BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Rights

Man, that's really a shame, I was hoping to have a real argument about this. Hopefully Felicia will participate in the next round. I extend my former argument and also offer two more statistics. The USA Today newspaper said in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%." According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997. It is quite simple. If you ban guns than criminals will simply obtain guns illegally and the law-abiding citizens will not. When the two meet, who do you think is going to have the upper hand? Stop relying on your emotional responses for a second and just think about it.
Gun Rights

I won't judge my opponent on the pretty little personal stories rather than giving any real arguments, I'll leave that to the voters. Instead, lets get right to the facts. Con's 1st premise: Guns kill Con's 2nd premise: Restrictive gun laws stop this Well, didn't that break down pretty quickly? What's important to realize is that guns are here whether you like it or not. And as I'm about to show, there's virtually nothing the government can do about that. Criminals can obtain guns quite easily through the black-market. The only people that the government is taking guns away from are law abiding citizens. Below quotation: (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998") "From available statistics, among the 27 countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. In Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." The National Center for Policy Analysis reported the following statistics: New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled. In 1968, Hawaii imposed a series of increasingly harsh measures and its murder rate tripled from a low of 2.4 per 100,000 in 1968 to 7.2 by 1977. In 1976, Washington, D.C., enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city's murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%. Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws. Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C.—and each has or, in the cases of Detroit (until 2001) and D.C. (2008) had, a requirement for a licence on private handguns or an effective outright ban (in the case of Chicago). I look foreword to my opponents response.
Gun Rights

This being my first ever debate on DDO. First off I'd like to thank you for challenging me, though I'm grateful for me having been chosen. Gun rights/politics deals with rules, regulations, and restrictions on the use, ownership, and distribution of guns. I would like to point out though that I do find guns very appealing as the whole gangster image people put across. . but from my experience they had left me with heart ache and the world would be a better and safer place if we just didn't have them in the first place! The right to keep and bear arms or have arms, is the assertion that people have a personal right to weapons for individual use. I would like to point out my reason for being "con" Gun Rights, My ex boyfriend shot with a gun and attacked with a hammer my 3 month old puppy "Jay-dee". .. This has left me emotionally scared and has put a bad taste in my mouth toward gun ownership. . I feeling very strongly about being pro animal rights and the act that was played on my animal ,which in my eyes I viewed as part of the family sickened me. In my perspective, If people didn't have guns I would still have her today! Why would I want something in my life that could protect me but also have the possibility of harming my family or myself when there are alternatives to protect loved ones and ones own self? I look forward to my opponents and friend FREEDO's response.
Criminals should be tattooed on the face, Upon leaving prison

Criminals should be tattooed on the face indicating the crime they have perpetuated. This would let the general public be aware of a criminal in their vicinity once released in the general public. The criminal would have their forehead tattooed with "Killer" or "Burglar" or 'Rapist" right on their face, This would alert the general public that the criminal is around. Since the recidivism rate is at 89%, We could lower that number by keeping a vigilant eye on the criminals in public and be aware of possible crimes being committed by the tattooed criminal. This would be a great incentive at public awareness of criminals in society. Lets identify the criminal and be vigilant around them, Since they will end up in jail again anyways, This could be an early detection system to warn the public. You see a criminal with the word "pedophile" on their forehead, You know to keep your kids away from them. You see a person with the word "Robber" on their forehead come into your store, You can gran that shotgun under the counter and be prepared. You see "Killer" on someone's forehead, You can escape or get out of the area of the criminal. You see a person with "Burglar" on their forehead loitering in your neighborhood, You can lock your door and be more vigilant as they are probably planning to break into a house. By tattooing the criminals we can be more proactive to the criminals who choose to be criminals for life and be more vigilant in society. This would be a great early crime prevention initiative.
Criminals should be tattooed on the face, Upon leaving prison

I will meely say this, I don't think you willeve be president, I think trying to amend the second or 8th amendments will not be that easy, Barring the abolition of the 8th amendment, You would not be able to brand criminals on the face, Its cruel pointless and would make their lives impossible iether just keep them in prison, Or give them back their lives, Enough of this second class status for felons.
Criminals should be tattooed on the face, Upon leaving prison

