BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
USA should have more restrictions on guns

Thanks pro. I'll make my case.Basically, when you said "it's common knowledge that having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence" and "if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect" is the following logic:P1: Guns do more harm than goodP2: Less accessibility to guns means less people will have them.C: More restrictions should be put on guns I will dispute both premises.P1: Guns do more harm than good"Kleck conducted a national survey in 1994 (the National Self-Defense Survey) and, extrapolating from the 5,000 households surveyed, estimated that in 1993 there were approximately 2.5 million incidents of defensive gun use (DGU - the use of guns for self-protection), compared to about 0.5 million gun crimes as estimated by the National Crime Victimization Survey.[12]"http://en.wikipedia.org...So for every gun owner that has used their weapon, they are 5 times more likely to be using it in self-defense rather than for murder. Using a gun in self-defense is only considered "self-defense" when somebody is in fear for their life. 5 times as many innocent people would've been possibly killed if they didn't have a gun to defend themselves. This shows that guns were being used in a way that causes more good than harm.A Pew Research Center survey conducted in February found that 37% of households had an adult who owned a gun — 24% said they owned a gun, and 13% said someone else in their household did.http://www.pewresearch.org...Let's see how many households that own a gun there are in the U.S. and how many of them use guns for harm.(0.37)(308,745,538) =114,235,849 households that own a gun in the U.S."According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011."http://www.nij.gov...So, as a portion of households currently owning a gun in the U.S., statistically, 0.409% of gun users will use them to commit any kind of crime but 2.18% of them will use them for self-defense. The other 95%+ majority of gun owners will not even use them.In fact, guns do more good than harm. You might also be unaware that you are 3.62 times more likely to die by falling down the stairs than by an accidental gun discharge.http://gizmodo.com...Given that guns DO more good than harm, premise 2 is refuted on those grounds as well. The vast majority of gun owners are peaceful and 5x more likely to use them in self-defense than for crime. Also, gun restrictions are laws that criminals wouldn't obey in the first place! These restrictions just restrict access to the people who use guns for good, not the ones who use them for crime.I also want to point out that you didn't reference your statistics and that they weren't applicable because they were in australia, not the U.S.Back to you pro!
USA should have more restrictions on guns

the USA is pretty unique because of how pervasive our support of gun culture is (why nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions, even after so many mass shootings), and guns themselves. we may not be like other countries that have done so much so successfully (perhaps even to the point that more gun access could reduce violence when 'good guys' have guns? not sure i'd go that far), but it's not to say they haven't had success. australia had a manhattan project to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results, lower homicides and never since then a mass shooting. (can't be said for before the reform) japan probably has the opposite of a gun culture, but it's clear that they too show that restrictions can have positive effects, nary even a murder, extremely, obscenely low. it's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more background checks restrictions etc. there's so much grassroots support for it, i'd suppose there's not enough politicians wanting to stick their neck out for it. it's common knowledge that having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence. (everyone might think they are the exception, but obviously everyone isn't) if restrictions caused less guns, even to some extent, it would have some necessary positive effect. it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. but the die hards for some reason are against it, and the politicians can't muster change.
USA should have more restrictions on guns

Notice that I disputed the premise: "guns do more harm than good" Pro doesn't rebut this point. Pro makes an argument saying that while there may be more self-defense incidences following gun use, there is also crime increase. However this does NOT refute my point that guns are 5x as likely to be used in self-defense rather than for crime on average as pointed out in the previous round. Thus, guns do NOT cause more harm than good on average. Guns do more good than harm on average. My whole point on accidental gun discharge is that the odds of this happening are one in half a million. It's nonsensical to point to guns as a destructive tool (on average) for most people. Furthermore, it is *pro's burden of proof to prove WHY the USA should have more restrictions of guns* and provided NO statistics or sources to back of the claim of why this should be so. If anything, if this debate is a stalemate, the win should go to me for pro's failure to uphold his/her burden of proof. I have successfully proven that guns are used 5x as much in self-defense rather than crime on average, and thus guns do more good than harm. Therefore any restrictions on guns act as a disincentive for law-abiding citizens to own guns and more harm than good will arise because of this because criminals don't obey laws in the first place. In addition, it is not my burden of proof to show why the USA should have more restrictions on guns, but rather, why they shouldn't, and even if I didn't prove my case, pro is responsible for upholding his/her burden of proof to win this debate on why the USA should have more restrictions on guns and has not done so in any quantitative or reliable measure. Therefore, vote con. Thank you
USA should have more restrictions on guns

