BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teachers should be trained and allowed to use a firearm on campus.

Seeing as there is no arguments for me to rebut, I will bring up some more.My opponent obviously doesn't have any arguments against my plan, so therefore, the four planks of my plan still stand. I will restate the plan one more time, in hopes that my opponent will actually rebut my plan and 3 contentions.Plank 1: Madate: The United States should implement a plan in which all High School, Middle School, and Elementary School teachers will be required to know how to use and operate a handgun. This plan should also implement teachers taking a firearm saftey course.Plank 2: Mechanism: The United States will implement this plan by requiring all teachers to learn how to operate a handgun. This will require a handgun saftey course. Plank 3: Funding: The funding for this plan will occur through a 1 penny increase on gas. According to think progress [2] raising gas 1 penny will transfer to a 5.8 billion dollar payday for the government. By requiring the Government to implement a gas tax, we can make enough money to pay for a handgun. On average, the typical handgun cost's between 500-800 dollars [3]. Plank 4: Enforcement: This plan will be enforced through the United States Department of Education, then transfered down the Each and Every School District to enforce this plan.The inherent barrier still stands, and as does the harms with the plan that the United States has already in place. Thanks
Teachers should be trained and allowed to use a firearm on campus.

Alright, Here goes, First off I would like to, for the sake of an easier debate, agree on the fact that maybe teachers or faculty at schools do not need some of those guns, as I feel they are too extreme, or at least need some clarification. Please clarify or revoke your definition of firearm on the following. (6) a machine-gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); To me a machine gun is overdoing it, as to kill or at least incapacitate someone, few bullets are needed, and a silencer is downright NOT needed, what good does it do if the teacher is quiet when killing an intruder, the more commotion is caused the easier it is to alert other staff to the problem. Also I have a hard time understanding a clear cut definition on "a destructive device." I have my own doubts over whether a teacher should even have guns and whether or not the guns need to have a power of that magnitude, but that is what the debate is for. Otherwise I have no beef with anything else.
Teachers should be trained and allowed to use a firearm on campus.

I will be pro on this debate. Firearm: According to 26 U. S. Code " 5845 A firearm will be defined as: (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machine-gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive device. The term "firearm" shall not include an antique firearm or any device (other than a machine-gun or destructive device) which, although designed as a weapon, the Secretary finds by reason of the date of its manufacture, value, design, and other characteristics is primarily a collector"s item and is not likely to be used as a weapon. [1] The term trained will be defined as: (1) Teach (a person or animal) a particular skill or type of behavior through practice and instruction over a period of time. [2] (2) To point or aim something, typically a gun [2] [1] . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2] . https://www.google.com...
geoengineering should and can be used in 2016 to combat global warming

Clarification: Basically if your backing this method up your backing up the funding and usage of this method on at least a city scale if you want even national or global scale, however you are not required to at least support this being used on a city scale for 2016. When I say usage I don't just mean testing basically. First round is for acceptance only I am starting this over because someone requested I extend the age gap. I had it set for like 17-27 so now I increased it to 17-28 years old. I am 18 so I prefer not to debate someone beyond that, just a preference. Also in real life debate I debate people around my age so its yeah. I'm not a big science guy but I have been reading up on this topic and I find it pretty interesting I debated this also a few times. I'm mostly against this method but if anyone is for yeah accept and debate. I am trying to get updated on this topic since I haven't kept up with it. looking to see if there's any good reasons to use it now. Pro burden= show this could be used effectively on at least a city scale and why it should be used during of course 2016. Rule= basically no random made up counter plans
Abortion

Thank you. I am debating under the assumption that you believe a fetus is not human. I agree with with all your statements, unless the fetus is human. If the fetus is a human, then we do not have the right to kill it. Now shall we look at the differences between a fetus and a 2 year old human? 1) Level of Dependency 2) Size 3)Level of Development 4)Location 1 .(Level of Dependency) Just because a fetus depends on its mother doesn't make it any less human than a 2 year old. Certain kids with disabilities depend on a trace in their throat to live, we don't deny there right to life. 2. (Size) Someone who is 2 feet tall is no less of a human than someone who is 5 feet tall. 3. (Level of Development) A fetus isn't as developed as a 2 year old. Nor is a 2 year as far developed as a 10 year old. High development doesn't make people any more human than someone who is less developed. 4. (Location) Where someone is doesn't determine whether they are human or not. I am no less human in my bed than I am at school. Your argument s that people should have the right to do what they want with their body. I agree! Go out and have all the sex you want! But actions have consequences! And just because you have the freedom to do things does not mean you can just take away the consequences. If you have a child, you cannot deny their right to life. I Just told you my argument on why a fetus is a human. If you can disprove that, then you win.
Abortion

