BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should young children be allowed to play rated M games

Hello. I will be here to argue that young children, whom I will classify as under the age of 13, should not be allowed to play rated M video games. For years there have been argumeets about this subject, and I will be debating as the con of thisnsubject. I would also like to point out I am a strong beleive that video games do not cause violence in mature people, but if you are to give a a young child, whose mind is much more malleable than a 18 year old adult, a video game such as Grand Theft Auto, a game which involves hookers, killing cops, and drugs, they may grow up to think that these action are all acceptable. I would like to hear what the pro has to say, as I do not have enough time to continue at the moment.
Ban bacon

The topic is about banning bacon and with only this round to go to counter all of that stuff you posted is just not going to happen, sorry. Fact of the matter is that you can eat meat and still be responsible stewards of the planet. When it comes to bacon though here is my rebuttal: - Vodka is as much of a food source as iceberg lettuce would be when it comes to nutritional value and so picking random drinks or foods to compare to isn't really justifying why bacon should be banned - Banning bacon would not cause people to go vegan. Going vegan is more of a lifestyle choice than anything else just like being a fruitarian or pescatarian or any other terian. - The vast majority of Americans are not vegans nor do they want to be made one by force. - Banning something because people don't follow your lifestyle isn't right. It's authoritarian and contrary to what this country is about. - There are ways to improve the environment without dictating what someone can and can't eat. - You say that banning veganism would be unfair to animals, well how do you explain animals that eat meat? If they can hunt why can't we? Aren't we animals as well?
Ban bacon

Nearly all animals have the capacity to suffer and feel pain if they have a nervous system so pigs are not unique to that, but you are drawing the line for bacon which is one cut of a pig but seemingly ignoring all of the other animals that people use as a food source. There is no doubt that there are companies out there that will abuse their stock of animals and that can be fixed, but it doesn't change the fact that pigs are still a legitimate food source. When it comes to supply and demand if you ban bacon then the demand for another animal product will take its place. Pig farming doesn't just create bacon for your breakfast it takes multiple cuts from the pig such as bacon, loin, ribs, feet, and so on. If you ban bacon then maybe people will turn to turkey bacon, and then this same argument comes up for the turkey. Banning bacon would not end the supply and demand for other animal products, just one, and you'd still have bacon being farmed locally and eaten locally by those families regardless of whether or not a store would be allowed to sell it. To your rebuttals: Taste is subjective sure and so if you don't like the taste of bacon then don't eat it, and if you stop liking something else then great stop eating it, but that doesn't mean you should force others to share your dislike. Banning bacon would not stop pork production but would waste a cut of meat. It would be wasteful. If your end goal is to ban meat production as a whole then say so because otherwise banning one cut of meat it irresponsible. As for the vegan argument and bean argument how sustainable would a vegan diet be if millions of people were forced to adhere to it? and yes beans have protein, so do other vegetables, but that just means we have options which includes meat. Breakfast...you've had plenty of breakfast without bacon, again great, that's your choice, but you can't force others to eat your diet. Reverse it and let's ban vegan lifestyles, how fun or fair would that be for you? Follow up questions: 1. Are you opposed to hunting a pig and taking the bacon? 2. If the farming process was made more humane in your eyes would you be ok with it? 3. Do you really just want to ban meat production as a whole and force millions of people to eat like you?
Ban bacon

Top 5 Reasons to not ban bacon: 1. It tastes amazing and can enhance almost anything 2. Bacon is just one cut off of a pig and so if you banned bacon you'd be wasting a portion of the animal during butchering unless you are wanting to ban pork altogether 3. Bacon is part of a sustainable food source 4. Bacon has a lot of protein and if eaten in moderation it's not that bad for you 5. Breakfast just wouldn't be breakfast without bacon and a bonus 6th reason would be that there's no real legitimate reason to ban bacon
Ban bacon

I pro will argue for the topicCon against the topicBan " : to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done : to forbid (someone) from doing or being part of something" Merriam-webster Bacon " the back and sides of the hog, salted and dried or smoked, usually sliced thin and fried for food." http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...
Resolved, the death penalty be illegalized in all of the United States

