BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gun ban

I am only aware of the debate topic because of the title. If what you are proposing is a full on gun ban, then how do you propose it is done. In what way is it possible to magically get rid of all guns? If the government were to ask everyone to hand there guns in then only law abiding citizens would comply, then only criminals would own guns, then who has the power? Despite the fact that it was senseless, I will respond to your side of the argument. You are proposing that if no one has a gun, then no one has power over one another. At least that's what I believe you think, as you hadn't gone as far as to state what you meant. In that case then people would resort to other weapons, or make there own guns. In any way, the can of worms has been opened, and making a law that disarms no one except the law abiding citizen will do nothing to help matters. The safest way to keep us safe is to let us arm ourselves if we want and for the government to do its best to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. In short guns will never go away because if we ban them then the black market will prevail.
Firearms shouldn't be regulated any further, and CCW location bans should be lifted.

I'm not saying arm anyone new, what I'm saying is that I think that the teachers, store clerks, and mall workers that have their CCW'S should be allowed to carry their weapons in their institutions so that when the SHTF they are ready to end it. Have you been paying attention here, or are you just another teenage liberal that thinks that America sucks and wishes that they could be helping baby pandas in North Korea?
Firearms shouldn't be regulated any further, and CCW location bans should be lifted.

First of all, I'm not talking about full-auto weapons, it's hard enough to get those. What I'm talking about are high powered civilian rifles, M4's etc. I think that trying to limit them is retarded, your gonna get them one way or an other if you want them bad enough. Secondly, semi-auto guns are sold to the public, you take them away and people are just going to get them on the black market. Finally, you didn't say anything about the CCW thing. If you arm the proprietors of the associations that are home to the massacres then you take out the bad guys before they can cause too much harm.
Firearms shouldn't be regulated any further, and CCW location bans should be lifted.

We are not fretting over once incident, we are fretting over many. automatic weapons have been used in a lot of the recent tragedies such as the Movie Theater Massacre and the recent Sandy Hook shooting. These weapons are nto made to be domestic- they are made for military use. what use is there for an assault rifle in a domestic area? it's just screaming violence.
Firearms shouldn't be regulated any further, and CCW location bans should be lifted.

Obviously due to the recent Newtown shooting there has been a spike in talks of the second amendment and if it should be altered. When I hear these bickering politicians it annoys me because the decision seems obvious. I believe very strongly that high-powered rifles and semi-auto firearms should not be illegalized just because of one incident. I also think that if 26 adults were gunned down in an office building, that no one would notice. Finally I think that a quick and easy way to solve the problem of these mass-murders is to lift the bans on where you can bring your concealed weapons. I don't just mean in schools too, I mean everywhere, malls, theaters, work, anywhere that some wacko could come in and lights out a handful of people. If you have an armed apponent, or even a few, your chances of taking these people down goes down. I'm sure that there are many teachers, retail workers, and workers that have their CCW's that would be glad to save thirty people by sending a lead chunk hurdling into some punks skull. I respect any opponent that whishes to battle me in this argument of rights.
DDO TOC Round 1: Economics

Resolved: Grand Canyon National Park should be auctioned off to the highest bidder. My opponent has requested that, in the spirit of traditional forensics, he ought to argue first and last. Further, neither of us may present new arguments in the 5th round, it being a crystallization round. If the debate is still rather heated at that point, we may mutually decide to extend new arguments into the 5th round. My opponent has also accepted the burden of proof. I give the floor, and the definitions, to my opponent. However, I reserve the right to challenge any definitions that are non-resolutional, or that limit the resolution's scope.
The minimum wage is a good law

This will just be a rebuttal against Patrick's opening statement due to time constraints. I will rebut the rebuttals in the next round. I apologize if I say anything that he feels he already rebutted.I always find the ethical argument to be tricky because I don't believe in a universal morality, so I certainly hope that Patrick has the same one that I do.---Ethical Arguments:I already addressed this first argument in my opening statement, so I will only briefly touch on it.I find this "ethical" argument to be based on a fallacy. The basis of this argument is that "the employer-employee contract involves no force by either party." I'm arguing that the force isn't necessarily initiated by either party, but by an outside force. This force is often the health of the economy. A minimum wage protects the common laborer from having to work for an unreasonably low amount just because the employer can get away with it.Economic arguments:This entire argument forgets a major factor with wages. People need a certain amount of money to survive. The cost of living varies from place to place in cities throughout the world. It costs more to live in London, UK than it does to live in Des Moines, USA. It costs roughly $40,000 per year to live in my city, a suburb of the District of Columbia. The national US minimum wage pays roughly 15,000. This means that somebody working two full time minimum wage jobs would only make 75% of what is required. People shouldn't have to pack up and move just because they are low-skilled workers."Another good economic argument against the minimum wage is that it actually favors big business."If a company cannot afford to pay their workers a reasonable amount, then it doesn't deserve to survive."If one of them thought it wasn't in his best interest to engage in the arrangement, the arrangement would not have taken place. So if someone is working at a particular establishment, it is reasonable to presume that both the employer and employee think they get something out of it."As I have previously stated, an outside force may, and has, coerced people to take employment opportunities that they don't necessarily want. This happens every time that there is a recession in the economy. Yes, the one who is working may realize that what he getting is money so that his family doesn't starve, but he shouldn't be working with the primary motive of keeping himself and his family fed. That should be a side effect of working.---In short, when people are coerced into certain labor by economic conditions, they should at least have the comfort of knowing that their government is protecting them from abusive wages. Also, I'd like to remind the audience that this debate is whether or not "the minimum wage is a good law." This means that we are debating the theoretical existence of laws governing the minimum wage, not necessarily any specific wage such as the $15 that was mentioned by opponent.
Rap Battle