There's a few problems I'll point out with your opening rebuttal. 1) the ratio between people using guns for self defense or crime is not fixed, it's a dynamic and current snapshot statistic. 2) even by pointing out that if you reduced the amount of guns, hypothetically, those using guns for crime would decrease but those using them for self-defense purposes would decrease 5x as much as well. This doesn't address my refutation of your implied premise which is "guns do more harm than good" when clearly if people are using them 5x more often for self-defense purposes, they do more good than harm no matter what the number is as long as that ratio is kept. I'm still not sure how you're making a connection with Australia's policies with Americas and why you believe they are analogous. Different economic systems respond differently under different political leadership and what may work in one country might not wok in another. You are saying that basically, since a gun enables a person to make bad choices, that there is more crime because of it. I could say by giving you money I'm enabling you to be greedy, but it's a false conclusion. Greed is a character flaw, and isn't limited to strictly monetary substance in the same way criminals have characters flaws that don't need guns to enable them to commit crime. Well 37% of households own a gun so id say they are in contact with a gun quite often. Of course the odds of dying by accidental gun discharge weighs heavily on the personal responsibility of the person that owns the gun in the same way a person acting recklessly on the stairs takes responsibility for his accidental death. Restrictions wouldn't help because the majority of people losing access because of those restrictions are law abiding citizens. Of those who will use the gun, they are 5x more likely to use it in self defense rather than for a crime. In addition, the people who don't adhere to gun laws/restrictions are most likely to be criminals in the first place. So effectively, restrictions disincentivize law abiding citizens from owning a gun.
USA should have more restrictions on guns

"So, as a portion of households currently owning a gun in the U.S., statistically, 0.409% of gun users will use them to commit any kind of crime but 2.18% of them will use them for self-defense. The other 95%+ majority of gun owners will not even use them." you argued that given how pervasive guns are, we should keep restrictions how they are, for self defense. you dutifully showed that more guns are used for self defense than for violence. it could actually make sense given most people are law abiding citizens. there will be fewer who use guns for wrongful purposes. the problem. what if we took your logic, and went even further with it. multiple say seven fold the number of guns out there. then instead of 2% using guns for self defense, we'd have 14% using guns for self defense, and 4% for violence. so, how about we take the logic the opposite direction. we cut gun use in half. (dont necessarily support this, but as a hypotehtical) then we'd have 1% using them in self defense, and .2 percent in violence. and you didn't really address the fact that the manhattan project worked in australia. that is exactly what that reduction hypothetical entails. "Also, gun restrictions are laws that criminals wouldn't obey in the first place! " i already addressed this. most people are not die hards criminals who will stop at nothing to get a gun. in fact, most aret even criminals, they are normal people who turn into criminals. if they didn't have a gun when they'd do their crime, the crime won't be committed. if they were hindered, the crime might not be committed. "In fact, guns do more good than harm. You might also be unaware that you are 3.62 times more likely to die by falling down the stairs than by an accidental gun discharge." yes but people encounter stairs on a greater basis than guns, and that includes older people who are more prone to fall down stairs. this argument by con is akin to hte idea that knives are more dangerous than guns. yes, but only because there are many many many times more knives out there. when you actually keep things proportional, you see that guns are more dangerous. i did the math on this once, but dont see the need to get into it again. i think this probably should sufficient, this level of argumetntation. (seems common sensical enough to me. when the massacre shooting with 22 kids happened here, they all died. a simeltaneouis massacre happened in a gun restricted country and only 22 ish were injured, no deaths. this has been shown to be the case on a couple occassions. also, you didn't show how restrictions wouldn't help, given the fact that most people won't lose access to guns, just be hindered. and we'd just be hindering mostly those who are pose danger. but even if we hindered regular people, as the logic above showed, it would probably only help.
Creationism should be taught in schools.

