama's personal dedication to winning the war. the presidents speech offered a qualifed answer. He said he must "weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces," and argued against a more expansive commitment to afghanistan "because the nation I am most interest in building is our own. " But he also described powerfully the threat posed by "violent extermism" and said, "it will be an enduring test of our free society and our leadership in the world." with obvious reluctance but with clearheadedness, Mr. Obama has taken a major step toward meeting that test also my oppoent has not given any evidence to discredit my third contention against how many people want Obama's plan to be put in action i would also like to say that this website here "wikipedia" can be edited so it is there for discredited since anyone can change it so that it works in there favor i hope the voters take that into effect before voting. also again my oppoent has not show anything saying that sending more troops over to Afghanistan is not in the united states best interest. so i hope that all who vote take that into effect as well. so i do only see a aff vote in this deabt and THANK YOU!!!!!
I would be a better president than you

Rules: 1. Shared burden of proof. 2. Both debaters are running for president, and will try to convince the voters that they will be a better president than the other. 3. The election is set amid the current political landscape. 4. Con will post his opening arguments in Round 1, and from there must post "No round, as agreed upon" in Round 3. If he does not do so, he will forfeit all 7 points to Pro. Let's begin.
I would be a better president than you

I would ask that my opponent adhere to our previously scheduled rule that he post "no round, as agreed upon" in the final round, because I will be unable to respond to his next round arguments -- forfeiting does not afford him the luxury of changing the rules. He commented in round 1 that he would be a better president than me because he would "listen to the voice of [the] people" and "will not be selfish thinking that this person did not vote for or he or she is not part of my party. " The implication is that I would not listen to the voice of my people, or I would be selfish toward people who didn't vote for me. This is a bare-assertion fallacy. Con can not support this statement, so we must place it in the category of a baseless ad hominem attack. He also mentions dolling out positions on the basis of votes -- that is, cronyism -- and implies that I would engage in some type of quid pro quo. Again, he has no facts to back this up.
I would be a better president than you

Platform: 1. Eliminate all personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, estate taxes, and taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest. 2. Impose tariffs on imports. 3. Legalize all drugs. 4. Tax those drugs. 5. Eliminate all federal regulations. 6. Repeal ObamaCare. 7. Abolish Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. 8. Part-time Congress. 9. Abolish the Federal Reserve and bring back the gold standard. 10. Abolish the Departments of Education, Interior, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Commerce, Energy, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 11. Ban all gay marriages. 12. Ban all abortions. 13. Re-invade Iraq. 14. Invade Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, and the Congo. 15. Stay in Afghanistan. 16. Expand the drone war. 17. Allow states to ban contraception. 18. Allow states to establish religions. 19. Abolish all campaign finance restrictions. 20. Expand oil subsidies. 21. Abolish welfare.
I would be a better president than you

I will be better than you, if i become a president because i will listen to the voice of my people,I will not be selfish thinking that this person did not vote for or he or she is not part of my party so i will not assign a job to him or her and give it to a bifferent person who voted for me and is part of my party knowing perfectly well that he or she can not do the work as expected,but i will rather give it to the one who can do it and do it well.
Evolution is a Fact

I would ask that voters forgive my round 2 forfiet, as I was packing because I am moving in a few days. I would also like to ask all athiest, agnostic, and skeptic voters to give an unbiased vote on this debate. Thank you for you cooperation. [Opening argument] I rebute that Evolution is not theory, because in reality, it is. Charles Darwin came up with the idea of evolution in the 1800's. Charles Darwin theorised it. Which means it is what he thought happened. Evolution cannot be a fact because Charles Darwin is the one who theorised it. If we are talking about evolution of plants, that is a fact. But I will say this. Organism's apparently created apes which created humans. Organism's seem unlikely to create every living thing. Why? It seems unlikely. Organism's like the ones that supposedly made apes would have to have a heart, a brain, working legs and bones, circulatory system, and a digestive system. It seems as if organism's randomly created apes which created humans. It is said that humans came after the dinosaurs, which means you can't say these human creating apes went extinct. If apes created humans, why aren't apes creating humans now? Apes now cannot walk on two legs. Now apes apprently turned to humans. I ask you this. How were these cavemen able to speak eachother? How come we have hundred's of different languages? How come we have people of different colors? How come we have so many advanced words in different languages? Apprently cavemen were not so smart, so how were they able to come up with these things?