BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should guns be illegal to own for anyone that is not police or military in the US

My opponent should not worry about the audience since they will favor him, anyway. And, believe it or not, I understand why the audience will favor my opponent's view. As he said, "there is a wild west out there." The wild west mentality is what should not reign at all, nor should exist a gun industry that has caused this kind of surviving atmosphere where the only solution for our people is buying guns. Successfully, the gun industry has been so smart that has created a market for its products. As a result, a black market that depends and feed itself from the legal market is also in place. People do not feel safe with pistols anymore, the gun industry has originated such a chaos that makes its costumers buy AR-15s and AK-47s, among other assault rifles. We have reached a point where the only solution for the government is destroy (decimate) or burn all gun factories, offering reparation to the owners. That is how chaotic the situation is. Naturally, it will not make everyone happy, but, at least, will make our children and schools safer. No other solution will fix this issue. The security of our children outweighs the desire for guns. Many people are unhappy anyway, either because marihuana or cocaine are still illegal or for any other reason. My well-liked opponent keeps comparing the automobile industry to the gun industry in a way that makes him look like he is oblivious of the fact that automobiles are not made for killing people as guns are. My contender expresses that the NRA wants more gun regulations while fails to show evidence as to the steps taken by the NRA to get it done. Has the NRA lobbied for gun regulations as they do for assault rifles? I challenge my opponent to show what the NRA has done to make the government implement more gun regulations. If he fails, it will be solid evidence that this scheme is nothing more than pure propaganda and lip service by the NRA.
Should guns be illegal to own for anyone that is not police or military in the US

Contrary to what my opponent affirms, all the problems associated with gun violance exist because of the gun market that is allowed to operate. With a total erradication of firearms among our civilians, gun violence will be reduce to a great extend. Instead of wasting tax payers' money to pay for more government oversight on an gun industry that only produce deaths, our government could allocate those funds in productive areas. Why does the gun industry not take responsibility and oversight the implications of its own business? Of course, I am in favor of a zero weapon policy, but until that happens, I cannot blame citizens for their fearing for their lives and desire to own a gun for self-protection. Therefore, I will be the first one to turn in my gun in the event Congress decides to collect all personal weapons in order to avoid more mass massacres in public places and other violence tragedies caused by this sick culture of firearm possession. Can my opponent tell our audience how much money Federal agencies spend conducting background checks for the gun industry? (Tax payers' money) Going back to offenses that are not taken into consideration in labeling an individual "law abiding citizen" for the purpose of issuing him a gun, "reckless driving", if we cannot trust someone in operating a motor vehicle, how come can we trust him or her in safeguarding a firearm? Why does the NRA not lobby so that some practical regulations be in place in personal gun sales (from one individual to another one)? We all know that criminals get weapons this way since it is a process exempt from background checks. Most likely the NRA lobbies to just keep it as it is. Who cares? We cannot even trust those who pass background checks. People can just go insane overnight, or act irresponsibly during the heat of the moment. That is why the best resolution is to get rid of the whole gun industry and gun market. Once again, guns kill, they do not save lives. Doctors save lives. Killing one person to avoid the assassination of another one is not the type of resolution we need. The resolution we need is no deaths at all. That should be the ultimate objective. I do understand that the myth of "guns save lives" is a good advertisement strategy for the industry, but not everyone buys that fallacy. Hospitals save lives. Guns only trigger homicides. Finally, I restate that criminals have guns because there is a free market for guns. Consequently, eliminating this free market an all guns from our civilians is the only way we can prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Good luck to my opponent, who just happen to be confused.
Should guns be illegal to own for anyone that is not police or military in the US

Based off the comments in my other debate with the opponent, here is the debate we have come to. I will be arguing that guns should not be made illegal to civilians. I will offer the first round of debate to my opponent and allow him to state his case. There will be no structure to the content of the rounds, both debaters may refute, argue, and present in any round. The debate to is convince if it should be illegal for civilians to own guns.
Video Games Are Bad for You

I would like to end this horrible debate by saying that my opponent based a four-round debate off of one video he saw on YouTube. We have concluded: 1. Video games can be good, if only played a little. 2. Video games can be bad, if played a lot. 3. It is easy to become addicted to video games, even if you only play a little. As to Starcraft curing Dyslexia, I do not feel that I need to counter this argument. I trust that my audience has an I. Q. Level of above 5. I apologize to anyone who has wasted part of their life reading this argument; I regret it as well. Please leave a vote for this debate. Thanks for your consideration. Love, brandonpj21
Video Games Are Bad for You