Now, the only thing that my opponent contends in his opening statement is that killing killers is hypocritical, insofar as showing that killing is wrong, but killing people in the process. I rebuke this as such: The primary issue that caused the death penalty to become stature is the concept of repeat offences, more specifically, repeat murders. This was the primary and, at the time, solitary cause for capital punishment, and rightly so. If a person, say a serial murderer is systematically killing a certain kind of people, it is in the best interest of society to kill them. This is logical, taken that we follow the theory of valuing the lives of many over that of the few. Though I have already met the negative burden of proving the Affirmative case flawed and negated, I will present the following contentions to ensure your vote for me: C.1) Economic Preference As I stated previously, many of the felons in the United States are repeat offenders, in fact, according to the U. S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 70% of federal criminals that are release from prison will return there within the next 10 years alone. Since repeat offenders in the U. S. is CLEARLY an issue, housing, feeding, entertaining, conditioning and supervising criminals is an extreme net loss to an already poor government. If we take the baddest and statistically proven repeat-offenders of serious and unforgivable crimes and kill them, we save a significant amount of money. Because I have negated the Affirmative's claim AND presented a unique reason for you to affirm, I urge a vote for the NEGATIVE at this point in the debate. Thank you.
Im Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

Take a look at all the places where guns have been taken away such as England, Ireland, Jamaica, and Chicago. Homicide rates spike up(https://crimeresearch.org...). The reason for this is people get guns illegally, or they use other weapons such as knives. If government takes away your guns, then you will have no way to protect yourself in a Government tyranny. It actually is legal for civilians to kill. A person is entitled to use a gun for self defense in the U.S., according to the constitution. Facts and statistics are the best way to present a point, not assumptions or feelings.
Im Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

Concealed Carry owners are 6% more law abiding than police, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center. They can shoot the shooter, and stop the massacre. States that implemented "shall-issue" concealed carry laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent, according to an analysis of FBI crime data by economist and political commentator John R. Lott Jr., PhD. Conversely, states with more restrictive concealed-carry laws have gun-related murder rates that are 10 percent higher, according to a 2013 study in Applied Economic Letters. Statistically, guns save more lives than take them. Guns are for self-defense, but mainly to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, like the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. If the government takes away our guns, we won't have any self-defense against a tyrannical government.
You lick me and I will lick yo

You lick me, Then I will lick you. We will help each other along. We read in the Bible how we are kindred souls adopted into the family. And we have a power bigger than all of this world together - When we lick each other's cheek. Enemy that we face is too big for just one, We can't stand all alone. Let us join our hearts and lick our cheeks, And march for the Lord, Until the battle is won. Jesus sent a gardna to pray for you and me, And lick each other according to the word of a father above.
All morality is subjective

DefinitionsObjective - valid and binding regardless of, and independent from human opinion or culture, etc. Whatever exists objectively can, in some logically possible state of affairs, be gradually detected and identified rather than subjectively created by us. For example the physical world is fallibly detected and identified, it is not created by us in our minds, etc. Foundational - a basic belief which can't be inferred or further justified from other beliefs, but that one is rational to believe given the absence of any defeater for such a belief, eg, the belief in the external world. [1] Moral values - moral worth in terms of good v bad: justice is good, injustice is bad, equality is good, inequality is bad, etcMoral duties - moral obligation in terms of right v wrong: saving a child's life is is the right thing to do, murdering that child for fun is the wrong thing to do. Burden of ProofsNota bene Pro's claim, "all moral principles are subjective" or the resolution, that "all morality is subjective." The logical equivalence of such claims is, "there are no moral principles which aren't subjective" or in other words, "there is not at least one objective moral principle."Now to win the debate I just need to rebut (rather than refute) Pro, meaning I can merely show that he fails to adequately justify the belief that there is not at least one objective moral principle. But that would be far too easy, and so for entertainment as well as educational value I shall refute Pro's radical claim and show that there is at least one objective moral principle. I'll do this with two contentions (and their supporting arguments) outlined in my opening round. Thank you Pro. [2]Sources1. http://www.iep.utm.edu...2. http://www.dailywritingtips.com...
All morality is subjective

-I will be arguing in favor of the view that all moral principles are subjective in accordance to the culture and era in which they are applied. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Conclusion and final rebuttals Morality can be defined in the following ways: 1. Descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, a. some other group, such as a religion, or b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or 2. Normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. . http://plato.stanford.edu... Subjectivity can be defined as: a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world b. Particular to a given person; personal . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Gun Rights

