BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Rights

REBUTTALS"... the hunting process rewarded patient and thoughtful gun owners." Even the most skilled gun-shooters can still accidentally shoot another person. One good example is the Dick Cheney hunting incident [1], where people got harmed by gun-shots. He was lucky he wasn't killed! "Regular citizens could nick at the army, and it pressured the army to treat civilians well. It also pressured national, state, and out-of-continent governments to find non-military solutions to ruling, and write policies that benefited ordinary people as best as possible." The Gun rights policy does not necessarily benefit people. If not handled well, people can shoot themselves. Even famous people get shot at times....by themselves! [2] In addition, "...guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts. For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides." As source [3] states. Furthermore, in just 5 years, 2005 to 2010, nearly 3,800 people died in the US from unintentional shooting, not to mention >1/3 of those people were under 25 years old. [4]"Weapons kill people, but the second amendment promotes the belief that war and peace are in the hands of democracy. "Nuh-uh man, peace can't be accomplished with all these deaths by guns!Now, for my own argument:People can't handle the responsibility. It is very hard to keep a weapon from the prying eyes and curious hands of a little child, even if you lock the weapon up. Not only that children can't handle the weapon--research found that 8% of unintentional shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children younger than 6 years old[5]--in general, people of all ages can't handle guns. States with the highest gun ownership levels had, on average, 7 times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to those with the lowest gun ownership levels. [6]That's not all--people don't even lock their weapons up. 33% of US households have a gun[7], and 1/2 of them don't even lock up their guns--40% of which contain children under the age of 18. [8]These children can't handle the responsibility of not touching or accidentally shooting with a gun, and neither can the parents. It is time to strip people of their gun rights; they simply can't handle the situation.Back to you, pro.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://theweek.com...[3] http://nyagv.org...[4] http://webappa.cdc.gov...[5] Ibid[6] http://www.drgo.us...[7] http://www.people-press.org... (Question e.F2) [8] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Gun Rights

I apologize for missing round 2, and I appreciate CON's goodwill. The second amendment was ratified at a time when rounds could only be fired from muskets one at a time, and had to be loaded separately from gunpowder. This made the gun a "democratic" weapon, in which overpowering multiple people required the cooperation of multiple other people. No weapon was equipped to destroy dozens of people per minute; the battle relevance of the weapon depended on the organization and discipline of the troops involved, while the hunting process rewarded patient and thoughtful gun owners. Consistent with the "democratic" theme, the widespread ownership of firearms played a key role in colonial leverage the English government. The Americans could rarely defeat trained British regulars on the field, but could engage in hit-and-run skirmishes that discouraged a "military rule." Regular citizens could nick at the army, and it pressured the army to treat civilians well. It also pressured national, state, and out-of-continent governments to find non-military solutions to ruling, and write policies that benefited ordinary people as best as possible. The wording of the second amendment defends the community role of the guns of its time. "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." Weapons kill people, but the second amendment promotes the belief that war and peace are in the hands of democracy.
Abortion

Abortion is needed to control the population so that the population doesn't get too excess. By the 22 century, the population estimated to be 11.2 billion people and if abortion were illegal, the population would be so much higher. If our country stops the use of abortion, we will end like china, forcing women that don't want to have an abortion to have an abortion to control the population. When women are forced to get abortions, a lot of women commit suicide. Women have a higher rate of suicide in China because of this reason and in almost every other country, men have a higher rate of suicide. If abortion were illegal, the population would grow tremendously, causing abortion to be forced onto women later in life, which will increase the suicide rate of women. http://www.allgirlsallowed.org...
Abortion

Many women experience emotional side effects after an Abortion. Possible side affects may be regret ,anger ,guilt ,shame ,sense of loneliness or isolation , loss of self confidence ,nightmares ,suicidal thoughts and feeling ,depression ,and anxiety. According to a 1986 study by researchers at the University of Minnesota, a teenage girl is 10 times more likely to attempt suicide if she has had an abortion in the last six months than a teenage girl who has not had an abortion. Studies have also been made on women who had an abortion. During the study 15 percent of those agreeing to be interviewed afterwards opted out of the baseline interview and another 31 percent opted out within the three year follow up period. It shows that even among women who expected little or no negative reactions, the stress of being part of interviews lead to a change of mind. Previous research shows that women with a history of abortion feel more discomfort in answering questions about their reproductive history. http://afterabortion.org... http://americanpregnancy.org...
Abortion

