BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
cats rather than dogs

with the last point you made "A dog would sacrifice its life just to save its owner" you are making a point that says that dogs are more selfless than selfish. One of the most important things in life to keep in mind is that you matter more to yourself than others. Dogs don't value themselves (witch I think proves cats are smarter) if what you are saying is true. To "A dogs bark could be heard for miles unlike a cats meow" that's what I don't like about dogs. In the middle of some random night (burglar or not) WOOF WOOF WOOF!!! one big reason CHOCOLATE Both cats and dogs have great senses. Cats have more sensitive whisker's dog have a better sense of smell cats have better hearing Dogs can easily kill people. Hipotheticly you're dog kills some one (pretend its a bigger breed) you're dog gets euthanized, and you forever have on you're mind "My dog killed some one" pardon my rudeness on this next point Congrats Mr Sherlock Holmes you figured out how many dog breeds their are. However you're not thinking about big cats (tigers and lions)(bears are not dogs) Sry about that any way, cats can clime trees. this only makes them better animals not pets cats can make the most comforting sound in the world purring. Its like a fan helping you sleep cats have vocabulary's 10 times that of a dogs and you're point "They are incredibly loyal unlike cats who seem to be more independent, rely on their owners for companionship" maybe cats love you more than dogs but have an odd way of showing it. we shall never know dogs have worse breath, and you CAN be too loyal.
#MandatoryCarry or #RepealTheSecondAmendment

Almost 30 percent from the 99 percent kill probability of using a gun. You saying that I'm wrong without any sources has no impact so my point still stands. Also he lists no sources of a drug user being more likely to kill themselves and even if he did this debate isn't about drugs. Again no impact. Pro's rebuttal of my militia argument is misleading at best and incoherent at worst. My point was that in order to use guns you have to join a militia and the guns must be regulated. The history of militias don't really have an impact on what I said and I don't even understand why Pro brought this up. It rebuts nothing of my statement that you have a gun only when inside a militia. Also Pro seems to bring up the point about self defense. Again only 1250 cases of gun violence out of the countless gun incidents are for self defense. . http://news.yahoo.com... Pro also brings up the deaths in "gun free" zones. Okay so according to him 144 people have died in recent times because of gun free zones. I used the ones he listed which date back to 1984. So lets check out all the gun deaths for just this year 33,804 firearm related deaths in 2015 (. http://www.cdc.gov...) I think I made your point have no impact at all And finally gun control. Its laughable that you think common sense gun control keeps guns out of law abiding citizens. If they cant pass the background check then they weren't really law abiding were they? I think, again, its laughable if you think someone with a mental or criminal background is a "Good person". That's it! Sorry couldn't respond quicker, was having family over for Christmas. Also I didn't know we had judges? Oh well VOTE CON! Sources: . http://news.yahoo.com... . http://www.cdc.gov...
#MandatoryCarry or #RepealTheSecondAmendment

Firstly we have to understand that more guns in an environment creates more of a chance for suicide. http://www.cbsnews.com... Now you might say that "Well he/she will just use a knife" However this statement is warped. While a victim might use a knife their probability of killing themselves is lower than a gun. A gunshot to the head has a 99 percent probability to kill the victim (The other 1 percent is accidental lobotomy) While a knife cut to the neck has only a 70 percent chance of killing the victim ( The other 30 percent is due to ignorance of where to cut the neck) http://www.motherjones.com... Also Pro seems to say IM taking the 2nd amendment out of context! It is actually quite the opposite. All gun-lovers just focus on "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" while they completely miss "a well regulated militia". The founding fathers, if they knew the destruction of modern guns, would most likely ban them. What guns did they use back then? http://www.gunsgunsguns.com... They used swords, bayonets and muskets. The average reloading time for a musket was 20 seconds. Which means AT BEST you could kill one man every 20 seconds ( Collateral damage was rare due to bullets being lodged in target's body due to its small round shape). Not only this but the founding fathers even thought that regulated MUSKETS was a good idea. Imagine their shock they would have where people can carry guns that can have extended magazines. You also failed to rebut the fact of why the second amendment was introduced And you failed to rebut the fact that guns make a encounter deadly Vote CON! Sources: http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.motherjones.com... http://www.gunsgunsguns.com...
#MandatoryCarry or #RepealTheSecondAmendment

