BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage should not be permitted

PrefaceThis is only my 2nd debate on gay marriage, the first of which I lost. Please be gentle =) Full TopicIn a just society, gay marriages would not be permitted.TermsJust - based on what is morally or ethically right and/or fairGay marriage - a legally binding union conferring on two same-sex partners the same legal rights, status, and benefits that "traditional" marriage would typically confer upon opposite-sex couples.Traditional marriage - A typical marriage that was found in 1950s AmericaRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No Kritiks5. No trolling6. No semantics abuse7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions8. The BOP is on Pro: Pro must uphold the idea that same-sex marriages ought not to be permitted. Con must negate to the point where there is no logically sound reason to be Pro for being against gay marriage9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureFirst round is for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round (rebuttals that follow from the previous round are allowed). Otherwise, arguments and counter-arguments are free to be used the discretion of the debater.Don't go too hard on me ;)
gun control

Giving me a lot to think about. And write! But before I do my rebuttals I will present one more point because of being slightly nudged/helped from a comment. Argument 5: The facts "In 1982, the city of Chicago instituted a ban on handguns. This ban barred civilians from possessing handguns except for those registered with the city government prior to enactment of the law. The law also specified that such handguns had to be re-registered every two years or owners would forfeit their right to possess them. In 1994, the law was amended to require annual re-registration."- (1) Since the ban started in 1982, the murder rate in Chicago went down 17%, and the USA murder rate 30% down. Rebuttals: "the unemployment rate is already low enough do we also wanna take away the jobs of all those people who own or work in a gun shop" Ahem, we are talking about "gun control." Gun control means limiting or making more thorough checks for sales of gun. So when you state that instituting gun control will take away jobs of people, it wouldn't. People would still be able to sell guns. "In 1935 Germany established gun control and 13 million Jews unable to defend themselves were killed" We all know that in this example Germany was Nazi-Germany. They where completely mean, horrible, and other words that I will not state on this family-friendly website. Listen to this: "Jews were prohibited from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms. They were also forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition." This is a bad example because it was completely unfair for the Jews. Gun control should be for EVERYONE except for the Military. Not just for the Jews, and this is barely gun control. This is banning guns. "The Columbine High School massacre was a school shooting which occurred on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in Columbine, an unincorporated area of Jefferson County in the State of Colorado. This seems to be a good example against your "stress shootings" these students got there guns by illegally buying them from a man who illegally made them at his house." By the way, my "stress shootings" point was just to show how guns could POSSIBLY be used to kill. I never once said that ALL shootings where "stress shootings!". "Gun Control is right for America thank you." Uh, just to clarify things bud, you are against (con) Gun Control. So when you basically state that gun control is good, you just flopped the last round. I would like to say one thing (thank you opponent for writing these fine words for MY side of the debate): Gun Control is right for America, Thank you, Jacobie1121 Vote pro! References: (1) http://www.justfacts.com... Other references: http://www.buzzle.com... http://www.cnn.com... http://standupspeakoutnow.com...
gun control

Pro it seems you are assuming that these people will follow the law, while it seems obvious that people intending to commit crimes will get them illegally. I can also see that everything you say is part of the same point that peoples stress level will rise and they will shoot people so you only have had one point this whole debate pro i hope to see you make at least one more in the last round The Columbine High School massacre was a school shooting which occurred on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School in Columbine, an unincorporated area of Jefferson County in the State of Colorado. This seems to be a good example against your "stress shootings" these students got there guns by illegally buying them from a man who illegally made them at his house. It is isnt especially hard to illegally manufacture guns. Well this was somewhat of a short round for me but i believe i have made my point Gun Control is right for America thank you.
gun control

Sorry for the time it took to write this......just never got around to it. But here it is: Argument two: The second amendment People who are against gun control, including my opponent, often argue that the second amendment states that any person can "bear arms." Well, if you take a closer look, it actually states "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This does not, and should not cover the imaginary delusions some individual might experience. Argument three: Example "After the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, where an armed man shot 27 people to death, 20 of them first-graders at the Sandy Hook Elementary school, the subject of gun control was once more thrown into the national spotlight. The 20-year old was a shy lonely individual, without a history of violence but possible behavioral issues. He lived with his mother in a decent neighborhood in Newtown and used her arsenal of guns to go on a bloody rampage."- Buzzle (1) This man had access to such a killing machine because his mother LEGALLY had them in the house. A way to stop this? Gun control. The government can control who owns these guns, and where these owners put them. If they had done so, this tragedy most likely would not have happened, because this gun would be stowed away in a safer place. Argument four: Lethal Weapon The gun is a lethal weapon that is meant to kill therefore, the fewer people that have guns, the less deaths will occur. My opponent might say "knives kill people too." Well, bud, knives kill a maximum usually of around 3 kills per "incident." Those semi-auto's that they sell today can kill at least 20 people in the same time frame. Thank you, Jacobie1121 References for this round: (1) http://www.buzzle.com...
gun control