This puts me in a very difficult position. I understand that video games can be good for you, but when someone does nothing but play video games, there can be serious repercussions. I have a couple friends that play video games for only 30min a day, but have been playing video games for a long time. Some of these games (in this case, Call of Duty) track how long you cumulatively play. All this time added together, my friends have wasted many days of their lives playing these games. How much would would you give to have just one more day in your life. People will be on their death beds, regretting everything that they didn't do, and think of all the times when they chose to play video games instead of doing something else. There are also people literally wasting their lives away by playing video games. "[I]t"s not uncommon to hit upwards of twelve hours" [1]. Playing video games for half of your day can really have an impact on all aspects of your life. It is also not uncommon for people to become addicted to video games. As you know, people can't help becoming addicted to things. The 30 minutes a day is essentially the same as just one cigarette. There is actually a whole website dedicated to the ongoing problem of video game addiction [2]. If this isn't a problem, not as much attention would be focused on it. These are my arguments. Good luck to my opponent. [1] http://cashplay.co... [2] http://www.video-game-addiction.org...
Video Games Are Bad for You

This is the video I based part of my argument off http://www.youtube.com... First off, anything is bad in excess so I am not trying to prove this. What I AM trying to prove is that a little bit of video games is actually good. First, I understand that many people believe that video games "fry" your brain. They actually hurt your eyes so you should just take breaks. People who play video games 5-10 hours a week actually have better reflexes than people who don't. That is my argument for Round 1.
Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty

Also, I'd like to apologize for the lack of formal rules and structure to this debate (I am new to the site and this is the first debate I posted); we'll have to freestyle this. Now then, addressing your points in order: --- "Now we should make sure they are not betting people because of race" I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand what you mean by this (I'm assuming that "betting" is a typo there). But I'm going to infer that you mean to bring up racial profiling here. I would actually counter that body cameras can serve to reduce racial profiling in that they can be used to show that officers had probable cause in their interactions with subjects (including minorities). It makes it more difficult, if not next to impossible, to fabricate evidence or charges. --- "what if it slows them down when they are actually taking on a criminal? It could have fatal consequences. " With respect, I don't see how it would. During a physical altercation it is certainly possible that a camera could be knocked off. It happens in this body camera footage for example: But officer safety takes precedence over protecting equipment so I don't see how wearing a body camera could put officers any more at risk. Keep in mind they already wear a lot of equipment on their person. Anecdotally, I was an LEO who wore a mic (but not a body camera) at all times on shift, I never once felt it posed an officer safety threat and I'm struggling to imagine how it could. I'm open to further argument on this point if you could elaborate. --- "i do think that all city's could just install cameras in their car and if they break it they could amuse things. " Again, I'm sorry but I don't understand the last half of this sentence. I will, however, address the first half: Dashcams are already standard in police cars but they have several disadvantages compared to body cameras. For example, they have a static position. Body cameras are dynamic and move along with the officer's POV. This is an instant process and they do not need to be adjusted. By contrast, with a dashcam at best you can orient it to face a specific area you believe will be most relevant to capture footage, but that both requires foresight to do (which is difficult in the heat of a high stress situation) and will not follow the officer and/or subject if they move out of the line of sight where the camera is oriented.
Police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty

I will argue that police officers should be legally required to wear body cameras while on duty. Since purchasing body cameras for law enforcement agencies would be a public expense, I will accept the burden of proof in this debate. Sources can and should be posted in text after the arguments they are being used to support. -Power and authority should be accompanied by accountability. This is something that Sir Robert Peel recognized in his principles of policing which were developed to guide the first professional police force. One example: "The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions." Body cameras an oversight tool which can be used to better hold officers accountable and maintain public trust. (Source: http://www.nwpolice.org...) -Body cameras have the two-pronged effect of encouraging police officers to act professionally and also defusing situations with subjects (who are less inclined to behave in discrediting ways when they know they are being filmed). In pilot projects where body cameras worn by police officers have been implemented and studied, complaints against officers have dropped over 90%. (Source: http://cjb.sagepub.com...) -Further expanding on the point of cameras being a tool to defuse situations, they will improve officer safety as subjects will be aware that their actions will be recorded on camera and those recordings could be used as evidence against them. -While cost is sometimes cited as an argument against the implementation of police body cameras, lawsuits against police agencies for misconduct can be extremely expensive for the agencies and the government bodies that oversee them. Body cameras can capture evidence that can discredit false complaints against officers and can prevent frivolous lawsuits from succeeding or forcing governments to provide unnecessary settlements. -Individual officers themselves are protected from false accusations in the form of complaints or lawsuits if they behave professionally and appropriately and their conduct is captured through body cameras. I'm looking forward to further debating this with anyone willing to argue the contrary position.
Death penalty