When I'm elected President, My first point of business will be the amendments to the 2'md constitution as well as the 8'th constitution. The Constitution was written 300 years ago during the time when we had horse and buggy, Wild west, Savage Indians and tyrannical governments. Those days are over now. We have a modern society now. Now I'm not going to get into the abolishing of the 2'nd amendment in this debate. But I will touch on the 8'th amendment. My firm belief is that once you cross that line into a serious criminal offence, You chose to do the wrong thing against the law. We all have choices in life and if you decide to break a law in a heinous matter and serious criminality then you should be forfeit of any rights as a criminal. I am in firm belief of victims, General public safety. Therefore the criminal needs to be tattooed to be identified in the general public. A criminal conviction = forfeiture of rights. You are now a dirtbag in society and should be label as such with a tattoo. The general public has the right to know who the criminals are and so they can be identified quickly outside of prison. When I become President this will be the number 1 agenda on my domestic policy. Criminals are just worthless scum and should be treated that way mic drop
Criminals should be tattooed on the face, Upon leaving prison

I would respectfully remind the opposition that we do not live in a dactatorship we don't really even live in a democracy, Not an absolute democracy at any rate, The will of the mob or the people, However you wish to look at it, Is restricted by a constitution, Protecting minorities, Criminals do not lose their rights when they commit crimes, That is the whole point of the eighth amendment making cruel and unusual punishment unconstituional and unlawful.
Criminals should be tattooed on the face, Upon leaving prison

Ok so lets get to debating Con mentions that I could have a tattoo. Well that would never happen since I don't have a juvi record, Or an adult criminal record and never will. (I'm not a criminal, But a law abiding citizen) Con mentions rehabilitation. Rehabilitation of criminals is impossible. Certain people are certain ways and they will NOT change and will always be criminals. That is why criminals have long rap sheets, They are in and out of jail constantly as shown by the recidivism rate in the USA. According to the National Institute of Justice, About 68 percent of 405, 000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, And 77 percent were arrested within five years. 77% percent rate! , That means 3/4 of convicts end up back in jail anyways, And this is my main reason for tattooing them in the first place. To let the general public be aware that a criminal is around. Con states that this is cruel and unusual punishment, HOW? It's a tattoo! ? It might hurt at first but that's it, It's not like we are torturing, Whipping or waterboarding anyone here, You just get a "Criminal stamp" brand to let the general public be aware that a criminal is around. The general public has the right to know when a person who does not want to abide by the laws of the country is within vicinity and to let the public be more vigilant of a possible crime being committed. This is an incentive to let the public be aware as the criminal will reoffend again, Stats show 77% they do. Now the tattooing would only be instituted on criminals with indictable offences with over 2 years incarceration. I'm not proposing this for summary convictions for speeding, Traffic tickets or drunk in a public place. I'm talking about pedophiles, Rapists, Killers, Robbers, Money launderers, Fraud specialists, All serious criminal offences. Just to let Con know this method of tattooing criminals has been used in ancient times in Rome, Greece and during the Edo period in Japan, This is not anything new. Also there are gangs right now who have face tattoos in prison, The Russian mobs and gangs, The Yakuza and the Triads. Tattooing the face is not a new concept. I just propose it as a warning system for the general public, As a common citizen could identify and be more vigilant around someone with a "killer" tattoo, Or not do financial services with someone who is dressed in a suit but with a "Fraudster" tattoo on their forehead. This proposal of the tattooing is a positive initiative for the public and general awareness, And besides who cares about the criminals, They lost their rights when they committed a crimes and were found guilty by their own peers and judge in the courts. Tattooing is not cruel punishment, People do it for pleasure all the time. When I become President, This will be one of my major domestic policy initiatives on my campaigning platform.
Waterboarding should be prohibited.

"ticking time bomb problem: A situation in which a detainee knows information that would enable preventing a disastrous event or events, where the timeliness of the information is critical to the preventing it from occurring." there is no evidence to show that an answer given by a detainee being waterboarded is real or whether that individual is just trying to postpone the feeling of drowning. Waterboarding causes incredible duress in the victim by causing the victim to believe he is about to die. The victim will usually say anything just to make it stop. CIA members who were waterboarded as part of their interrogation lasted an average of 14 seconds. This is the problem with highly stressful interrogation and torture techniques. Causing enough stress or pain to an individual will make him/her admit to anything. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Waterboarding should be prohibited.

I will be taking the pro position that waterboarding should be prohibited. Definitions: Waterboarding: A type of torture in which the victim is immobilized, has rags placed over their face, and has water poured onto them, which creates the sensation of drowning en.wiktionary.org/wiki/waterboarding Prohibited: prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules http://www.thefreedictionary.com... round 1 is for definitions and to make clear the resolution. round 2 will be opening arguments. round 3 will be rebuttals and closing arguments.
Waterboarding should be prohibited.