Firstly I gave PERFECT context Please look at this chart, it tell you the REASON why people died of guns http://www.gunviolencearchive.org... Only about a thousand were for defense. Just read the chart. However I feel like we are getting off topic. The point of the debate was Repeal the Second Amendment or Have Mandatory Carry. I believe that the second amendment shouldn't be repealed! It should be followed! Lets look at the Second Amendment: "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." Lets break it down. "A well regulated Militia". In order to own a gun you need to be in a militia. If you didn't need to be in a militia why would that be added? Not only that but it says WELL REGULATED. Which means the government can regulate the gun flow. Even Antonio Scalia, one of the most conservative judges, said we can regulate guns. We also have to look at the context of why this amendment was added.... It was for militias and slave patrols-------------> Yes the purpose of the second amendment was about not letting slaves reach the border of Virginia and have a militias! Mandatory Carry! Wow! If everyone was ordered to carry a gun it wouldn't be a freedom now would it? A gun present in a situation that would normally be non-lethal almost always leads to death "The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage..." -David Hemenway (Harvard's director of Injury Control Research) Sources: http://www.bjs.gov... https://en.wikipedia.org...
#MandatoryCarry or #RepealTheSecondAmendment

You've again only presented "body count" numbers, without context or purpose. I can just as easily present "body count" data to say 1,694 were killed with knives in 2"11 (https://www.fbi.gov...). Do we now ban KNIVES? The argument of "reasonable restrictions" has historically proven to be an untruthful statement. These "reasonable" restrictions, with the exception of the 1986 ban, have either been ineffectual (the 1934 and 1969 bans) or as a "back door" attempt at larger bans. Ergo, there really IS only one way forward; Either we repeal the Second Amendment outright, as advocated by certain parties, OR we raise the protections by making said carry mandatory, with certain pointed exceptions; If a judge is willing to place their name, reputation, license to practice law, and possibly their freedom on the line to say "NO! You should NOT be allowed to keep and bear arms!", then that will suffice. To say "guns kill" is to say that an inanimate object CHOOSES to act of its own volition; Now, if you were to argue "ROBOTS KILL!" that might make sense; A robot CAN in fact be programmed to kill, "without human control." (That it hasn't be done "yet" to my knowledge notwithstanding, in some form, the technology COULD exist, and it might already.) That guns "are" used to kill is irrelevant; Knives, drugs, bombs, poisons of all sorts, and, in one particularly interesting case, an open window have all been used as "murder weapons." Although this is a re-statement of an earlier point, it can not be stated enough; Guns do not kill. Knives do not kill. Open windows do not kill, either. People (or maybe someday well-programmed robots) kill. I hate to boil this down to a trite slogan, but gun control really DOES kill. Mandatory Carry will save lives. All lives? NO. Situations like San Bernardino or Paris, the first few victims will probably die. At very least, they will be injured. But the ASSURANCE, to those of reasonable clear mind, that there will almost definitely be SOMEONE who is also armed in response will give all but the MOST recalcitrant, perhaps even suicidal (such as the case of Vincente MONTANO), a moment of REAL pause.
#MandatoryCarry or #RepealTheSecondAmendment