I asked Pro to challenge me to a debate on any topic. Unfortunately he picked a topic that I couldn't care less to debate (considering I have already debated this issue about two dozen times). With finals winding down and Christmas approaching, I unfortunately had to forfeit every previous round due to time limits and/or overall lack of interest. Pro deserves to win arguments, sources and conduct points for this debate. However I will say that his arguments are basically just c/p from other sources which is kind of lame. I wouldn't mind at all if Pro re-challenged me to this debate. If he does, I promise to put forth a better effort next time. Thanks anyway, Pro. Hopefully you will give me another chance ;)
Yahoo Answers is a good place to debate and learn more about politics

Yahoo Answers has a Question-Answer format, and violation that format is a violation of the community guidelines. Because politics is a very sensitive issue, many times in the politics section, if someone disagrees politically, and can't refute what you have sad, they will report your answer as offensive. More often than not Y/A deletes reported answers in the political section, before reviewing them; you must than appeal the violation, and hope the yahoo employee is unbiased. Besides Yahoo Answers not being in debate format, there is also the issue of whether or not the person asking the question is open to alternative views. Many times the person asking the question is ignorant, and stubborn.
Yahoo Answers is a good place to debate and learn more about politics

Ok I am starting this. Also if you don't know anything about yahoo answers polictics section don't debate. Yahoo Answers has a politics section on it. It is very popular. It is a good place to share your views without being attack. Yahoo Answers made me the conservative man I am today. It taught me how to argue, fight, and come on strong. Before yahoo I was a wimpy liberal but after I was a strong con. In my opinion many people could use a good month of it. I will give to for the con to start.
Yahoo Answers is a good place to debate and learn more about politics

That picture was actually meant to poke fun at Y/A, it's not an actual statstic. If you want an actual statistc I will make 2 for you using excel.This Chart was gathered from all the questions on the first page of the politics catagory (20 questions) This Chart was gathered from all the answers on the first question in the politics catagory (16 answers) Again Yahoo Answers is Not a Debate site, it's a question-answer site. Debating is a violation of the community guidelines.
Yahoo Answers is a good place to debate and learn more about politics

Again Yahoo answers is a question answer website, much like; AllExperts Answerbag Askville WikiAnswers Yedda Chacha Answers Calling it a debate site is like calling customer service a debate venue; it just doesn't fly. Yahoo Answers is not a good debate site, because it is a question answer website; those who ask and answer questions, with the intent to debate, are violating the site's community agreements.
Superman is Better Than Batman

I'll just go ahead and hop right into it. ARGUMENT I: More Believable than Superman As a simple character, it is easier to believe Batman would exist over Superman because which sounds more believable? A guy dressed up as a bat who knows karate or a space alien who can shoot lasers out of his eyes and gets allergic to green rocks (I’ve never heard of anyone getting the stomach jives from rocks) So Batman is better in terms of believability. ARGUMENT II: Batman’s secret identity is way cooler than superman’s. Let’s face it, Clark Kent is a guy who’s got the boring job as mild mannered journalist… and when he gets out of the daily planet he has to keep rescuing Lois lane (who always gets into trouble). While Bruce Wayne on the other hand is a multi-billion dollar philanthropist playboy who runs the most popular tech industries in the DC universe. If I had to pick which secret identity I wanted I think I’ll go where all the fame, fortune, and wild sexy women are going to, Bruce Wayne. ARGUMENT III: Batman doesn’t usually leave as big of a mess Think about it, superman often leaves collateral damage in the wake that probably costs thousands of dollars to repair then flies off and smiles for the camera. Obviously putting taxpayers dollars to work for cleanup (JERK! I wanna sue!) Actually, in the most recent film Man of Steel, the estimate of damage was about 2 trillion dollars’ worth, and an estament of 129,000 people dead [1]. Batman on the other hand is less likely to cause that much damage. He's more clean and cool. ARGUMENT IV: Batman is a better Tactician It’s factual, Batman has already shown that he can beat superman multiple times in Hollywood. In the dark knight returns batman beats superman [2]. Also as established in justice league doom[3] batman could beat superman in addition the entire justice league because the contingency plans that were stolen were designed by him. He often proves to superman that brains are better than brawns. ARGUMENT V: Batman has a much larger fan base then superman while superman is widely known; batman seems to have a stronger fanbase (more people like him more). You often hear people quoting "I’m batman" also there's a funny meme that kind of illustrates my point a little http://weknowmemes.com.... Rebuttals: To rebut the arguments you raised earlier. Superman can fly, yes, but batman has the batwing. As to dodging anything Batman throws at him, I know that’s not true because batman has beaten superman as established in argument 4. Keep in mind that there are a number of ways batman could disable all of superman's powers ranging from magic, classic kryptonite, red sun solar radiation (and a few other trivial methods), so I disagree that superman can get out of all pickles when his weaknesses are exploited. But anyway, these are reasons why I think batman is better. -------------- [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://youtu.be... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://weknowmemes.com...
On balance the truth is the most important aspect of any situation

