BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Check your privilege" is an absurd saying if you say it just because of someone's race or gender.

Look when i first heard check you privilege i thought it had something to do with pooping yourself. Then i thought it was about groping Appearently it has to do with how priviledged you are. You can check it yourself herehttp://www.checkmyprivilege.com... http://i0.kym-cdn.com...; />It is used by some social justice retards to try and oppress the master race http://en.wikipedia.org... But its not absurd at all. Why you ask? Because we need the privaldge checker so we know who to target when it comes time. Eugenics is a good idea, yeah everyone knows this. This guy knew it I know it. Eugenics will advance humanity and advance the race. We will be great like this guy http://elfordstown.com...; width="349" height="517" />Want to know more? http://archive.org... Those who are under privlaedged need to be eguenicsed. Those who advocate for a checking of the privaedge do good for humanity and will arm themselves for purging those who are under privaedge. Its not absurd to use the term, its morally correct.
Traveling should be aloud in basketball

Seeing that my opponent has forfeited the round, I don't see how you could vote against me. Since I don't have to rebute anything, I'll use this time to reiterate my earlier points. If basketball allows traveling, it will be more enjoyable to the fans and players due to the faster paced game (See above rebuttal for reasoning). This means more sales for NBA teams and increased participation at all levels. More people will be ABLE to play if traveling is allowed (Again, see above rebuttal for reasoning). People with disorders that limited their movement/physical abilities will be able to compete at a higher level than they would if traveling were penalized. Thank you for your time and please remember to vote PRO!!!
Traveling should be aloud in basketball

Traveling should be allowed in basketball. By "Traveling" I will assume my opponent means Traveling-illegally moving his pivot foot or taking too many steps without dribbling the ball . http://en.wikipedia.org...(basketball) And by "Allowed," no penalty. My opponent's one and only argument is that traveling would make basketball "way to easy. " I somewhat agree with this. By allowing traveling in basketball, teams would be able to advance the ball up and down the court much easier. I think this would be beneficial to basketball; the games would move faster, making it more enjoyable for the majority of fans. With this in mind, traveling should be allowed. more enjoyment for fans = more sales for teams Also, players love playing a fast game. Look at the Phoenix Suns, when Mike D'Antoni was in town, the players loved being there. Now that he's gone, the team has started to "complain" about the slower game. But the speed of the game is really the only aspect of the game allowing traveling would affect. Players must still be able to shoot affectively, set screens, rebound, etc. Therefore, being able to travel would not make the game as easy as my opponent to seems think it will. Another point. Allowing traveling would make basketball available to a larger audience, increasing its popularity. How, you may ask. Simple, some are not as adapt as others while using their hands, making it difficult to dribble. I personally know someone who is like this. He has the disorder Dysgraphia, which is usually described as a simple deficiency in writing, but it is much more. He has trouble tying his shoes, typing, anything that involves dexterity in the hands. By allowing traveling in basketball, people who are not only clumsy, but have a neurological disorder, could play to some extent. Traveling should be allowed in basketball.
The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm.

Firstly I would like to respond directly to some of Con's claims and statistics, which I believe are misleading, to put it kindly. To begin with, I have to immediately counter Con's claim that the 31 states that allow concealed carry on firearms have a 24% lower violent crime rate etc. There are actually 48 states which have laws which allow the concealed carrying of firearms of one sort or another. Con also claims that the homicide rate increased once laws against handguns came into effect. This is being extremely selective with the figures he chooses to publish to support his argument. Homicide actually decreased equally in a number of areas which had no lifting of any bans (maryland, fairfax VA to give but two examples). http://www.texasguntalk.com... I put forward that there was no relation between the lifting of the band and the decrease in homicides. This is merely con being selective with figures. The example of EnglandYou have given example of England where you say an increasin gun control has constantly led to an increase in crimes. I refute this as being untrue. However if you look at the difference in gun crime statistics, you will find that gun crime in the USA is several times more common than England and the UK in general (as an example I gave in my opening argument demonstrates). Guns laws deprive citizens of guns for self-defenceGun laws also provide potential criminals with arms. They make potential murderers of people. Con is defending the right to bear firearms in general, not merely handguns. The idea that a citizen has the need for an AK47 or a Sweeper (which are both legal in many states) is simply ridiculous. AccidentsI can't criticise the supposed 'security' the legality of private ownership of guns is supposed to bring without drawing on another statistic. Each year 10,000 people in the USA alone are involved in 'gun accidents'. http://www.buzzle.com... When you consider guns are only used in approx 60,000 of 'defense' incidents each year added with the many crimes committed as a result of being able to access guns (which number in the 10's of thousands also per annum), it strikes me as obvious that guns result in more danger for the individual than security. Finally, I would like to contest that 'guns are used for protection annually 5 timesore than they are to commit crimes. Con hasn't provided a source to base this claim that I can scrutinise, but this strikes me as most probably nonsense.
The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm.