About 205 million pregnancies occur each year worldwide. Over a third are unintended and about a fifth end in induced abortion. Most abortions result from unintended pregnancies. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman; prevent harm to the woman's physical or mental health; terminate a pregnancy where indications are that the child will have a significantly increased chance of premature morbidity or mortality or be otherwise disabled; or to selective reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy. Also a spontaneous abortion, is just a miscarriage. An abortion(just abortion) is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons. I am Christian and understand this conflict, but if God intended the fetus to be born then it would still be alive. Adoption is great, but you just shouldn't be controlling another woman's choices, or even her body. It wasn't you who decided to have the sex with your spouse, and it was most definitely not you/spouse's egg/sperm that produced that fetus. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion

My second part of this was interrupted because of a little problem that's happening right now in my house. I was just writing ideas when it came up, my apologies. You are right, but I don't understand why it should be illegal. Hey, if she wants to put it up for adoption or not it's her choice. Maybe the only way to solve this is, having elective/voluntary abortions illegal, the woman puts the baby up for adoption, and then she gets health care money something for giving birth to another human being who might help the world.
Abortion

Your argument is saying that a man shouldn't have to go through pain if she was raped. Then why should the baby have to go through pain when NOTHING happened to it? Secondly, where is your definition of a human come from? You said this "What's a human being, the ability to reason, to understand and reproduce compassion" Your argument is silly. A baby just born out of the womb cannot reason, nor can it even talk!! Who are you to tell me that they can't understand and reproduce compassion? You don't know that. A child in a coma cannot understand compassion? Do we deny their right to life? Again, level of development doesn't make less developed people any less human than more developed people. I told you the difference between a fetus and a two year old boy and showed you how their differences do not make one any less human than the other.
Abortion

All our choices have consequences, yes they do. Hey that's have every women who is raped and can have the baby, forced to go through pain just like being raped and have her give birth to an innocent baby, who is the son/girl of her reaper. A fetus is the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation. What's a human being, the ability to reason, to understand and reproduce compassion. In addition, a human being is someone in some way can contribute positively to the planet no matter what their station or condition is. Guess what that most likely will cause stress, which hey means she needed to have an induced abortion.
Dogs are better than people

I accept this challenge. Due to lack of definitions, I will supply my own:Better: one's superiors in social class or ability. My opposition must prove three things, while I must disprove them:1) Have a higher social class ranking than humans.2) Have better abilities to preform tasks than humans.3) Have better attitudes than humans. The latter one was supplied (the third one) by my opposition's arguments of loyalty and love. Please keep in note I value dogs as much as I value myself, but calling them better, by the definition, is not true. Even as a huge animal lover, I must accept this challenge. I will supply my arguments in the second round, refute in the third and fourth round, and concluce in the fifth.
Dogs are better than people

I am changing my strategy a little bit. I will provide one argument per round, and one rebuttal per round (only rounds 3-5) to give my opposition a better chance to refute, and to not take too much time out of our daily activities. First off, I would like to point out that the opposition put himself in a really tough position with the resolution. He must prove that all dogs are better than ALL humans to truly, and undoubtebly, be the "better" species. If you would like to argue it, I will prove myself through simple mathematics. I will refute all of the opposition's arguments in the third round. In this round, I will only supply my arguments. I thank my opposition for a speedy response, and I apologize I was unable to do the same. Now, let's get to my arguments, shall we? --Argument I: Social Class Rankings-- This debate will be based on the points in the first round, so I will provide arguments for each one. The first one is social class rankings. I will prove that dogs are not socially equal to humans, and thus not better. A. This argument should be pretty straightforward. My first point of this argument is that we have dogs as pets, meaning we own them. We take them on walks, feed them, but in some cases, allow limited freedom. A lot of owners have cages for their dogs and lock them in at night or while running errands. You don't hear of a lot of human cages. B. Second, the dogs lack reasonable human freedom in many ways. Dogs get fed mostly the same food every day, sometimes can not go 50 yards out of the perimeter of the house, kept in cages, and go on walks only when the owners want them to. The things listed above fail to give them reasonable human freedom, and thus not any place in the social class. C. Lastly, dogs own no part in the working class rankings. Most humans have a job, may it be working at an airport, being a waiter, or even being the head of a mafia. However, 99% of dogs do not have jobs. The only type of job a dog can do is an assistant (to searching for missing things, helping blind people, or playing with their owners), so they fail to be in the working class. If you would like to explain how a normal dog would be better than Bill Gates (one of the top humans on Earth,) be my guest!
Dogs are better than people