Rebuttal, then summary." It is ineffective because no matter how many gun laws you have, criminals will still be able to get them"Correct but misleading. We've already discussed and proven that gun laws make it harder for criminals to obtain guns."but the law-abiding citizens will not have access, thus no self defense."Self-defense can1.) be carried out by means other than firearms2.) is not the responsibility of the citizen. Therefore, where normative statements on this level are made, they are incorrect, because the state's role is to maintain the monopoly on force, not the citizens." the crime rate,"No, they shouldn't. Your belief is that the crime rate isn't hugely materially affected by gun control. I'm agreeing with you on this, you're not proving anything here.This contention on Australia is irrelevant given that proportion of the crimes committed with a gun doesn't matter, only the number of crimes committed with a gun. Arguing that the proportion of crime which has been committed with a firearm has remained constant. Were my hypothesis to be correct, we would expect to see lower numbers of crimes committed with a firearm.[1]And we do." And you do not even have to use a gun, you can use a blunt object such as a golf club or a baseball bat."Pro concedes here after making an irrelevant point about the fact that you theoretically could use a firearm to act non-lethally but you don't, because guns are a weapon to kill, not maim or disable." it is your duty to defend them by "taking them out" with everything you"ve got."Misses the normative issue here, which is that everything else being equal, the state should prevent gun violence, not the citizen. Pro fails to attack the conclusion.In summary, we've learnt that1.) Gun control makes violations of the monopoly on force more deadly2.) It is not the role of a citizen to use firearms to defend themselves.1.)http://www.aic.gov.au...
Gun Rights

Rebuttal Final Remarks In Pros first argument, gun control in both effective and ineffective. It is ineffective because no matter how many gun laws you have, criminals will still be able to get them but the law-abiding citizens will not have access, thus no self defense. I do agree that required background checks do keep some of the un-intelligent criminals from getting guns, but the intelligent criminals know how to get firearms under the counter and black market. If your rate is per million, this is also arguable. Since Australia has some of the most strictest gun laws in the world, based on your beliefs, the crime rate, and crimes committed with firearms should have dropped since they placed the strict laws back in 1996. This is not the case, the detailed chart(1) shows that gun homicide rate has not dropped one bit, the armed robbery rate only dropped by 2.9 per 100,000. And the kidnap/abduction with a gun more than doubled since 1996. In Pros argument saying "Guns are a weapon to kill, not to knock someone out." This is wrong because, you do not always kill people when you shoot them depending on where you shoot them. You can shoot them in the shin or the femur. Shatter the bone and they are immobilized, the police can come and arrest them. And you do not even have to use a gun, you can use a blunt object such as a golf club or a baseball bat. In my opponent's argument "First, it"s absolutely not the duty of a citizen to "take out" a criminal." When the criminal is threatening your person or family with a firearm, it is your duty to defend them by "taking them out" with everything you"ve got. Including your firearms. You are not going to wait at least ten minutes for the police to arrive at your door. For my final remarks, the more people that conceal carry in public, criminals will be taken out faster if there were no guns present. There are many videos on youtube(2) showing people protecting their person or business with a gun. Most of the time with robberies and threats, the gun being used is not even fired. (1)- http://www.aic.gov.au... (2)- https://youtube.com...
Gun Rights

In Pro"s first paragraph, he says that there are 138 times more deaths per million in the USA than there are in United Kingdom. Yes, the guns have been taken away from the citizens, but there are also way less people to manage as there are five times more people in the United States than Britain(1). He has also said that the murder rate in Britain is four times less than America, yet if you consider these numbers, with America having almost five times more people, and since he didn"t if it was per million or not, Britain"s murder rate should be almost twice as much as America based on population. In Pro"s second paragraph, he has said that no "non-governmental" person, which a assume is the citizen, in not permitted to use violence unless it"s self defense. This is true, but the citizen is also allowed to defend their property with violence(2) if you have good reason. He also says the police uses violence in the form of arresting criminals. This is true, but considering that most of the time the criminals have already finished what they did and left by the time the police get there. My opponent's first paragraph of "Why guns matter to this paradigm" holds information that is all true, fists do not have the mass to effectively assault someone. In Pro"s second paragraph of this topic explains that most crimes are committed using a gun. You also have to consider over ninety percent of these were committed in gun free areas ever since the 1950"s(3). Criminals go to gun free zones just because they know they won"t be shot until the police show up. Pro also mentions that guns are specifically engineered to "kill people." This is also true, since they are engineered to hurt people in self defense, and the criminals get a hold on these tools as well through the black market and under the counter. In Pro"s first paragraph of "The United Kingdom and its relationship with guns" he claims that the death rate is lower in the United Kingdom because guns are not being used. This is true, as I said earlier, population is almost five times less than America, as a result, much easier to control. Yes, one of the goals is to decrease the deaths, but also the amount of crime. Third paragraph from the end, Pro also mentions that assuming you just woke up during an invasion, you won"t be alert enough to point a gun at your assailant. Assuming you had common sense, you shouldn"t immediately confront the burglar, as you"d be shot just like Pro said. Instead surprise him/her by knocking them unconscious. Also, more shootings per year are in self defense than to take lives(4) and armed citizens do take out more criminals than the police do a year(4). (1)- Google (2)- http://www2.law.ucla.edu... (3)- http://www.theblaze.com... 2nd paragraph. (4)- https://www.gunowners.org...
Gun Rights

