BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There should not be more restrictions on guns or gun ownership

So lets get down to the hard facts, That will make an average citizen cringe as they have been fed NRA propaganda by the same organization that made more money than Hollywood entertainment in the last year. 28 billion dollars, Yes, The government was paid 6 billion in taxes from the NRA. So lets get down to the real stats. All those wives tales you were told and all those misconceptions about guns for protection, Well they are all FAKE NEWS, Here are the hard facts, The United States has the most heavily armed civilian population in the First World; our homes contain enough firearms for every man, Woman and child. Why do so many Americans own guns? The main reason, According to surveys, Is protection. Advocates argue that guns in the home both deter crime (criminals refrain from even trying to break in because they fear being shot by an armed citizen) and thwart it (an armed citizen can stop a crime in progress, Preventing injury or theft). The scientific evidence, However, Provides little support for these arguments. Quite the opposite. In terms of deterrence, A recent study found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher levels of firearm crime and do not have lower levels of other types of crime. Another study, In 2003, Found that counties with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher rates of household burglary, Not lower. Burglars like to steal not only cash and jewelry but also guns. A homeowner with a collection of firearms may not want to advertise that fact. As for thwarting crime, Gun advocates claim that guns are commonly used in self-defense, And that without a firearm, One is essentially at the mercy of a criminal. Yet, Again, That is not what the data show. The National Crime Victimization Survey is the primary source of information on the nature and extent of criminal victimization in the United States. Some 90, 000 households, Comprising about 160, 000 individuals, Are surveyed twice a year. Along with Sara Solnick, A professor of economics at the University of Vermont, Analyzed the data for the five-year period from 2007 to 2011, Looking at more than 14, 000 crimes in which there was some degree of personal contact between the victim and perpetrator " incidents in which a self-protective action by the victim was theoretically possible (for example, Assaults and robberies).
There should not be more restrictions on guns or gun ownership

Guns are just retarded killing tools, They are nothing else. Sure you can say anything can be used as a killing tool, Like a car, Or a knife on and on, BUT a knife is made for cutting food, A car is for driving and commuting, A baseball bat is for baseball, What is a gun for. . . . . KILLING! Guns should all be banned and the 2nd amendment should be abolished. I will provide facts to the real statistics of guns. So yes there should be more restrictions, How about an ABSOLUTE BAN, We don't live in the wild west anymore hillbilly!
I will not contradict myself

*Note in round 2 my opponent stated that he is left winged. *ViolationsRound 2 #17 and 18: It's my bad apparently being atheist is being religious. Round 2 #17, and Round 3's #5 and 6: My opponent states that he isn't Capitalist in round 2, but come round 3 he states that he believes people should be aloud to rise and fall on their own merits and that he believes in equal opportunity. These two ideals are what makes up Capitalism. So my opponent makes this contradiction by saying that he isn't Capitalist in round 2, but in round 3 says he is. Round 2 #1,15, 16, and Round 3's #1, 4, 11, 12, 14, and 15: In round 1 my opponent states that he is left winged by saying he is top left on the political compass. Thus meaning that he is a Authoritarian Democrat (this because he shot down communism earlier. ) Looking throughout this debate there are so many things he states that contradicts his ideology, such as the Middle East, how the U. S. should deal with other nations, abortion, welfare, and gay marriage. All these things show that he might be right winged Conservative, but as my opponent stated in round 2 that he is a lefty. Round 2 # 18, 19, and Pro's clarification #1: My opponent states that he is a Corporationist and not Capitalist and/or Socialist, but Corporationist and Socialism are the same thing. See this cut from this website below: (. http://ironmarch.org...) Mussolini said (see below) that Corporatism was a type of socialism---the only feasible socialism---"true socialism", as opposed to the common internationalist/Marxist variety. The National Socialists said the same thing, and they explicated in great detail upon what they meant by "true socialism", and in what sense National Socialism was "socialist". Mussolini, however, never explained what he meant when he said that Corporatism was "the only feasible socialism". As a Corporatist myself, I am at a loss as to how we would explain the sense in which Corporatism is 'socialist'. Do you think he meant it in the sense of social collaboration? Or do you think it was more of a "window dressing", applying a popular name ('socialism') to an unpopular* idea (Corporatism)? * at the end of the war. "Man mano che l'evoluzione della società smentiva molte delle profezie di Marx, il vero socialismo ripiegava dal possibile al probabile. L'unico socialismo attuabile socialisticamente è il corporativismo, punto di confluenza, di equilibrio e di giustizia degli interessi rispetto all'interesse collettivo. " - Mussolini, 1945So as you see here my opponet has made several contradictions and as such for this debate if my opponet makes even one contradiction the vote goes to me. Well I have him making a total of 10 contradictions.
I will not contradict myself