Okay if you want to base it off of the definition i still support my view. Dogs just as appreciated as humans. They may not have the same capabilities and may not be as high on the civilzation scale but by definition i still support myself for this reason. People are remembered for their character traits. Dogs have better character traits than people. As basic as it sounds that's really what it comes down to. we may be superior and yes that is quite synonymous to better but only in certain aspects. and in this argument i refer to the moral aspect. admittedly dogs to turn on their owners but that is often caused by the neglect or abuse of the dog. and it happens alot less with dogs than it does people.
Interactive novels

"So I google image searched Interactive novels, and apparently they are some kind of weird sexual anime thing?What is wrong with you? Interactive novels are NOT animes, and are certainly NOT PORN. "Because none of the books have any sort of happy ending that a sane person would be able to direct themselves to. "That is the author's personal choice, if he wants a dark and dreadful ending, we can't do anything about it. And no, I am not readin any of these R.A. Montgomery books unless you give me a link to a free version or some cash.Interactive novels are more fun then normal novels as it feels that we are the one making the story and the story is able to make the reader interested in the story unless the author is really bad at it.
Interactive novels

Soo, I don't really know what this debate is about, but here we go anyway. I am going to assume that you are trying to promote Interactive novels and the thought crossed through your mind that there are actually people who are against these things? So, for pity's sake, I will give you the time of day and pretend I am against these 'Interactive Novels' you speak of. So I google image searched Interactive novels, and apparently they are some kind of weird sexual anime thing? I immediately closed out of the tab and deleted that weeaboo garbage from my history. So instead of arguing about some obscure interactive anime porn, I will be backing the original Interactive Novels, The Choose Your Own Adventure books by R.A. Montgomery that were popular between the late seventies and late eighties. Why get mad at the characters you are reading about when you can get angry with yourself? Because none of the books have any sort of happy ending that a sane person would be able to direct themselves to. If you are not familiar with these books, I suggest you google them because they will change your life. You won't have time to whack your willy when you are trying to make your way through 184 books that you are the star of! So before you respond with more of your cancerous opinions, please follow these simple steps. Step 1: Close All Tabs (Including the Porn) Step 2: Shut Down Your Computer Step 3: Go Outside Step 4: Make Friends Step 5: Meet a Nice Girl Step 6: Start a Family Step 7: Die of Old Age <3 fin.
Interactive novels

So, I guess we are just going to quote what the other person says and only give a sentence of potential argument (Emphasis on 'potential', because you literally said the exact same thing in Round One). With that being the case, here goes... I will start by pointing out that in your THREE sentences of actual argument, you legit managed to contradict yourself. You said, "Interactive novels are more fun then normal novels as it feels that we are the one making the story" Right AFTER saying, "That is the author's personal choice, if he wants a dark and dreadful ending, we can't do anything about it." What happened to feeling like the one making the story? If the author is the one that writes all of the endings and in betweens, how do YOU as the reader have anything to do with it? I could also point out the word "readin", but that would be a low blow. I honestly still don't know what you are even arguing about here. Are you trying to say that Interactive Novels are better than normal books because they basically make you the writer of the story? Because if you want to be the creator of your own story that bad, try writing your own book instead of trying to advocate how these things make you feel like such a good storyteller (because you aren't telling the story). Oh and by the way, your cash is on the way, please don't spend it all on your PornHub subscription. fin.
Dogs are better than Cats

My opponent argues solely using his opinion. However, is it an actual fact that dogs are better than cats? There are evolutionary advantages and disadvantages to both of them. Dogs are, sometimes, more "fun and energetic", yes, but cats have their advantages. Cats are great at fighting and defending themselves against snakes, while a dog would be easily bitten. A cat does not need to go outside to excrete feces. Other than your opinion, how are dogs better than cats? Cats are, actually, often better at hunting than dogs are. Let's compare their wild counterparts: a lion and a wolf. Which is going to hunt more efficiently? Most likely, the lion will be faster, more agile, and more deadly. Also, it depends on the breed of dog you are talking about. Not all dogs are for hunting.
Dogs are better than Cats