In keeping with the rules of the debate, I shall post my opening arguments first. 1. Gun ownership leads to lower crime ratesStatistics show that an area with easier access to guns will have lower crime rates. Within the U. S. , the 31 states which allow the concealed carry of firearms have "a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. " [1]. Examples have shown that greater gun control does not lead to lower homicide rates, in fact, the opposite occurs. When Washington D. C. banned handguns, the murder rate shot up from less than 30 per 100,000 to 80 per 100,000. The homicide rate increased, and only decreased following a removal of the ban on handguns, at a time when the homicide rate nationally was decreasing. [2]. Another example is Chicago, where a handgun ban led to a 17% decrease in the homicide rate (lower than the national average of 25%), and a huge increase in the murders committed with handguns, going from just over 40% before the ban to close to 80% in 2007 before the ban was repealed [2]. This shows that within the U. S. more gun control in fact means more crime and greater gun rights, less crime. In terms of international examples, the rule of more gun control leading to more crime still holds true. Countries such as Switzerland, Norway, Germany, Austria and Denmark have a high number of guns per capita ratio while having low homicide ratios compared to nations such as Luxembourg, Holland and England with draconian gun control laws and high homicide rates [3]. In England an increase in gun control has constantly led to an increase in crimes, with England in the late 1800's having virtually no gun crime with little gun control to over 10,0000 gun related offences in 2005/2006 with a large amount of gun control [4] [5]. The truth is that gun control laws deprive citizens of guns for self-defence while not affecting criminals other than allowing them to operate under easier conditions. Gun control laws take guns away from people who are using them for non-criminal activities, not criminals. With guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, they can protect themselves. Guns are used for protection annually 5 times more than they are to commit crimes, and 56% of felons admit that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun. " It is clear that gun ownership reduces crime and on that account the individual should have the right to possess a firearm. [1] = . http://www.cato.org...[2] = . http://www.justfacts.com...[3] = . http://gunowners.org...[4] = . http://reason.com...[5] = . http://news.bbc.co.uk...
The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm.

Opening Arguments against private ownership of firearmsI would like to open with a few statistics and examples. The USA has a higher proportion of gun-involved homicides carried out than almost all countries where private gun ownership is illegal. It is only beaten by developing nations such as Guatemala & Colombia. http://en.wikipedia.org...Between 1987 and 1990, in the US, guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually. This equates to only 0.2% of incidents. http://en.wikipedia.org...In recent years from the Santa-Claus shooting in December 2008 to the Nebraska shopping mall shooting in December 2007, there are frequent reminders of gun massacres that have only been allowed to happen based on legislation which allows private gun ownership. Arguments Gun owners often defend gun ownership by discussion 'security'. I put to my opponent that there is very little proof that guns overt crime, instead they often facilitate it. As I have shown with the stastistic above, guns were used in defense in only 0.2% of criminal acts during the given period. There are also higher levels of gun-related deaths in the USA than the majority of countries worldwide. http://en.wikipedia.org..., with only other western country coming above the USA: Estonia. There are more gun related deaths in the US than in Zimbabwe, Costa Rica & Azerbijan. The idea that guns give some kind of 'security' is nonsensical. Try telling the people who live in the District of Columbia that guns provide some kind of security. I am myself British, and live in the city which experiences the highest proportion of gun-crime - Nottingham. It is notorious for its gun crime. In the UK however, the highest level of gun crime entails deaths of around 1.5 for every 100,000 people. In the District of Columbia this reaches 24 for every 100,000. That means that in the DoC there are SIXTEEN TIMES more gun related homicides. http://en.wikipedia.org...Gone are the times when private gun ownership was necessary to protect ones possessions and family. It is an old law based on a time when state security was weak and did not reach all areas. Nowadays gun ownership is simply un-necessary, and in fact causes more problems than it solves. I look forward to my opponents opening arguments.
The individual should not have the right to possess a firearm.

Structure: Round 1: Accepting the debate/clarifying any points. Round 2: Opening argument (no rebuttals) Round 3: Responding and Questioning Round 4: Responding and summary. By the 'right to possess a firearm' I am specifically referring to the right to bear arms in a private sphere as provided by the second amendment in the USA. My arguments against this 'right' will deal with both specifically the USA as well as a more general take on the problems posed by private ownership of weapons. I know this debate has been had before, but as I am fairly new on the website and to the debating community I hope someone will give me the chance to share my take on the issue!
Abortion should be made illegal in the United States.