My opponent argues that creationism should not be taught in schools. Therefore the resolution we are dealing with is this: Creationism should be taught in schoolsI'd like to note what this resolution is NOT: "Creationism should be taught in ALL schools." "Creationism should be taught in schools as science.""Creationism should be taught in schools instead of evolution.""Creationism should be taught in PUBLIC schools.""Creationism should be a MANDATORY course.""Creationism should be a MANDATORY course in PUBLIC schools."He does not specify the way in which creationism would be taught, where it would be taught, or whether or not it is mandatory. He cannot possibly add these to the resolution after the fact, as that would be shifting the goalposts.Therefore, there are several arguments that he CANNOT possibly make:1. Separation of church and state -- this is irrelevant because he does not tailor his resolution to public schools alone. 2. Creationism isn't science -- this is irrelevant, because the resolution does not address that creationism should be taught as literally true. It could be taught as literature, or in a world religions course.3. Teaching creationism would impinge on religious liberty -- he cannot argue this because the resolution does not state that this is a MANDATORY course. It could be an elective where students interested in the topic, in consultation with their parents, teacher, guidance counselors, etc. opt to take the course. My argument is that private schools -- particularly parochial schools -- should be allowed to teach creationism if they so please. This is the easiest argument to defend as private property rights in this case reign supreme.I will then argue that this should be available as a World Religions or literature elective because some students may be interested in pursuing religious studies in their college years.At this point, it seems nearly impossible for my adversay to win this debate.
Creationism should be taught in schools.

I intend to debate an individual that believes Creationism should indeed be taught at schools, a notion I severely oppose.RoundsRound One: Acceptance.Round Two: Arguments only; no rebuttalsRound Three: Final arguments; rebuttalsRound Four: Final rebuttals; conclusionRules1. Forfeiture will result in the loss of conduct points.2. Proper spelling and grammar will be used at all times.3. All sources will be cited. All formats are acceptable.I am ready to debate this issue. I sincerely look forward to this debate.
Just Pixels.

People say that when you find an Animal Jam video, and a person is crying because his/her items were scammed or hacked, that they are 'just pixels'.The most common comment on one of these videos is, "Why are you crying over pixels? " When you play minecraft, and a creeper blows up your house, or you, those are also 'just pixels'. You get sad dont you? They arent 'pixels' to animaljammrs, or minecrafters. They bring you joy. If that joy goes away, you might cry. It take these people a long time to get these items. They are important to them.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a Nation Health Care System.

Since my opponent, Sophist, has forfeited again, my I don't have a argument. I would like to respond to a comment posted by Squirrel. He said (from memory) that blogspot isn't a creditable resource, because it is a blog. Well, if you click on some of the links (colored phrases or words) they bring you to real articles in U.K.( example: the YOrk Press reported about the lady going blind).
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a Nation Health Care System.

hello sophist: I have no argument to respond (seems like in every debate I have the other person forfeits, lol) to but I will try and present some new ideas. You say in your opening argument, that if we should adapt to a similar health care system like in the U.K. Well, this could ruin some peoples chance a a cure to something they have, because there is a limit on how much the government can lend you. A good example is a woman named Thelma Nixon. She had a serious eye disease called wet macular degeneration and if she didn't get the lucentis injections in her eyes, she would go blind. When she applied to get the injections, the NHS shot her down, because it cost "too much." This caused a lot of outrage in the country, because they wouldn't pay for the shot. The York Press reported the story in the paper, and a businessman saw it and wanted to pay for it. With this criticism and outrage, the NHS ended up paying for it to keep from being protested against. there are many other stories in this article (where I got my previous statement above) you should check out. It's at http://freestudents.blogspot.com... Another criticism of the system is that appointments take forever to get. They have adopted the phrase medical tourist in Europe meaning to English people who have left the country to get surgery quicker, instead of waiting weeks for it. That is all I can say with no argument to respond to.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a Nation Health Care System.

Hello sophist, I believe that national health care is wrong. It would ruin medical practices and the taxtaion. First let me break down your argument: 1)"this will lead to a healthier society, a more productive work force, and a more stable economy."- sophist That is a strong statement. I don't believe it, so may i see some facts to back it up, or is it just your opinion. 2)"Since they will not be working so much, they will be better workers at their current jobs"- sophist What does this mean? I beleive it means that employees will work less due to having to go to the doctors office or emergeny room for little things. This will cause unneccary wait times in the ER that could cost someone's life, because there was such a long wait. Also, their work will get sloppeir and not as good due to the fact the money isn't needed as much. Other ideas you should think about before saying that national health care is right are that: Healthcare would raise taxes. MOst people are complaining that tax rates are too high right now, wait till we have to pay the doctors and nurses. This will also call for nurses and doctors to have a paycut, which is the next reason. Demand for nurses and doctors would rise. We are just gettong over the demand for nurses now we'll need more, because people won't like the pay and quit. It would be hard to get new ones too, because why would you go to college for 8 or so years and get paid the same as someone who might not even went to college.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a Nation Health Care System.