Really thats all you got this time Wow what a lousy rhyme You wish you had a bea But no one wants a gay Austin just forfeit this round before I put you 6 foot under ground You bought a dildo that smelled rank that you used on Mrs. Franks You like anal When most men like vaginal You got your little bit trapped in a pit right in between your moms old saggy t*ts Austin you need to grow a pair before I pull out all my hair Your lucky theres no round four so thats all I have to say talk to you later you little whore.
Rap Battle

You really should stop before you turn into Nick Ropp You wish you were a n*gga But first your really need to get bigga You think you can wrestle but all you do is a gay tussle You think you think you can get p*ssy But really all you are is a wussy You think you can rap but all you do is take my crap turn it around and drill yourself into the ground You think your a boss but all you do is f*ck a guy named Michael Ross I think its time for you to leave before I make you heave and hit the floor I'm serious i'll even hold the door Oh yeah and tell josh I said hi when your f*cking him dry
Rap Battle

I punch the skies above me till their blue is shown Yet all what fate brings me is Mr. Toblerone?! No chocolate, no nutrients, just the biscuit cone I crack his pyramids beneath my teeth, chew them, spit them, yawn Three hundred little pieces before my eyes blown. You'd "beat me backwards in a race", it's no disgrace I admit you'd go backwards and take the first place First place, backward though, but you'll have fine grace America goes backwards every presidential race! You'll be "king of the dance" as I zap you with thunder Make you twirl like a drill till you start to dig under And before you hit molten and feel the burn of my smite I'll tap the hole with my foot to give you disco light. Dance to my rhymes, but don't lose focus as you spin If you think you'll win, your chances getting thin Now that Roukezian has dug your grave in!
Portal 2 (pro) is better than the original Portal (con)

Um, okay that is a little confusing but I guess I will start. I think that Portal 2 made some great improvements over the original. First of all, the game is much longer than the original and has much more content. The first one only had the original nineteen test chambers and the second half of going through the facility to find and battle with Glados which all took me about four 4 to beat. The second one had many more test chambers this time with there being over forty of them throughout the course of the nine chapters in the story. It took me about 10 hours to beat and I have not even tried the co op mode. Portal 2 also introduced more game mechanics such as the discouragement beam and the conversion, repulsion, and propulsion gels.
Going Vegan

Con, please excuse my forfeited, I have been busy these past days with school. I will now respond to both of your arguments. Con, I did not mention anything about health issues. So I guess you should see that we are not talking about dietary vegans here. "In his argument, con did not specify which lifestyle he is comparing to veganism. I can only assume he meant that becoming a vegan is the best lifestyle over all other lifestyles until he states otherwise. Pro must also define what he means by "people." Should all people become vegan? Should a few, some, half, or most people become vegan? Should I become vegan? Should Pro himself become a vegan if he is not already? If pro doesn't redefine, I will take "people" to mean all people on Earth. The foregoing are key pieces to the debate, so I hope that Pro will define his argument much better in the next post." I am very sorry for this, and I would like you to refer to me as a she, if you may so. Anyway, I am not comparing veganism to any other type of lifestyle. I was trying to say, it is healthier and safer. by people, I mean people. Not all people on Earth, because as you stated, that would be boring. And I doubt everyone would be vegan anyway. There is always a rebel, don't you agree? People as in unhealthy people, people who need a healthier life. People who are against animal cruelty. If you don't want to become vegan, its your choice. After all, God did give us freewill. I am sorry for being brief on my last argument. http://earthdivasblog.com... ^ in the link above, it says "There are no silkworms left in the wild; all of them are raised in homes and farms" How many more animals do you think are living like this ? I bet if I research some more, I would find alot more animals like these silkworms. My reasons for becoming vegan : 1) Its healthy. Obviously. Here you get to eat more vegetables and fruits. No fat. People wouldn't suffer from cholesterol, diabetes, strokes, and some cancers. Many people wouldn't die from heart problems. 2) Its kind. It is unnecessary to be killing animals in order to feed and clothe ourselves. Plants can keep us alive. Some slaughter houses, are really cruel to animals. http://www.youtube.com... 3) Better for the environment . Meat production uses up alt of land and water. Cows expel amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Their hooves pack the dirt, making it less likely for it to absorb the rain. Manure from animal industrial facilities leaks into waterways, and gets into the groundwater. 4) Its delicious. People from all over the over the world have created plant-based dishes. Many familiar foods have a vegan versions, such as pizza, casserole, even chocolate cake! The real question here isn't "Why go vegan?" but instead "Why not?"
Going Vegan