I will now present my case. I will be mentioning two reasons to own firearms, and the impact of too much gun laws in today"s american society Everyone should be able to and ought to own a firearm for two reasons: Self Protection, and providing. In today"s society, there is crime everywhere including the streets, in the government offices, online, in planes, it can happen in your own home. If you don"t have a firearm and a criminal comes into your home and takes your private possessions and threatens the lives of you and your loved ones, the police can stop him in under 15 minutes, but a bullet can stop him in a split second. It is very rare that you will coax a determined criminal into giving up just by using your words. On the street, law-abiding citizens ought to conceal carry a firearm everywhere. If there is an armed shooter on site, any citizen will be able to stop the assailant in his tracks to prevent even more deaths. Guns are a tool that can help you provide for your family. Many american citizens own private land and they can hunt for animals without disrupting the business of their neighbors. The average rifle round costs less than an american dollar, and the cost of five pounds of meat at your local Walmart is a little over eleven dollars. Shooting a buck and getting thirty pounds of meat for less than a dollar beats buying five pounds of meat at your local Walmart for over ten dollars. The impact of too much gun laws would be pretty gruesome. The amount of mass shootings and murders would increase dramatically as the criminals will know the people that they will be shooting will have almost no possible way of defending themselves. And since when do criminals follow laws? The criminals can buy guns under the counter, through the black market, and by just stealing them. Not only will the amount of mass shootings rise, the amount of wounded and dead will rise even more. If every citizen had a gun, the criminals would know this and it would place fear on them. The amount of mass shootings would plummet as well as amount of wounded and dead. People have been claiming that guns are the reason for murder. I will have to disagree because guns can not shoot people without someone pulling the trigger. Therefore, it is the person and not the gun. The gun is merely a tool, just like your common screwdriver. If all guns were to just vanish out of existence, people will find another tool to get the job done. All of my sources are to the extent of my knowledge.
Only important subjects should be mandatory and choice of subjects should be at maximum

Elementary School: Math, LA, Science (required) -> This is sort of okay. I would reduce the emphasis on science. Middle School: Math, LA, Science (required) -> Again okay. I would eliminate science at all. High School: Math and LA (required) -> I would make the system based on choice. No compulsory subjects. You present your system..and dont justify, nor argue against my system. - Thats not much of a debate. Here is why my system works. Lets do some maths. Lets take 10 random people. I believe that there are 2 things that drives success: Discipline and Motivation. If you dont have both, you really got nothing. Think about it! and you will see that I am right. Because you deal with people who have different levels of motivations and disciplines, and you force them to study what they dont want.. You get students with low scores and you get drop outs. There arent many reasons to have a lot of students with low scores. But you do get them. Why? Because.. If you take the 10 random people, and you teach them maths, you get 3 people who are good at maths, and 1 of them continues the full academic route (a first degree, if you are really really lucky a phd, and if you are really really lucky a good/great scientist). What happens to the other 9 people?!? They get their school diploma, and attend a university that is below what they could have been accepted for. That is because of their grades. A lot of them wont do well in maths like they would do for example in psychology (or any other subject they like). Your system creates waste in the system. Waste of money, energy and potentially good human capital. All lead to worse economy at the end.
Only important subjects should be mandatory and choice of subjects should be at maximum

I think that it is important that everyone should get a high school level of language, mathematics, and reading. Science, while it may be not interesting to many people, is an important part of education. While a high school level might be too much, an elementary school level seems too low. Do you think that this system would be decent? Elementary School: Math, LA, Science (required) Middle School: Math, LA, Science (required) High School: Math and LA (required)
Only important subjects should be mandatory and choice of subjects should be at maximum

I guess all the subjects that you have listed are compulsory. Well, with the elementary school system, I dont disagree so much.. It could be made to a decent system. But with the middle school, what makes your system better than mine? Why to waste energy on music and art. That wasted effort and money could go on maths, and why science is compulsory? What if a person doesnt like biology and likes physics? or hates all sciences altogether, can he choose? I did science in the middles school in Israel, and it gave me nothing. All that biology, chemistry and physics havent changed me a bit. I then repeated middle school in UK and chose Geography and Business instead. I enjoyed myself more and did learn quite interesting facts.. it was fun. Again, you dont try to justify the subjects in your system. Why to force the students study music, arts and sciences (apart from maths)? Your high school system is just absurd.