Raising a child isn't something that comes easy and requires emotional commitment and social commitment, followed by financial resources. If a person isn't ready to raise a child, letting the child grow into a fetus and giving birth to the child would be worse since the child would grow in a destructive and non-conductive environment without the love and care that every child needs. Abortion is allowing a person the right to choose when they are ready to raise a child and if they are too young or have some sort of problem, then they won't be able to take care of the baby. The government isn't in the place to legislate women's choices. http://www.academia.edu...
Abortion

In abortion, what is killed is a human being, a whole living member of the species Homo sapiens, its a human being like you or I, only at an earlier stage of development. Both science and Scripture have proven that life begins at conception. Taking a human life is murder, which makes abortion a brutal act. About a thousand babies have survived abortions in just one year. Usually the babies are left to die. "Since the Supreme Court"s sweeping Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 overturned hundreds of laws in states across the country, more than 55 million unborn children have lost their lives to abortion " about one-third of the millennial generation." http://abortion.procon.org...
The User Known as 9spaceking Should be put in a Insane Asylum

(Introduction) I will do some rebuttals though my opponent conceded. In advance, I thank 9spaceking for this debate(Rebuttals) "But it does. It shows how 9space's mind is different from others. He never had to learn these to help him, and these languages have yet to help him in his life. They don't help, will not help, and because 9space learned something useless on purpose, it is proof that he is deranged and insane."Ok, but I can think of multiple uses for you with those languages. a) this debateb) bragging rights- Because no one else speaks it you get to bragc) they can help in Romania! d) You did a debate in Hex, that is a useful thing. "Exactly. 9space seems to be always romping around damaging people with his insults (source [1] just shows one example) and trolling the heck out of all those noobs I mentioned beforehand." Uh....great."But no proof suggests that if one posts randomly on a forum and attacks oneself, setting up "traps" to get your alter ego to fall into those "traps", this is definitely deranged and insane."There ain't no proof showing that that is insane either..."And as the majority of people aren't sadist, 9space is evidently the minority who does not think the same way as others, fulfilling the definition of insanity." So you are saying that because 9space is part of a minority he is insane. What the heck? I see no logic in that at all. That's like saying, "I am an atheist, I am a minority, all atheists are insane." Just doesn't work eh? 1st example of concession: "Yeah, I spotted that fallacy too. Good job." 2nd example of concession: "You're right, it doesn't9spaceking is not a pedophile...good catch. I must drop my arguments." 3rd example of concession: "Nice. That was the core point I was looking for in your arguments. A good counterplan against sending 9spaceking into the insane asylum."4th example of concession: "I concede. Vote my opponent(s), give them argument points...My trollish arguments did not work well against my opponents' serious arguments"(Conclusion) My opponent conceded the debate. You can give him the single conduct but he explicitly says to give us arguments point. Thank you 9spaceking, Jack, Whatever, for debating.DDD
The User Known as 9spaceking Should be put in a Insane Asylum

Final round. " While you speaking Romanian and Hex may be useless, it does not make you crazy." But it does. It shows how 9space's mind is different from others. He never had to learn these to help him, and these languages have yet to help him in his life. They don't help, will not help, and because 9space learned something useless on purpose, it is proof that he is deranged and insane."Just because many mental patients ate intelligent does not mean that intelligence causes insanity, look at it this way, all thumbs are fingers there for all fingers are thumbs. This is why your argument fails." Yeah, I spotted that fallacy too. Good job."If we always did what we wanted to, we would give in to our animal side." Exactly. 9space seems to be always romping around damaging people with his insults (source [1] just shows one example) and trolling the heck out of all those noobs I mentioned beforehand."Going against yourself is perfectly human!" But no proof suggests that if one posts randomly on a forum and attacks oneself, setting up "traps" to get your alter ego to fall into those "traps", this is definitely deranged and insane."If you like to break the relationships of others then you are probably a sadist." And as the majority of people aren't sadist, 9space is evidently the minority who does not think the same way as others, fulfilling the definition of insanity.Sadism disorder does not make you crazy.... So you're saying that Jigsaw is a person in his right mind of state. Uh-huh. Totally believable."What does mental health have to do with challenging Raisor?" You're right, it doesn't9spaceking is not a pedohile...good catch. I must drop my arguments. " A child or adolescent with mental illness should be treated in the safest and least restrictive environment and needed services should be “wrapped-around” to provide more intensive home or community-based services"....Nice. That was the core point I was looking for in your arguments. A good counterplan against sending 9spaceking into the insane asylum. IN CONCLUSION...-I concede. Vote my opponent(s), give them argument points-It was fun debating against DDD about such a crazy weird topic-My trollish arguments did not work well against my opponents' serious arguments-Good job, DDD. I hope to debate you again sometime about a more serious topic.-Good debate. I liked it. :D[1] http://www.debate.org...
The User Known as 9spaceking Should be put in a Insane Asylum