FORWARD: This is my first debate, so any tips on layout or structure would be appreciated. Thanks!First and foremost, any argument surrounding the topic of abortion ultimately leans towards a religious argument. However, as our government clarifies multiple times, religion must be separated from the state, and thus all arguments using religion as it's foundation are immediately refutable due to the United States' opinion on church and state.Contention One - Abortion is not MurderMany pro-life supporters use the term "murder" in comparison to abortion, however there is a clear distinction between the two. Murder is killing without consent. Abortion is not murder for the same reason that suicide is not murder, all consenting individuals have agreed to the consequences. A fetus, regardless of whether you consider it alive or not, is not able to consent. Thus, it is the mother's responsibility to make decisions for the baby. This can be as simple as choosing what foods to eat or as complicated as choosing whether or not to have an abortion. You will notice that every decision that a mother chooses impacts her and the child, as the two are one functioning unit. So, should the mother decide that an abortion is the best decision for her and her child, it is not murder.Contention Two - Abortion is a Choice for the Mother and Should Not be Decided by the State As I stated in my last argument, the mother and fetus are one single unit and thus the decision to have an abortion should be a decision left towards the mother. The fetus, being inside the woman's body, should be treated like that woman's organ. It is a piece of her body and therefore all decisions made about that fetus ought only to be decided by the mother. Outlawing abortion would take away that mother's right to control her own "organ", and I use this term because it is an object made of tissue inside a woman's body that, while displaying signs of life (just as the heart or lungs do), cannot consent or feel.
Paradoxes do not make any sense!

It seems like Pro is mixing up the word paradox for nonsense... Paradox: a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory. The word paradox cannot be changed and must be accepted as it's self definition, which is the only reason why it's called paradox because it only applies to statements or proposition that logically makes no sense. Paradox is not a STATEMENT or a PROPOSITION it's a word to describe a STATEMENT or a PROPOSITION. Does Pro understand what I'm saying or is he such an idiot to not comprehend something even a little toddler can understand..... To give Pro a more clearer angle of what I'm trying to get at, I'll provide a definition of the word sense. Make sense: be intelligible, justifiable, or practicable. THE very fact that Pro understands the word Paradox only justifies the very fact that Paradox does make sense because according to the definition I've provided, as long as something is understandable then it makes sense, so the very fact that Pro has knowledge of the definition of Paradox, only proves that the word paradox makes sense, which only proves Pro's stupidity. #RektCity Your turn pro...
Paradoxes do not make any sense!

Well, I mean this is called a debate, and in debates you're suppose to be serious? Anyway, back to what Pro has said. "It cannot make sense as the very definition of paradox contradicts itself and is a paradox itself. Paradox would exist; it would just be called something else." It seems like I'll have to repeat myself. The DEFINITION of paradox does NOT apply for the actual WORD of Paradox because paradox only applies to contradicting actions or events. "
Paradoxes do not make any sense!

But this doesn't make any sense at all. You said that the definition of paradox has to not make sense in order to make sense, but that statement right there completely contradicts the very definition of paradox. You said that a paradox has to contradict itself and totally defy logic, reasoning, evidence, etc., but if that's what a paradox means, then doesn't make religion a paradox in itself? Religion completely contradicts all of its values, beliefs, morals, rules yet defies all logic, reasoning, evidence, science, and history. So isn't religion also a paradox? But wait! Religion isn't real because it doesn't make any sense; but then it is real because it is purposely like that way to not make sense in order to make sense. Now I am going off-topic...
Paradoxes do not make any sense!

I accept To start off, I would like to give a definition of the word paradox. Paradox: a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory. I would like to start off by saying that a Paradox is a definition that does in fact contradict a statement in which the statement that is followed is paradoxical. What Pro is saying that Paradoxes do not make any sense because their definition give them no sense and yet at the same time there's some sense into that statement. However, what Pro is saying is actually making the things that paradoxes imply upon no sense yet in terms the implied meaning do make sense, but Pro is claiming that Paradoxes themselves make no sense, which alone is already wrong because paradox is merely a word that has a definition attached to it. One cannot say that a definition does not make sense because the definition of a definition is absolute and that's the words meaning, if a word had no meaning then it wouldn't be a word into existence. So, to be exact paradoxes' definition does in fact make sense because the definition is what creates the word paradox in the first place. In any case, a paradox is nothing without words to back up it's meaning so in sense, the word paradox does in fact make sense.
Paradoxes do not make any sense!