Since pro decided to skip a round of debate, I will be very brief. Just as it is not good for everybody to join one religion, it is not good for everybody to believe a set of principles such as veganism. A variety of beliefs and ideas is what makes the world such an interesting place. If all people had the same beliefs, DDO would not exist, and how boring would that be! I hope pro will join the debate once again and give valid reasons for why he believes going vegan is the right thing.
Going Vegan

Thank you for the great debate topic. Pro's definition of veganism is that of the ethical vegan, which is the orthodox side of veganism. Other types of veganism exist such as dietary veganism, where the reasons for becoming a vegan are more for personal health benefits rather than for the salvation of animals. http://en.wikipedia.org... I would class the dietary vegans in somewhat of a conservative or reformed type of veganism. Some ethical (orthodox) vegans do not like dietary vegans to be called real vegans because they aren't fully converted to the full vegan lifestyle. http://www.theveganwoman.com... You'll see me draw several parallels between veganism and religion in my arguments as I will show that vegansim is very much a type of religion. It's not a religion that touches the subject of God, but its a religion where the orthodox adherents must not waver in their vegan beliefs or actions unless they are to be ridiculed and excommunicated from the community of orthodox vegans. I hold that every person should have the freedom to do what they choose, live the life they want to live, and live with the positive or negative consequences of their decisions. Pro's argument is that "people should become vegan because it is a better lifestyle, and that way we don't harm or kill animals." In his argument, con did not specify which lifestyle he is comparing to veganism. I can only assume he meant that becoming a vegan is the best lifestyle over all other lifestyles until he states otherwise. Pro must also define what he means by "people." Should all people become vegan? Should a few, some, half, or most people become vegan? Should I become vegan? Should Pro himself become a vegan if he is not already? If pro doesn't redefine, I will take "people" to mean all people on Earth. The foregoing are key pieces to the debate, so I hope that Pro will define his argument much better in the next post.
Going Vegan

Vegans don't eat, use, wear, purchase or otherwise consume anything of animal origin whatsoever . Like vegetarians, vegans don't eat meat or slaughter by products, but they also don't eat dairy products, eggs or honey. They don't wear leather, suede, wool, silk, fur, down, feathers or pearls. They source cosmetics, toiletries and other consumer goods that are made without animal ingredients and without animal testing, and they don't support industries that exploit animals for entertainment, like circuses or rodeos. People should become vegan because it is a better lifestyle and that way we don't harm or kill animals.
Steps to stop "Global Warming" will kill far more people then it will save

"http://plus10.blogspot.com...; A blog is not sufficient evidence, especially when it derives info from Wikipedia, another blog (Alternative Energy Blog), a biased coalition of taxpayers (Taxpayers for Common Sense), some link that doesn't lead anywhere (What you should be paying for ethanol calculator). "http://www.stwr.net...; Same for a "non-profit, privately funded, non-government and politically oriented organization [essentially, any self-sustained website/blog]". "Wind power and hydroelectric power can only help the communities that are within the area, it is worthless as an alternative fuel source for the world." It costs nothing to sustain, and can be just as efficient as burning fossil fuels. "And then you have to deal with all of the environmental factors involved with all the batteries in all of those cars which will make them so cost prohibitive no one will want them." What environmental factors? I would love a reason as to why these would be environmentally harmful. And what do you mean by "cost prohibitive"? "Environmentalists say that if we don't eliminate fossil fuels now the planet is doomed to flooded by all of the glaciers melting and rising the sea level by 20 or more feet in as little as 30 to 50 years. And that all the remaining land will become vast desert waste lands unable to sustain life." This doesn't help your argument, it hurts it. Just wanted to point that out. "Since there are no cost effective energy sources available to prosperous countries and environmentalists are demanding reductions of all energy sources that pollute in order to save the planet all the impoverished third world populations who could not even begin to afford these ridiculous ineffective alternatives to oil will surely perish by the millions from famine and wars caused by food shortages and regulations instituted by the U.N. the IPCC and the environmentalists who support them. If you think the holocaust was bad just wait until Al gore, The U.N. The IPCC and all of the environmentalist who support these people and institutions inflict the world with their future for mankind." Wind power, solar power, oxygen power, hydrogen power, hydro-electric power, and carbon power are all effective alternative energy sources. I also fail to see how food shortages can be caused by reducing carbon emissions. And I'm sure famine isn't as bad as a large-scale slaughtering of Jews. What's more, only this last argument actually has anything to do with your debate. Your argument seems more about debunking this government scam then proving that taking action against global warming will kill people. I await your rebuttal.
Steps to stop "Global Warming" will kill far more people then it will save