alright as affirmative (pro) requested i will leave cross examination till the last round since last round i talked about crime rate this round i will talk about employment and government First off there are many people who support there family with these guns they hunt with them and use them for sport to gain money and food for there family the unemployment rate is already low enough do we also wanna take away the jobs of all those people who own or work in a gun shop So many people make a living with these guns our unemployment rate is gonna spike ok now its time for my government section as the people we are supposed to be ready to fight if the government uses any act of tyranny against us the people this may be unlikely but lets take a look at this - The Soviet Union established gun control and from 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents were exterminated - In 1935 Germany established gun control and 13 million Jews unable to defend themselves were killed - China established gun control in 1935 and from 1948 to 1952 20 million political dissidents were exterminated These were all acts of tyranny from there forms of government
gun control

I will save disputing my opponents points for the last round (can't wait!). I urge my opponent to wait till the last round as well. For now I will present this points: Argument 1: Problems When people who own guns have a big amount of stress in their lives, have mental illness, get bullied/harassed, they feel the need to let their anger out on someone, to relieve the stress of there lives. People in these situations have been known to act and let go of control using the guns in there possession. For example: "Spc. Ivan Lopez's friendly smile apparently gave no hint of a history of depression, anxiety and other psychiatric disorders. The Iraq war veteran was being evaluated for post-traumatic stress disorder before he opened fire at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas on Wednesday. Lopez took his own .45-caliber handgun onto the sprawling facility and killed three people and wounded 16 more before taking his own life. His death left authorities to piece together what in his background and medical treatment could have triggered a new round of bloodshed at the same Killeen post where an officer killed 13 people in 2009."- CNN In this example, this man has "depression anxiety, and other psychiatric disorders" and killed three people and wounded sixteen more. Now, what is a way to stop things like this from happening? Gun control. If people do not have these sorts of weapons within arm's reach, then they will not commit such awful murders like this. Thank you, Jacobie1121 Next speech hopefully a bit longer for me! References so far: (1): http://www.cnn.com... (2): http://standupspeakoutnow.com...
gun control

alright first i will be looking into americas history but here is a puote right before that "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" first off when we made the eighteenth amendment and banned alcohol a whole entire alcohol smuggling business began it was absolute chaos that is why we made an amendment to counter that one. when guns are outlawed the same thing will happen outlaws will find out how to get them and we will be defenseless because we wouldnt have any guns of our own anymore. i will now emphasize this point with the history of another country. a little over a year ago guns were banned in Australia and the results were homocides up 36% assaults up 8.6% and in the state of victoria homocide rate went up a wopping 300%
Mitt Romney should be the next president

I have found your arguments to be quite rational, which is exactly what I look for in a worthwhile opponent. I've also noticed that we agree on a variety of issues, politically speaking. The thing that stands out mostly about you to me is that you are supporting Mitt Romney for president. I also noted that you were a Mormon yourself, but you seem to base your political beliefs on solid principles, and not fact that Mitt Romney shares your religious beliefs alone. I would argue, being a conservative myself, that Ron Paul is the best candidate for president. He has the most consistent conservative record, and he's the only candidate that has a firm grasp on the economic crisis, as well as the other important issues facing the US today. Where as many argue that Ron Paul is a liberal or totally insane, I argue that the other GOP candidates are paleoliberals, otherwise known as neoconservatives. The Bush administration has increased government spending, size, and power exponentially, and therefore cannot be considered conservative. If they were conservative, they would've advocated more conservative means of addressing this country's problems, instead of the liberal means which they chose. They are in fact leftist liberals, and every GOP candidate except for Ron Paul is following this lead. If one party should ideally give balance to the other, neocon republicans are wolves in sheep's clothing. If the liberal opposition is liberal itself, then the scales tip to one side, and there is no balance to the system. There's nothing democratic about a system without balance. I debate people in order to correct and refine my views because I want to know that I'm subscribing to the right philosophies. I seek to challenge my own views, as well as yours. Maybe I'm right, or maybe I'm wrong. Either way, I hope that you will accept the challenge and that we can both learn something and fine tune our political idealisms.
The right to bear arms.