As per the rules, this is my acceptance and I'll be giving my interpretation of the thesis. Thesis InterpretationI'm offering this interpretation so that my opponent can respond to anything that he believes I have misinterpretted. From my understanding, the opponent has taken the position that the truth of or truths involved in any situation should be considered the most important aspect (part) of said situation. This means my opponent is advocating that truth is more important (in terms of value) than any other part of any situation that may reasonably arise. Additionally, while I am taking the position counter to this, that truth is not the most valuable part of every situation, I don't wish to frame my argument as it relates to religion. As such, I will not discuss the specific example the opponent offered unless it ends up being part of his argument. I look forward to this debate!
On balance the truth is the most important aspect of any situation

Thesisthe resolution is kinda vague but this could be an amazing debate, with an interested opponent involved. Here's what I'm trying to get at in this debate. Should we value the truth over what may be best for us. Let's take this reasonable example. Here assume god isn't real. We find out, conclusively, that believing in god makes you happy and lacking a god makes you dysfunctional, depressed, and 'immoral'. If this were true, should we have fidelity to the truth, or instead should we decide that our well-being is more valuable than fidelity to the truth -- meaning we go on to make ourselves believe in god.And, to clarify: The above senario is not the primary subject of the debate. Its an example of what the debate should be about. We could chose any of another billion possible examples. I have side with fidelity to the truth. If anyone would like to counter-argue that contention, even as a devils advocate, please apply in Das comments.By accpeting you agree that:The resolution is a True/False question and should be evaluated on that basis.That the resolution is a valid question with no alternative answer.The rounds will be as follwos;<br/>R1: Round thesis and description, acceptance<br/>R2: Pro lays out their arguments, con lays out their unique arguments (no refutation)<br/>R3: Both sides rebutt<br/>R4: counter rebuttals<br/>R5: Both sides explain why they should win the debate
Marijuana is not addictive or harmful.

I don't care what you were taught in health class or learned in D.A.R.E.--marijuana is not addictive. The public school system is a product of the government. Do you honestly think that they will teach people things that would cause people to question its own laws? Millions of people are taught that marijuana is a horrible drug that causes dementia and paranoia. And millions of people believe it. People are taught that if you take one breath in of cannabis smoke, you are doing more harm than if you were to smoke a pack of cigarettes (this was said by a health teacher at my school). These claims are obviously erroneous and propagandist. The movie "Reefer Madness" just goes to show how far people will go to convince you of falsehoods. Smoking cannabis can be damaging to the lungs, but, contrary to popular belief, marijuana has never been cited in a study as the sole cause of any type of cancer. All participants in studies that claim to prove marijuana is carcinogenic were also tobacco smokers. Also contrary to widespread belief, marijuana has never caused the death of any person. Marijuana is minimally harmful to its users (and even less harmful when consumed using vaporizers or water filtration) and absolutely harmless to those who don't use it. So why do people continue to believe otherwise? Because that's what they've been taught since elementary school. I remember in 4th grade we had the police and D.A.R.E. representatives come in and tell us how if we smoked one joint, we would never be the same. Ignorance is only being perpetuated by our schools and government and the truth needs to be heard.
Marijuana is not addictive or harmful.

Hello I'm sorry for the delay. "I've smoked before" What?!?! You say you're from Oregon, that's illeagal. Also, you just admited it on a website that anyone can see. That was a. dumb move. "I personally have ran 12 miles having smoked marijuana beforehand" I'm not sure I can beilve that. Sure it might be true, but how much. If you barelly put your lips to it, it wouldn't do anything. I doubt this, and you are just saying it to make your argument look good. Here is what the effect would be. You smoke 1 stick pipe w/e. It makes your reaction time less and shortens your memory. You decide to drive home, and you think you forgot that you forgot your wallet at the bar. Your wallet is actually in your pocket. When you go to turn around, you can't tell what color the light is, so you just go. A person is walking across the crosswalk. You hve slow reaction time now, so you hit the person. This is all because of you smoking marijuana. It will kill somebody!!! I wish I could reboot everything, but I have ran out of time.