PREFACEI have went through many profiles on DDO, and many seem to have mental problems. However, our greatest threat seems to be the infamous troll 9spaceking. His debates and posts prove his insanity, and he must be put through an insane asylum to protect us all from his craziness!!Insanity: " a derangement of the mind."From: http://dictionary.reference.com...RULES -6,000 characters-4 rounds-72 hours to argue-Only guys with 2500+ elo can vote on this-Round one acceptance only
People nowadays

Again, Slavery is okay in your opinion? Was it moral for people to have slaves? NO! We were as selfish as today back then. Hell, Many wars were started on selfish reasons. The war for Austrian succession was started from Prussia's selfishness. The spanish succesion war was the cause of the fear that spain may become one with france, a selfish thought, because Phillip would no longer control spain, which he would not want to happen. Morality was very twisted back then. You would be executed in europe for not being catholic throughout the middle ages. Is that moral?
Science is not objective.

There is a lot of repetition of previous rounds in my opponent's last post. I'll just address the new points he raised. My opponent's argument against direct realism fails to distinguish between observations and propositions. An observation is infallible - there is no wrong way of seeing a chair, it is just presented to you by your senses. However, your judgment about it can be in error, since it is subject to your choice. This is why optical illusions are possible - we perceive the illusion correctly, but we are inclined to form an incorrect judgment about it. Situations like this are possible, but rare, and we quickly learn to account for them. My opponent uses Hume's problem of induction to object to induction. However, Hume's argument relies on inductive assumptions, so it is self refuting. Induction is axiomatically valid and cannot coherently be objected to, since any argument against it would have to employ it. My opponent attempts to argue that intersubjective reasoning is sufficient by saying, "This definition is perfectly reasonable and merely proposes that all observations, in order to qualify as scientific, must be verified by at least one other person." However, he does not explain why two, or even a million, subjective opinions are any better than one. Entire countries have believed things that were so absurd we laugh at them today. I don't intersubjectivity, in the absence of objectivity, is worth anything
Assited Suicide

Thanks to my opponent for the debate, and thanks to my voters for voting for the arguments, not the person. This first round will be used to set the stage on which this debate will be held. It will have some ground rules, which I believe will help keep this debate fair and fun for all involved. 1. No arguments this round, just rules. 2. My opponent is welcome to suggest new rules for this debate, and if I like them, I'll add them. 3. No semantics in this debate. We all know what we are saying, no point on making a fuss over wording. 4. We both have to prove our side. The burden of proof is on both of us. 5. Questions and comments only this round. So the resolution, as you may have gathered, is: Assisted Suicide can be Morally Justified. I turn the stage to my opponent.
Atoms Are Alive

Rebuttal "atoms are biotic(alive) in the sense that nothing can be living and made out of something not living" This is an example of the fallacy of division. [1] MCDCBC says that, because atoms are a component of living organisms, that atoms themselves are living. This is similar to saying that cheese is a pizza because cheese is a part of a pizza. "animism believes in a sense that everything is alive or has a soul so why wouldn't atoms" This is an appeal to authority. [2] Although Animism asserts something, it is not necessarily true. In order to use Animism as an argument, you must first prove Animism to be correct, which you have not done. Arguments An ingredient does not have to share the properties of the finished product. Going back to my pizza analogy, it is entirely possible to make a pizza with cheese, although cheese neither has the properties of a pizza nor is a pizza itself. It is entirely possible to make something living with something non-living, because the finished product and the starting ingredients do not have to share the same properties. Conclusion My opponents entire argument was based on fallacies, and she has failed to prove her assertion "Atoms are Alive" so far. [1] http://www.logicalfallacies.info... [2] http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
Atoms Are Alive