Ok, this is the deciding factor: Do the US citizens have a right to own guns to protect the free state, My opponent responds that the National Guard can be used, because the states have control over them too. This is partially true, but partially false. The US president has the control of ALL armed forces in the US. The National Guard, is in this too. He then says, well it's a new day and age, we wont have a tyrant because of the checks and balances. My Response: This has 2 flaws in it. 1) I doubt the system of checks and balances would beat the power of an army, navy, air force, etc. Which, according to you, are the only people allowed to own weapons. 2) History has shown us a fact. Take Hitler for instance. He obtained power LEGALLY. He coned the system. In Germany, the citizens could not have arms. For the protection of a free state, the US people have a right to own arms for that protection. "Government for, by and of the people." My opponent uses grammar, etc to prove his point. This means nothing, Spirit should dominate over the letter of the law. According to Montisque, the spirit of the law is justice. We as people of the US have a right to defend our freedom. Don't let my opponent deny this to any of us. This is the reason to negate. Thank you ladies and gentleman.
The right to bear arms.

I will attack my opponents case then move on to crystallize my own. Ok, he begins with a bunch of definitions; however one of the biggest ideas is a militia the military and what he brings up also is a sub-section of the military. Militia was the group of men called upon to help defend against British Attacks. These were ordinary citizens. Take Midnight Ride of Paul Revere. He calls upon the people to GRAB THEIR WEAPONS and help defend. The people is the militia. Then he brings up that the guns were from Britain and were only supposed to be used for hunting. Lol, he is essentially saying that the colonists had no right to fight Britain. Extension: HE FAILED TO ADDRESS MY MAIN POINT IN CONTENTION 1. ONLY IF THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO GUNS CAN WE EVER DEFEND OURSELVES AGAINST A TYRANT. JUST LIKE THE COLONISTS VS BRITAIN. THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION KNEW THIS. READ CONTENTION 1, AND IT'S A SURE REDEYE WIN. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is an extension or definition of the first subject of the amendment, "A well-regulated militia". It is explaining what a "well-regulated militia" has/is." No its not. It is clearly saying that the people have the right to bear arms. Either for protection or hunting. "Automobile deaths would be much less common if there was not drunk driving, road rage, etc. Many accidents are at the fault of the driver. Likewise, guns do not kill people. People with guns kill people. However, it can only take the slightest aggravation for the trigger to go off. Guns are much more dangerous than cars, regardless of which one actually kills more people. A gun is also available to more people than a car is. You see little children playing with guns on the news, but you don't see them hijacking cars. A gun is too dangerous to be available to pretty much any individual." My Response: The point of the contention is, if the government truly wanted to protect against death, ban automobiles not guns. And your point about guns being more available. First, I want to see where you got this. However more importantly, there are so many protections against getting a gun. U need to take a physical, and psychological test beforehand. Cars are 50x more available then guns. =============================================================================== Voting Issues: 1) To truly uphold the security of a free state, we as the people and true leaders of America, have the right to fight for our own freedom if it ever gets infringed on. 2) We all have right to self-defense, guns aid in protection of ourselves. It should be allowed if someone wishes to have one. 3) The clause clearly states militia and people, both referring outside of the formed military. The Framers knew this, and it's our job to keep our protected right. This is a clear RedEye ballet
The right to bear arms.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is the exact wording of the Second Amendment. Obviously there are disputes among what the meaning of it is, otherwise this debate wouldn't be here. My stance is that the definition of the Second Amendment is this: "The people in a militia [the National Guard, for example] have the right to own and/or carry weapons." It should not apply to common citizens who are not part of a "well-regulated militia". Anyone oppose my point of view? (Please don't bring up an argument about the arms of a bear XD)
Grand Theft Auto 7

These could be true also knowing that kids already do these things thinking it is okay. But as there could be older teenagers playing the roles of the main characters, Rockstar could make the consequences more obvious in the game if this is enough of a concern. Rockstar could also make it harder to do the crimes and harder to escape the consequences. In the game, it could start out as what seems to be normal teenagers doing whatever matches their personality, but then later convert them to a life of crime and worry. I think it would be interesting.
Grand Theft Auto 7