Paradoxes do not make any sense because by the very definition of paradoxes, they aren't supposed to make sense to make sense. Wait! Didn't I just contradict, confuse, and repeat myself? In order for a paradox to make sense, it has to not make sense. But if it does not make sense, how can it make sense in the first place? By the very definition of paradox, it is...but then it isn't...but then it is. Now I am just confusing myself! Anyways, paradoxes don't make sense because there is no logical way for something to make sense if it has none in the first place. Now what about things that don't make sense but actually do make sense in disguise? Oh whatever, I think I am stuck in a paradox of debating whether it makes sense or not...
Stalin did not betray Lenin's ideals

Well, I still think that Stalin, as Lenin's successor, should have made a more concerted effort to actually fulfil Lenin's ideals and long term goals- stabilising the Soviet Union, bringing prosperity to her people and transforming a agricultural state into an industrial superpower to rival the USA, and by doing so showing the world that socialism was and is a viable alternative to capitalism. Stalin ruled with an iron fist and did little to extol the values of socialism to other countries, instead becoming embroiled in a propaganda war with the west. Today's "communist" China has managed to build a good relationship with the west, and earned its begrudging admiration. I believe Stalin should have aimed to have built a similar relationship with the west, so that by the time of Gorbachev the USSR might have been in the position China is in today. Stalin was nominated for a Nobel peace prize, but this was merely an empty gesture- Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden and Franklin Roosevelt were also nominated for "helping to win WW2". I'm sure that the Nobel committee would be horrified that they awarded a peace prize to someone who would go on to kill 20 million people (source: . http://www.ibtimes.com... ) .
Stalin did not betray Lenin's ideals

Good day comrade.Some socialists argue that Stalin was a vile tyrant who betrayed the ideals of Lenin. Almost all left wing parties in Britain from Labour to Communist seem to 'disown' Stalin. I, however would like to argue that Stalin was a true follower of Lenin who embodied Leninist ideals.This debate is not (at least not mainly) about whether Stalin is a good or not, or whether socialism and Communism are workable, but they might be mentioned. Also, bear in mind that both the instigator (me) and the contender are socialists, but socialists in dramatically different ways.Round one is for acceptanceRound two for opening argumentRound three for rebuttals/new argumentsRound four for brief rebuttals and conclusionI await your answer and good luck!
Presidential Debate 2012: Airmax1227 versus tvellalott

This will be the official Presidential debate between myself and one of my opponents, Airmax1227.EXTENDED RESOLUTIONI will be arguing: "Assuming tvellalott won the election, he would make a superior President to Airmax1227"My opponent will be arguing "Assuming Airmax1227 won the election, he would make a superior President to tvellalott"BURDEN OF PROOFWe each have the burden of proof of proving our respective resolutions.ROUND STRUCTURE AND RULESFirst round is only for definitions and acceptance.The second round will consist entirely of arguments. No rebuttals from my opponent as this gives him the advantage.The third round will allow new arguments and also rebuttals from both sides in response to any arguments previously made.The fourth round will be only for rebuttals and conclusions; NO new arguments are to be introduced.We both argee to avoid using semantics or trickery in our arguments and/or rebuttals. Any forfeit will cause immediate loss of conduct points, except in the case of an equal number of forfeits. Biased RFD's can (AND WILL) be disputed so voters are encouraged to give detailed explanations for their point allocation. We both agree that it is unfair for our VPs to vote and thus Thaddeus and innomen should not vote at all, though leaving RFD with no point allocation is allowed.Good luck to my opponent. If you object to anything, please let me know in the comments before you accept the challenge so I can edit this debate accordingly.
Resolved: Allowing deep-water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the United States.

This is for the liberals debate tournament hosted by Bsh1. I am pro and believe that allowing deep-water offshore oil drilling is in the best interest of the united States, con is AGAINST this belief. 4 rounds, first round acceptance only, full 10,000 characters Prepare your eyes, this will be a long one. (^Theres a sex joke to be made off of that but im too lazy to think of it)
Resolved: Religion is inherently evil.

Before you accept this argument will be running off the assumption that God does not exist, or more an argument such as "religion is good because without it we'd all go to hell" or something along those lines will not be acceptable in this debate. Arguments can include only real life examples with evidence to back it up. So the argument "Religion creates a society with better morals" would be valid argument. The first round should be only for acceptance, second round for displaying beginning arguments and the last round should be for refutation only. No entirely novel arguments may be presented however additional evidence may be provided to bolster your preexisting arguments presented in round one. Religion shall be defined as a "A theistic Cause, Principle or series of of beliefs held to with ador and faith" (1) (The original definition does not include Theistic but I added it in to try and avoid a battle of semantics. ) (1). http://www.merriam-webster.com... If you have any questions please ask them in the comments before accepting.