I strongly believe that dogs are better than cats because dogs are way more fun, energetic and useful to have than cats are. Firstly, what's so fun about a cat. They do hardly anything all day but eat, sleep and go to random places, but dogs are way fun, energetic and they love to play. Secondly, Imagine hunting with a cat. They would be hopeless at it, but dogs are great at hunting and they are really useful at other stuff too.
Mozart's Music Suffers from Having Too Many Notes

Good points indeed. I feel we may be straying slightly from the issue in discussing Mozart's use of ritornello themes, but it is an interesting point. I would certainly consider that he is more restrained in their use and more creative in their development than many others (Beethoven, or Grieg for instance). With regards to your example of his 25th symphony, I fear we may be straying into the realm of personal preference as I actually really enjoy it. The scales serve not only as part of the development but also help in terms of modulation. As for Der Holle Rache, I feel unable to allow even personal taste count as a difference here. And yes, it is European women singing vowels, though I would question the word "just", in this case. It does much to redeem female virtuosos as a profession from the stereotype largely based upon the roles given to them by later composers, Puccini being a case in point, who could only have benefited from closer adherence to Classical form Mozart so cleverly subverted. I dispute Pro's assertion that Mozart's best music is his simplest. Take the link to the ever-excellent Jupiter symphony Pro included in his first post. Sublime indeed, though not overly simple. Then there is Mozart's requiem, possibly his most popular and critically accomplished piece of music, despite the fact that he doesn't skimp himself over the notes. On the other hand, many more of his best and most-beloved works are comparatively restrained. The point is, though, that the quality of the music is not based on the quantity of notes per bar and the concept of "too many notes" is a spurious one. One might as well denigrate the works of Wodehouse or Saki for using too many words orbeing excessively flowery. The joy in reading their works lies in their love and use of words and language, and so it is with Mozart and his notes. Sometimes, a handful is an elegant sufficiency; other times, both he and the listener revel in the use of notes and the complexity of the music. If one was to start paring a composer's works down to the bone, barring the use of technical flourishes and passages based on scales, major or minor, tonic or chromatic, then the end result would eventually begin to resemble Cage's ludicrous 4:33.
Mozart's Music Suffers from Having Too Many Notes

Thank you, Con! I will now get on to my main argument. Pro argues that Mozart's ornamentation detracts from the overall experience of his music. While ornamentation has its place, there is a point at which it becomes downright masturbatory. If we look at any of his piano concertos, for example, we find ourselves lost in long passages of scales for the sake of making the performer look good. Mozart was, of course, a slave to form. The concerto was to be written for a virtuoso, and if it actually sounded nice, all the better. Oftentimes he seems to be showing us how much he knows about scales as opposed to any kind of melody. First, I will argue that Mozart can compose excellent music sans ornamentation: We always find Mozart at his best with his simplest melodies. For example, the brooding opening figure of the first movement of his 40th symphony is wonderfully articulated without being based extensively on ornamentation. Look at his Clarinet Concerto. Definitely one of his best regarded pieces. No cadenzas, no extravagant solos, just elegant and beautiful music. Now I must argue that where his music does become ornate, it does not improve it: Mozart's best remembered works rely on simple, elegant melodies, and yet he is synonymous with ornate displays of technical prowess. Why is this so? Oftentimes Mozart likes his melodies too much, and simply shows off in between repetitions of the same melody. (Yes, I know it's ritornello, but this is boring ritornello) Think of a work like his 25th symphony. It begins with a wonderfully propulsive figure, but after these 4 notes, he just gets bored. We have a good solid minute or so before we get thrown off into a lovely, but absolutely incongruous section. Then the indulgences begin. It becomes an orgy of scales before returning to the same 4 notes. It wears a listener's patience thin. Mozart's curse is that he takes a fundamentally good idea and embellishes until one simply does not want to hear that figure again. Surely Der Holle Rache does a lot to reinforce the perception that Opera is just fat European women singing vowels? That brilliant and famous figure is quite frankly abused. Eventually, the ear really cannot take any more notes. I have attached a video which I hope will explain what I mean. If Mozart were alive today, I am convinced he would sound something like this. http://www.youtube.com...