[1] Alive: having life; living; existing; not dead or lifeless. [2] Biotic: Associated with or derived from living organisms. [3] Abiotic: Not associated with or derived from living organisms [4] [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Parents trying to live through their adult children(18 years or older Classify Adult child)

Again, you are going off topic. The original argument for Con was: Parents trying to live through their adult children being in-humane.Parents should not be blamed for trying to live through their child to help them succeed. "a right even if youre not an adult, you want to do something, pursue it; let the consequences follow your descisions"My opponent is right that you can do what you want if you please and it is your own desicion (that is why laws are invented); but it is NOT your decision whether or not your parent tries to help you. It is your parent's. Your decision in this is if you want to follow their advice or not. My opponent says that this is in-humane. No. It is in-humane for the parent's child to to force their parent to not at least try to help them succeed. Why should the child be more important? After all, is it not the parent who raised them?Key word in all of this: tryParents are allowed to try to live through their adult child and help them. The decision of if the advice should be executed is the child's. Since my opponent can not defend the original claim, by evidence, I have defeated my opponent. Thank You.
Parents trying to live through their adult children(18 years or older Classify Adult child)

why does it have to be about drugs or orphans? im saying if you are an adult, and you follow your passion, your parents have very little to say about it. now there are some parents who just want to be a narcissist and live through their child, thats what i call inhumane. a child didnt ask to be born, not me, not you, nor the parents. but we as adults, have a right even if youre not an adult, you want to do something, pursue it; let the consequences follow your descisions.
Parents trying to live through their adult children(18 years or older Classify Adult child)

Sorry about the late argument. So I will get right to it:"my opponent asked about orphans, well, the questions was not geared towards orphans" I'm pretty sure orphans are considered children. It would seem "in-humane" to classify them as anything else. Either way I was just trying to make the point that children with parents that push their child to succeed are luckier than orphans. "you make your life as much you want it to be worth. not your parents" The original argument for Con was: Parents should not try to live through their adult children.Key word: TRYYour current argument now is that parents shouldn't even try to help their adult child succeed. They should just let their child decide. Are you saying that when the adult child starts taking drugs it would be in-humane for the parent to step in? It would be even MORE in-humane to NOT step in. The parent doesn't need to completely change the child; that part is up the the child. But, parents should try to help their child succeed.
Parents trying to live through their adult children(18 years or older Classify Adult child)

my opponent asked about orphans, well, the questions was not geared towards orphans, i believe that it is in humane to live through your child. you make your life as much you want it to be worth. not your parents. you didn't ask to be born, nor did your parents in return. it comes down to decision making, either you make right decisions or wrong decisions.
Parents trying to live through their adult children(18 years or older Classify Adult child)

As far as I understand:My opponetnt is trying to argue the point that parents "live through" thier child's life by teaching them the philosophy of entering college after teaching them to follow their dream. My opponet feels that this is wrong and asks "is your life worth it when your parents live through you? "So my question to my opponent is this: Is your life worth it without your parents trying to push you to succeed? Many orphans wish they had a parent to do this to them. It only makjes sense that your parent would try to get you to go to college and earn degrees. Yes, it is true that they want you to "follow our dream" and college might not be your dream; but can you follow your dream without further education? No. (unless you want minimum wage). You must work for your dream. Parents are not trying to live through their child's life. They are trying to help you develop the life they might not have.
Consent to Sex is an Implied Consent to Pregnancy

My thanks to Con for his interest in this debate. It is unfortunate that he was not able to bring more to con side of the argument. My conclusion remains unchanged and (for now) unchallenged. When a couple engages in consensual intercourse, they also imply their consent the any pregnancies (much like the legal/ football player analogy linked too earlier.) It is this 'implied consent' that in my observation, ties a biological father to his responsibilities to (U.S.) 18 years of child support as a child's father. The paternity laws hold him responsible even if he took precautions and tried to AVOID the pregnancy (condoms, etc). He "implied" consent with his actions by "assuming the risks" for the pregnancy.If you agree that I have made a convincing argument hat an act of consensual sex 'implies consent" for the pregnancy when one is realized, Please vote PRO. Thank you.