2. It wasn't a contradiction I was clarifying that I am religious, not religous which isn't a word. 1. I am a advocate of Corporatism which is neither socialism nor capitalism 1. Do you support welfare. No, I do not believe it encourages equal opportunity. 2. Do you support Guantanimo Bay? No, it wasn't harsh enough. 3. Do you support social services? Not particularly. 4. Do you support Obamacare? Not in the current system. This isn't to say I do not support some form of nationalized healthcare. 5. Do you believe in equal opportunity? Yes. 6. Should people be aloud to rise and fall on their own merits? Yes. 7. Is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea? No it is not. 8. Do you consider yourself right or left wing? Economically or socially? 9. Do you support the Occupy Wall St. movement? No I do not. 10. Are you a Tea Party member? No I am not. 11. Do you support gay marriage? I do not. 12. Do you support abortion? I do not. 13. Do you support gun control? I do. 14. Should the U.S.A. be neutral in today's world? No. 15. SHould we pull out of the Middle East? No. 16. SHould we go over the fiscal cliff? No opinion. 17. Are my questions annoying you? No :) 18. Do you support subsidies to farmers? No. 19. Do you think the Republicans are more morally corect then the Democrats? In a moral sense(from their positions not actions) yes. 20. Do you agree wtih this statement: you can't be moralous without being religous. What does moralous mean?
I will not contradict myself

We're going to fill in some off the blanks with what you said on your profile page http://debate.org.... Clearifications1. Idealogy such as conservative, liberal, progressive etc.Violations, 18 and 17, you have to be either one. Socialist or Capitolist and my opponet states that he is neither. When he said that he wasn't Capitolist that posed him as socialist and when he said no there that pitted him in an endless round about circle.2. My opponet states that he is religous then turns around and says he isn't religous in the same breth. (reason this counts for politics is because of the Conservative party.So in result so far in round 2 my opponet has made 2 contradictions let's see if he makes anymore.Questions1. Do you support welfare.2. Do you support Guantanimo Bay?3. Do you support social services?4. Do you support Obamacare?5. Do you believe in equal oppetunity?6. Should people be aloud to rise and fall on their own merits?7. Is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea?8. Do you consider yourself right or left wing?9. Do you support the Occupy Wall St. movement?10. Are you a Tea Party member?11. Do you support gay marriage?12. Do you support abortion?13. Do you support gun control?14. Should the U.S.A. be neutral in today's world?15. SHould we pull out of the Middle East?16. SHould we go over the fiscal cliff?17. Are my questions annoying you?18. Do you support subsidies to farmers?19. Do you think the Republicans are more morally corect then the Democrats?20. Do you agree wtih this statement: you can't be moralous without being religous.
I will not contradict myself

*Please no page contradictions* 1. What is your Idealogy? I do not know what a idealogy is. However, I am also not sure about my ideology either. On the political compass i get a top left. Authortarianism is not enough. It is similar to the Caesars legion's(from Fallout world) ideology. Remember similar. 2. Are you religous? I am not religous as it has no meaning. Yes I am religious though, but not blindingly so. 3. Are you for the decriminalization of drugs of any sort? No I am not. All "drugs"(in the controlled substances act) should be criminalized. 4. Should Medical Marijuana be legal? No it shouldn't be. 5. Are you racist? No I am not. 6. Are you sexist? No I am not. 7.Are you for or against Affirmative action? I am against Affirmative Action. 8. What is your stance on Global Warming? I do not have enough information to make a judgment call. 9. Do you like Obama? Not particularly, but nevertheless I do not believe he is a evil person. 10. Should creationism be taught in schools? Yes, but not in science classes. Philosophy classes should incorporated in schools so that Creationism is taught as part of another class not as science as that would be inaccurate. 11. Should school prayer be in schools? Yes. 12. Should we take In God We Trust off our coins? No. 13. Is Obama the anti-Christ? No. 14. Should we invade Syria? Yes. 15. Should we invade Iran? Yes. 16. Should we stop North Korea from getting nuclear wepons and how? Invasion of North Korea to be prevent them from getting nucular weapons would be ideal. However if you do not mean weapons please clarify the definition of wepons because if it is something different my answer changes. 17. Are you a Capitolist? No, I do not know a Capitolist is. I am not a Capitalist either though. 18. Do you support Socialism? I do not. 19. Are you a Marxist? I do not believe so. Marxism leads to Anarchy and I think thats the worst outcome possible. 20. Am I cute? I have never seen you. Unless you mean cute by something else, if so clarify. 21. What is your political party? I do not have one. Not old enough.
I will not contradict myself