I believe that the story line should be with adults because of the many crimes you can commit in past GTA games. I believe this could influence teenagers to act like their character acts. Some kids would want to seem "gangster" and might commit small crimes. Teenagers would misunderstand things like violence, death, rape, and other crimes in the game. They might rob a house in the game and think "Oh, robbing someone is so easy" and be compelled do it in real life. In the game there is no real consequences, in real life the consequences can be life-changing. Teenagers usually have a hard time distinguishing fantasy and reality. It would be a virtual reality world for them for which there are no consequences. They might compare this virtual reality world to the real world and have to face the very real consequences of their actions. you said about "teenagers having a more active social life," is not always true. Most teens have considerable amount of homework and many teens have sports and other activities during the day. Most schools give out more homework on the weekend than on weekdays. Most teens have to do this homework instead of hanging out with friends or having parties. Teenagers might also more easily get influence into drugs, smoking, and drinking because of their character's actions within the game. Things like drinking and smoking are already a problem within many schools.
Global Nuclear War Would Save the Planet

If governments would give in and let ICBM's fly, we would be saving the planet from the worst plague it has suffered: human beings. If a nuclear conflict were to happen and just the 100 most populated cities on the Earth were destroyed, the probable shut down of our modern, energy hungry, gluttonously wasteful societies would be enough, along with the euthanasia of several billion people as direct and indirect results of the nuclear strikes, to save the planet. The dust that would be put into the atmosphere would block out solar radiation, allowing the surface of the planet, that we have been heating for decades by the use of nuclear reactors that actively heat the waters of the Earth, to cool. It would give humanity a chance to hopefully shape a better future for itself and the planet. It would also allow us to hopefully avoid repeating the many mistakes we are currently stuck with: waste, gluttony, overpopulation, and careless use of resources.
Global Nuclear War Would Save the Planet

Ok so humans have mismanaged resources and made mistakes and without question harmed the planet, there's no denying that, but is a nuclear aftermath along with the ensuing descendance into chaos and starvation the only way to solve the problem? Is it even the most sensible way? Perhaps too much has occurred and you no longer consider the human endeavour to be a noble one, to which i don't necessarily disagree. Your eagerness, augmented by an understandable fury and sorrow, leads to desperation that has you inclining towards the swiftest possible route. That doesn't make it the wisest one, though. Your dismay at humans destroying the planet is admirable, but your proposed nuclear solution, to destroy most if not all humans, which carries the adverse effect of destroying the planet, in order to save it, is paradoxical and more importantly, cannot work.
Global Nuclear War Would Save the Planet

We are not the ones who will pay for our ignorant misuse of the planet. Our children's children and all the species that we threaten and destroy are. Humans have had years to start managing resources and protect the planet for future generations, yet basically nothing has been done. There is so much misdirection when it comes to the environment that what most of the population believes is not really true. It seems you believe humans are innocent and that you fear human suffering. I look at this from the stance that humans are grossly negligent and do not deserve to continue as they are. I argue that life on Earth is miraculous and would be better off if humans destroyed themselves or at least returned their population back to hundreds of millions instead of billions. I know what the after math of a nuclear conflict would be like. That is the purpose: destroy all infrastructure and allow humans to descend into chaos and starve to death.
Global Nuclear War Would Save the Planet

It doesn't really matter what we learned in school-the people who write the books aren't the actual ones who have to pay the price, be them laughable or devastating, for their mishaps in thinking; we are. That being said, once *any* kind of nuke is used, even tactical ones, what is it that will prevent the conflict from escalating to Mutually Assured Destruction? There's nothing that will. If people were already crazy enough to even use nukes at all, what makes you think they wouldn't kill or threaten to kill innocent people if it meant the other side would stop? People start wars with the intention to win them, not for the sake of fighting as you suggest. If you propose that we simply destroy population centers and all that enables its growth,, well the fact is nukes aren't necessary to get that done. Deliberately allowing the radiation and fallouts is deadly, and also unwise because there are better options available for peaceful depopulation
Global Nuclear War Would Save the Planet

I will admit that based on what most of us learned in school, nuclear strikes with the old style ICBM's of the multitudes used for doomsday scenario propaganda would be devastating. A nuclear war fought with "modern" weapons would be a war of tactical nuclear devices designed to cripple strategic targets: large cities, military targets, government centers, damns, power grid, docks, and airports. If a war were to happen, Each country with modern nuclear devices, and some with old ones, would undoubtedly turn to a list of targets they would have to take out. So, the idea that we would launch more than the over 2,120 nuclear warheads(that we know of) already detonated or that the total force of a large number of tactical nukes would equal more than the 540,749 kilotons of destructive force already released is a bit overkill. Life would continues. Even more so without humans. Humans inability to manage resources, because, for the most part, we are stupid and selfish, is the problem.