I affirm the resolution that the USFG should create a universal health care system similar to Britain's NHS. I believe that this will lead to a healthier society, a more productive work force, and a more stable economy. With this plan, people will not have to work as much to pay off outrages medical bills. Since they will not be working so much, they will be better workers at their current jobs; "A Happy employee is a good employee." Lastly, with less people in debt, the keynesian savings ratio of 90/10 (spend 90% of the income and save 10%) can find its way back into the fiscal society.
Competitive Horse Riding is a Sport

I am an Eventer, someone who rides in Events competitively. Events include three main stages: Dressage, Stadium Jumping, and Cross-Country Jumping. I agree that this is a sport, as well as other competitive forms of riding. I do not, however, believe that trail riding and riding for pleasure are sports. In both of these, nothing is demanded from either horse or rider other than to move forward and occasionally turn. But in competitive events, both Western and English, the horse and rider complete a set pattern in time. While watching an event horse and rider, it is easy to believe that the rider is doing nothing, simply staying on the horse with minimal control. This is the point, to make it look as simple as possible. I assure you, there is much more to riding. In reality, the amount of muscle needed for doing this sport competitively is great. The legs, torso, hips, shoulders, arms, hands, feet, head, etc. of a rider are key in positioning, and the horse has a set of demands to be met as well. Horse riding in itself may not always be competitive, but there is no doubt in my mind that competitive riders are athletes doing a sport, and one that is as honorable as any other.
public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

"sry nails will be unable to continue our debate, for two reasons -going to the regional cross country championship and will have not computer access for long amounts of time" Good luck. I did track for 3 years and enjoyed it. I can appreciate the skill and dedication takes to be a good runner. --- "-attacking whether or not i know LD debate is an attack of character fallacy of which i have no patience for. " It's not an attack on your character, but your logic. I'm not saying something like "You're a stupid red-headed black asian mexican fat anorexic [insert ad hominem] etc. etc. " That has nothing to do with debate, and that certainly isn't what I am saying. You make arguments about the value and criterion framework of LD that don't fit. "i did not see a value in my opponents case and seeing as how he is lacking in that i should win right there being that i am the only one with a way to weigh the arguments of this round. " Accepting your value doesn't force me to lose the round, it just forces me to debate by your standards (your value and criterion. ) Attacking your misconception of debate is entirely relevant in this debate; it isn't a personal attack at you. I would suggest both of the resources. Our debate team has a coach who knows nothing about competitive debate, as such I've had to learn most of what I know from sources, like these: . http://circuitdebater.blogspot.com... . http://victorybriefsdaily.com... They both have multiple videos of LD debate at the TOC (Tournament of Champions) in separate years. This is the highest level LD debate tournament in the country and many of the debates have 1 or both debaters not providing a value/criterion framework at all. The videos are found along the right side of the webpage. --- "but i do offer at least some rebuttal -you dont understand my argument. a government is unjust in forcing a compulsory law if it has the ability to alter or manipulate language (see my card in the original case). " But you don't understand my argument either. According to you, the government is going to manipulate language no matter what. This means that the government can't be just by your standards no matter if we affirm or negate. I prove that there are atleast benefits to affirming that there aren't to negating. --- "yes people run to a vaccine if the government announces there is one PRIME EXAMPLE IS THE H1N1 VIRUS VACCINE. " You're more than a little bit off. Read here: . http://www.naturalnews.com... "Recent polls conducted by the mainstream media indicate that more than fifty percent of moms are refusing to expose their children to the swine flu vaccine, and nurses and health practitioners across the US and UK are going vocal with their opposition to the vaccine. " Your so called 'prime example' proves my point. In the face of a disease recognized globally as 'pandemic', millions are still refusing vaccination. ======= Conclusion ======= It's very unfortunate that my opponent hasn't had time to respond with a fully fleshed out rebuttal. Most of my arguments went unaddressed.
public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

sry nails will be unable to continue our debate, for two reasons -going to the regional cross country championship and will have not computer access for long amounts of time -attacking whether or not i know LD debate is an attack of character fallacy of which i have no patience for. but i do offer at least some rebuttal -you dont understand my argument. a government is unjust in forcing a compulsory law if it has the ability to alter or manipulate language (see my card in the original case). -yes people run to a vaccine if the government announces there is one PRIME EXAMPLE IS THE H1N1 VIRUS VACCINE.