It is more likely than not that more people will die from famine and wars caused by restrictions made by the U.N. and environmentalists under the disguise of global warming and saving the planet. Alternative fuel sources such as ethanol are a big boondoggle and a political scam. It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it produces not to mention the fact that it pollutes the atmosphere more than gasoline. It also produces less BTU's per gallon than does Gasoline. http://plus10.blogspot.com... Nuclear Energy is out because environmentalists will not allow it to be used either because of the perceived dangers and what to do with the spent fuel. A disposal site has already been built but environmental politicians have prevented it from being utilized for the last 20 years Arguments made against Yucca Mountain repository. http://ag.state.nv.us... No one in Govt will allow any form of storage and no alternative solutions are being made available to deal with nuclear waste because they all come with some form of risk no matter how small it may be. Environmentalists want a 100% guarantee or it can't be done period. So nuclear energy is a waste of everyone's time. When the current nuclear facilities become full of waste they are just shut down and abandoned as there is no place to store it as of yet and probably never will be. Wind power and hydroelectric power can only help the communities that are within the area, it is worthless as an alternative fuel source for the world. Also all the cars will have to run on electricity in those communities for it to be self sustaining. And then you have to deal with all of the environmental factors involved with all the batteries in all of those cars which will make them so cost prohibitive no one will want them. Coal, well forget that it pollutes the atmosphere can't use that anymore. There are no viable cost effective alternative fuel sources in the short or long term. Environmentalists say that if we don't eliminate fossil fuels now the planet is doomed to flooded by all of the glaciers melting and rising the sea level by 20 or more feet in as little as 30 to 50 years. And that all the remaining land will become vast desert waste lands unable to sustain life. http://www.stwr.net... Since there are no cost effective energy sources available to prosperous countries and environmentalists are demanding reductions of all energy sources that pollute in order to save the planet all the impoverished third world populations who could not even begin to afford these ridiculous ineffective alternatives to oil will surely perish by the millions from famine and wars caused by food shortages and regulations instituted by the U.N. the IPCC and the environmentalists who support them. If you think the holocaust was bad just wait until Al gore, The U.N. The IPCC and all of the environmentalist who support these people and institutions inflict the world with their future for mankind.
Steps to stop "Global Warming" will kill far more people then it will save

Though it may be true that most alternative energy sources are duds/inefficient, this does not necessarily prove your point. You have spent the vast majority of this debate condemning the use and efficiency of alternative fuels, which I do not entirely disagree, but then again, it has little to do with your topic. Here are all your statements that support your claim, "Steps to stop Global Warming will kill far more people than it will save": "Since there are no cost effective energy sources available to prosperous countries and environmentalists are demanding reductions of all energy sources that pollute in order to save the planet all the impoverished third world populations who could not even begin to afford these ridiculous ineffective alternatives to oil will surely perish by the millions from famine and wars caused by food shortages and regulations instituted by the U.N. the IPCC and the environmentalists who support them." Third world populations will not necessarily be affected, as our global warming measures cannot be forced upon other nations. We make our own rules. "The consumption and production of fossil fuels is going to be reduced as the population grows and there are no cost effective viable energy sources available to replace fossil fuels. This means only one thing, that the poorest of the poor are going to suffer the most as the price of fossil fuels sky rocket and they will be unable to buy fuel to put in their old polluting farm equipment that will also be regulated out of existence to grow crops and feed them selves . . . The result is clear as I see it, the poorest of the poor are going to die by the millions if they are restricted from using fossil fuels and the old antiquated pollution producing cars and trucks and farm equipment they also use to feed them selves." As I stated above, only the poorest of the poor in this country will suffer. There is also such a thing as a water-powered mill. This can easily provide work and energy for those who use agricultural support. "Fossil fuels are and will continue to be the major fuel source for this planet for at least the next 50 years as I have proven with all of my evidence." It this is true, then the plan for action against global warming will not be a major problem until fossil fuels expire. The plan is to reduce carbon emissions in the U.S. by 80% by the year 2050.