I cite my opponent for bad conduct in forfeiting. He initiated the debate. Pro's main argument was that information obtained by waterboarding was unreliable and could not be checked. That's wrong, because I have advocated that waterboarding only be used in ticking time bomb situations. In those situations the information can be checked. I advocated waterboarding only be used subject to a Presidential or judicial warrant that verifies the necessity, and never by the police or military. Waterboarding is unquestionably severe, but it causes no permanent mental or physical harm when done correctly by trained interrogators. Journalists volunteer to try it. Morality demands that waterboarding be used to save the lives of innocent people.
Are Christians being persecuted

I accept. My opponent is claiming that Christians are NOT being persecuted. This absolute statement can be proved incorrect by pointing to ONE instance of persecution that has occurred recently (if ANY Christians are being persecuted for their belief, then Christians most definitely ARE being persecuted). I have posted two. Since no agreed upon statement for persecution has yet been presented, allow me to present one from the Merriam-Webster dictionary: Persecute: to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief http://www.merriam-webster.com... I believe both of the following examples fit the criteria of "persecution" 2008: Gayle Williams was killed by a gunman in Kabul who said, "We killed her because she was working for an organization which was preaching Christianity in Afghanistan" 2010: Youcef Nadarkhani was sentenced to death for "practicing Christianity in Iran" (later changed to violent crimes, though these charges never appeared in court); in the interest of honesty, it should be pointed out that he was not killed, though this was probably due to the international pressure, which likely also resulted in the changed accusation mentioned earlier. Even if one doesn't believe the ATTEMPTED sentence as persecution, he was denied access to his family and imprisoned for "practicing Christianity" which seems grounds enough to point to this example as persecution.
The Truth About the Bible

Hello, and thank you for initiating a discussion on what is widely perceived as one of the most important topics of our day; the truth about the Bible. As someone who stands firmly against the I happily accept your challenge to this debate. However, I would like to reserve the right to abstain from contacting the phone number that you provided, simply because I don't know who the number belongs to. Moreover, I would like the debate to remain at debate.org. I would like to clarify my stance that while the Bible is factual and correct with respect to certain geographic locations and some historical figures, I need to stress that I do not accept it as inerrant and inspired by God. On the contrary, it is my personal understanding that the Bible is a collection of 66 writings, replete with errors and contradictions; laced with good wisdom that are universal to most of the world's great religions, but soiled by horrific nightmares and brutalities. In the end, it is my honest opinion that if one were to approach the Bible from an unbiased perspective, that person would be horrified and dismayed by its contents and arrive at the conclusion that it is anything but true in the purest sense. Moreover, the negative sentiments that I mention would be amplified by knowing that so many around the world accept the Bible as pure and without error. I look forward to what I'm sure will be a spirited debate. Regards, Cygnus
1844 AD prediction of Bible Fulfilled by Bahai Faith

Rebuttals1. Coincidence and ConspiracyAlthough my comment about coincidence in R2 was just an afterthought, I would still like to point out a couple problems with Pro's rebuttal:1a. Pro calls William Miller a "random Christian minister" and calls his book "obscure". However, in R2, Pro states that William Miller's "movement spawned both the 7th Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses". A minister whose writings inspired two major religions hardly seems random or obscure.1b. Pro states the the Bab's appearance in 1844 must be "mere coincidence" because of the "impossible proportions" of a possible conspiracy. As we know very little about the Bab before his declaration in 1844, and Pro has provided no sources that shed light on his activities, it is very easy to conceive that there a possible explanations for the 1844 timing that go beyond mere coincidence. Anyway, I see no reason to go further on this, as my main points concerned the rest of Pro's response.2. The Bab and Baha'u'lah Were Both ChristI would like to point out that Pro has provided absolutely no sources supporting his assertion that Baha'i accepts that the Bab was Christ and Baha'u'lah is the Bab incarnate. On the contrary, one of the sources I provided in R1 (a Baha'i source) clearly states that the Bab was the "Forerunner of Baha'u'lah", and goes on to tell that the Bab's message was that the "promised Teacher" was soon to reveal himself. [1] The Bab's entire purpose from 1844 until his death seemed to be paving the way for the "promised Teacher". This is not consistent with Pro's assertion that the Bab was Christ. Dropped ArgumentsThe following are arguments I presented previously that have gone unanswered by Pro:1. There is no proof that the 2300 evenings and mornings of Daniel were years, nor that they began in 457 B. C.2. There is no proof that Baha'u'lah is indeed Christ. Neither his claim to be so, nor Baha'i's belief that he was, can be accepted as fulfillment of prophecy. Baha'u'lah must be proven to be Christ in order to prove that he fulfilled a prophecy of the return of Christ. ConclusionPro has not fulfilled his burden of proof. My arguments that went unanswered, as well as the problems I pointed out in Pro's rebuttals, leave far too much doubt in the assertion that Daniel predicted Christ would return in 1844 A. D. and that Baha'i fulfilled that prophecy. The resolution has not been upheld. Thank you, readers and voters, for your time. --------------------[1]. http://info.bahai.org...
1844 AD prediction of Bible Fulfilled by Bahai Faith