Since there was no rules on questions besides 1 I'll ask away.1. What is your Idealogy?2. Are you religous?3. Are you for the decriminalization of drugs of any sort?4. Should Medical Marijuana be legal?5. Are you racist?6. Are you sexist?7.Are you for or against Affirmative action?8. What is your stance on Global Warming?9. Do you like Obama?10. Should creationism be taught in schools?11. Should school prayer be in schools?12. Should we take In God We Trust off our coins?13. Is Obama the anti-Christ?14. Should we invade Syria?15. Should we invade Iran?16. Should we stop North Korea from getting nuclear wepons and how?17. Are you a Capitolist?18. Do you support Socialism?19. Are you a Marxist?20. Am I cute?21. What is your political party?
The Bible is sufficient evidence for the belief in Chrisitanity

Thanks for the contradictions provided from a translation of the Bible. The word translation is essential here. Re: Contradictions I would have expected some life-challenging paradoxes. I must do with these two contradictions. Bear in mind that these are from a translated Bible. Also remember that the Bible is not the word of God, rather man's interpretation of it. Man is prone to errors. Now to the "errors" A) Guessing the age of a king is not actually that easy and it is not mentioned that God said that that was the age. So a human estimated that age. I urge Con and the readers to try to guess people's ages on this site and then determine if the error is justified. . http://howoldareyou.net... B) Nitpicking - people won't abandon their faith on the basis of the number of legs of fowls. Con can pick another example OR people can vote for Con on the basis of this sub argument. .. Furthermore, these errors do not make the whole bible void. Re: Sufficient I love Con's definition: "can fulfill a need or requirement without being abundant". The Bible fulfills two needs: need for hope need for social order It has done this rather good. Re: Christian beliefs I don't understand why Con insists on factual claims of the Bible. It is not as if God told people: fowls crawls on all fours. The Bible is about moral beliefs. It is not like engineers use it to calculate the value of pi. Nobody does that. So Con's assumptions are not valid. Re: "Nothing is perfect" vs "Fundamentalist belief" Many of the Christians are not fundamentalists. I see no reason for me to have to defend fundamentalism. Re: Science Since you accept that science can correct its statements, then the Bible can also be updated. It is only fair not to use double standards. Re: Popularity Again double standards. There is no reason to believe in 1+1=2 more than in "Thou shall not steal". Axioms, as the foundation of science and logic are things you just believe in. There is no ad populum/ad traditionem here. Rather a trial on error of the bible. The Bible was tested by history and it is tested by this debate. It will evolve, but the essence will remain. I believe that that is what happens in science also. Re: Rationality I was merely pointing out the limits of logic. In life we use more than logic to survive. The paradoxes (not refuted by Con) illustrated just that. Empirically and from experience it still seems ok to believe in the Bible. Re: Intelligence The Bible is complex enough to be given new meaning by intelligent people. The story shows just that. Re: Study habits? ? See above about axioms.
The Bible is sufficient evidence for the belief in Chrisitanity

In a recent discussion with a theist It was argued that the bible is sufficient evidence for the belief in the Christian god. It is difficult for me to understand why, but the reasons given for its sufficiency are that it is God's inspired word, and without error. My position is that we do not know that this book is actually God's inspired word, and there are plenty of errors to be found in its pages, so in what way can that lead to sufficiency. The bible is chock full of contradictions and moral problems. To argue that the bible is not sufficient I put forth a parallel argument. Choose any of the World War II films, books or other media. All of them are used to tell stories about the time period and for whatever its worth, each dramatizes certain aspects of their experiences (and some make them up out of whole cloth). Even if you were to be oblivious to this fact, you surely wouldn't expect to draw a line from World War II occurred, therefore these books are true, nor would you be able to draw a connection the other direction (The Wizard of Oz is real because Kansas exists).
Students with a low GPA shouldn't have to do any homework.