Rebuttals1. Pro does not contest the fact that the interpretation I described is used by Baha'i. Whether or not it has been used by other religions is irrelevant. Pro still has not provided evidence that the 2,300 evenings and mornings referred to in Daniel are indeed years, nor provided evidence that the 2,300 evenings and mornings began in 457 B.C.2. First, Pro still has not provided evidence that Baha'u'lah was indeed the returned Christ. This must be proven in order to prove that Baha'i fulfilled a prophecy of Christ's return.Second, as I pointed out in Round 1, Baha'u'lah was born in 1817 and allegedly received the revelation that he was Christ in 1852. If Baha'u'lah was indeed Christ, either of these dates could be considered his "coming". However, the significance of 1844 is that the Bab declared himself as Christ's forerunner. It's a stretch to say that Christ's forerunner declaring his mission equates to the coming of Christ himself.Third, Pro states that the Bab's appearance in 1844 was a coincidence, but provides no evidence in support. Is it not possible that the Bab was aware of William Miller's famous prophecy and intentionally timed his actions?The bulk of my arguments have gone unrebutted thus far. Back to you, Pro.
1844 AD prediction of Bible Fulfilled by Bahai Faith

Part 1: Con is making it seem that the 1844 interpretation is a Baha'i interpretation, but in fact this was a Christian interpretation that predates the Baha'i Faith. Reverend William Miller was the one who picked these dates and the mathematics involved in calculating 1844 as the time of the Great Return of Christ. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org...(preacher) Part 2: Since the Baha'i Faith started in 1844, out of mere coincidence, the Baha'i Religion fulfills the Christian prophecy of Reverend William Milller (who's movement spawned both the 7th Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses), especially since in the opposite side of the world, out of the culture of Islam, a movement started which believes that Jesus Christ did return in 1844 when the Bab declared himself the Mahdi (of Islam) in 1844. Islamic teaching is that Mahdi's appearance inaugurates the return of Christ. Over to you.
Health care should be free

Thanks for returning to the debate, Pro. Extend my entire case as Pro dropped it. Extend the impacts of loss of hegeomony, credit downgrade, gridlock, corruption, waiting lists, and lowered survival rates. These outweigh Pro's impacts by several orders of magnitude, you can vote Con right here. Pro's case Pro argues that a lot of doctors are stuck working with the medicicinal industry and that this leads to overubscribing and higher costs. She then argues that the government can solve this. Unfortunately for Pro, we already know what a government system of Universal Health Care in the US would look like, and it's not pretty as you can see from my case. Moreover she doesn't solve, under the status quo the government when purchasing drugs for medicare/caid patients is not allowed to negotiate with drug companies, which causes prices to increase[1]. Thus her impact is nonunique to the private sector and you should negate.1. http://www.familiesusa.org...;
Health care should be free

Hello, thank you for your response! Here I have another point of view, Clearly, because of economical reasons the country can't provide free medicine to all its citizens. But nowadays, doctors taking our money. Even if inspection and some procedures are free, medicaments are not, and they're very expensive. Therefore, many of doctors work with pharmaceutical companies, and have contracts with them. When we enter into doctor's office we see different titles on their instruments, or stickers, or pens. They advertise the certain product. They advice us to take exactly that medicament, which was produced from certain firm, and we don't have another choice, except buying and taking it. So, does they do money on our illnesses? I would say yes. The average citizen, with his average salary can't afford buying many of medicaments. The government should take care of its citizens. The goverment should provide the best sourses. The government must make such thing as our health, and well-being accessible.