First, I want to define homework as assignment that students are required to do by their tutors/teachers/professors. You are trying to point out that students get low grades due to their laziness and if they do not have homework, they will not give attention to studying. I think this is a big assumption; most students do not voluntarily want bad grades. Instead, they have other reasons, personal problems that hinder them from getting good grades. Thus, forcing them to do more homework would not fix the problems, but only worsen the situation. In order to decide if students with low GPA should have to do homework, it is necessary to examine causes of GPA, and examine how homework would affect the situation. Some of the most common causes include: 1. Engaging in extracurricular activities:[1] Many students are not born to do well in schools, and they are endowed with special talents. Some are natural artists or athletes. They have passion and spend much time in these activities. However, grades in school are to evaluate performance in academic task, such as Mathematics, Physics,... These subjects are not more important than arts or sports in schools. They are simply different aspects in life. Thus, these students should be encouraged to focus on what they excel in, and be free from the burden of homework. If people do not force a mathematician play soccer well, why force homework on an artist? People simply have different talents. 2. Lack of comprehension and bad study habits[1] This is very common in schools, and it often causes big misconception. Bad performance in schools is often blamed on laziness and lack of attention. However, most children want to do well and have good grades. They cannot pay attention because they cannot keep up with the class and fall behind. Therefore, they seem lazy. Homework would not help this problem. Giving a student who does not understand the lessons more work simply cannot help. Instead, teachers should spend more time with the students, clarify the points they do not understand. Only when the GPA gets higher, and they can keep up with the class, should they be given homework to further understand the lessons. 3. Disorders [2] Some students simply have health problems. Many suffer from anxiety and attention deficit disorder. These problems make their school performance worsened. Giving them homework would not be understanding. Homework does not help, but only worsen their disorders. I would also love to point out that not giving them homework is not degrading them. We only want to be understanding with their situations, and find the solutions that actually work. Homework is not one of them. References: [1]: http://www.ehow.com... [2]: https://www.tatehealthcare.com...
Students with a low GPA shouldn't have to do any homework.

They should have to do homework because they will drop out FOR SURE if they won't have to do homework. They will never graduate, and they will not be learning. If they are given more simple homework or slightly less homework, than this may help them. But no homework at all will destroy their hopes. If someone told you in school, "You're to dumb to do homework so we will excuse you from homework ok?" If I was told this I would be mad for the teacher treating me as a dumb baby. Even if I was doing very poorly, I would still want to work my way up to get a passing C+ or B-. It would destroy their self esteem. If they were let off for having bad grades, than they would either give up and drop out of being so ashamed, or have a great time without homework and continue to fail. If they didn't do homework, than they would fool around more and it wouldn't help them work harder. It simply can't help.
Gay Marriage is Morally Acceptable Even Within Christianity

We are not debating whether or not the Bible is true; we are debating whether or not gay marriage is morally acceptable within Christianity. As Christians, we base our entire faith off of the Bible. Therefore, the debate is whether the Bible accepts gay marriage, whether it is accurate or not. I will agree that being a great follower of God does not make you right in every way, but in multiple places the Bible says that men wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The second that one word of the Bible is proven inaccurate, it becomes completely useless as anything but a story book. If anything included in Scripture is in error, then for all we know everything written in the Gospels is completely fabricated. The very basis of the entire Christian faith falls apart. So, if we are debating whether homosexuality is acceptable within the bounds of Christianity, the Bible's accuracy and whether or not it was inspired do not matter. With that said, I believe every word of the Bible is inspired. In 2 Peter 1:20-21 Peter writes that no prophecy or teaching given in Scripture is from the prophet's own interpretation, but from direct inspiration by God. That means everything included in the canon is one hundred percent true or none of it is true. Jesus himself referenced Old Testament Scriptures. I do not believe that the theory of evolution is valid. I do not think the Bible is in error regarding the age of the earth. I believe that Jesus was a champion of women's rights and that the Bible is not anti women. The Bible did not endorse the slavery that was common at the time of the Civil War. Actually, these would all make really good debates in and of themselves. God does not change. If God changes, then Scripture is not inerrant and debating whether gay marriage is acceptable according to the Bible is completely pointless. Malachi 3:6 says, "I, the LORD, do not change." Other verses such as Numbers 23:19, Psalms 102:25-27, Psalms 33:11, Isaiah 46:10, Isaiah 43:10, Philippians 1:6, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 13:8 all attest to the immutability of God. If he changes, then the entire Bible is undermined and this debate is useless. I would agree that the question is indeed, "What would Jesus do?" The only answer to that is he would remain the unchanging God and condemn the isn of homosexuality while forgiving and accepting the sinner. Thank you for the debate! It was very enjoyable!