Rebuttals: Your rebuttal of my chart showing the gun violence is not adequate enough. Louisiana, no matter what you say, has the worst gun control and has the MOST deaths of all the southern states. And California, a state with a lot of gun control, has one of the least gun related deaths in America. This shows also disproves your statement that more people would die because criminals would get guns because the facts show other wise. Guns in the household also increase the likely hood of suicide. "Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and suicide across states, 1999-2001. States with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups. It remained true after accounting for poverty, urbanization and unemployment." http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... Enacting common sense gun control would decrease the homicide rate by firearms Currently out of the 12796 murders in the US 88555 of them were gun related. If you take away the guns most criminals wont go for a gun like I pointed out above (over 62 percent wouldn't get a gun illegally) or they will use a knife which cant effectively murder people or MASS amount of people like guns can Also I don't understand your question? I didn't "utterly fail to address the question". Guns are RARELY used in self defense according the charts I have. Only about 1000 gun incidents are defense. The VAST majority are homicides, accidents and suicides ALL decreasing if you enact common sense gun control In the end I have an argument and you don't. I don't have an extremist position but you do. I didn't say remove ALL guns. I said enact a law that restricts guns from criminals and the mentally ill, however it would still be available to citizens who could pass the background check. You believe there should be no gun control and let countless more die. Vote CON!!! Sources: http://static1.businessinsider.com... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://www.infoplease.com...
#MandatoryCarry or #RepealTheSecondAmendment

Well since you didn't say "Acceptance Only" ill jump into the arguments right away Introduction: Common Sense Gun Control is the simple idea that criminals or the mentally ill cannot get weapons legally. My opponent states that because there was gun control in Paris and California this helped the attackers. However only 15 percent of gun shootings happen in Gun Free Zones. This makes the argument that gun free zones are dangerous for the ordinary citizen. Over 50,000 gun shooting incidents have occurred and only 1,202 of those incidents have been for defensive purposes further invalidating Pro's point that if a gun was present less blood shed would occur. Another point was that gun control furthers the goal of the attacker and allows him/her to kill more people. Instead of me talking about it lets see a chart which just tells the truth http://static1.businessinsider.com... If you open that link you will see that more gun shootings happen in the deep south. Places where little to no gun control like Mississippi and Alabama. Now lets look at California where gun control is present. Huh look at that. It has less gun violence than ANY of the southern states. Not surprising..... Gun Control works. Lets move on to another point though. Pro probably believes that gun control just keeps guns out of good people's hands and lets bad people get them illegally. However this is false and I can't comprehend why people think like this. If you are not a criminal or a mentally ill person you can still get the gun. One thorough background check isn't going to do anything unless you are a criminal or a mentally ill person. In fact if anything this would deter criminals who wanted to get a gun but don't want to do it illegally. But what about the criminals who get it illegally? According to the National bureau if guns were banned to them then only 38 percent of criminals would seek illegal means to get a gun which means that 62 percent of criminals would not seek a gun. Secondly even if the statement above didn't matter (which it does) law abiding citizens would be able to pass the background check Back to you Pro Sources: http://www.westword.com... http://www.gunviolencearchive.org... http://static1.businessinsider.com... http://bjs.gov...
Traditional Islam and constant warfare against non-Muslims are inseparable.

Although we Americans believe that warfare from Muslims against non-Muslims is an act that does not have to occur because most Americans do not understand the beliefs of Muslims. The killing of non-Muslim by a Muslim is to deny the non-Muslim from ever becoming Muslim sending the non-Muslim to hell whereas the Muslim is sent to Paradise. This would be an act of sin compared to a Catholic or Christian's point of view. No? On the other hand, to kill a non-Muslim that is at peace with Islamic beliefs, is a great sin to a Muslim. So to a Muslim's view, there is not a war against non-Muslims. There is a war against Muslims and non-Muslims who are not AT PEACE with Islamic Traditions. Therefore constant warfare can be terminated against non-Muslims allowing a Tradition Islamic Culture to exist if true peace is restored. I will not reply with another argument because you would first have to prove that warfare between Muslims and non-Muslims would always exist. You would also have to prove that Traditional Islam is in fact peace between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Traditional Islam and constant warfare against non-Muslims are inseparable.

Greetings all fair people of Debate.org. The news are filled with it daily. Jihad against the kuffars. Coptic Christians are getting killed in Egypt and people are put to death in Pakistan just for being non-Muslims. Many people claim that this is a tiny minority of extremists. However, I contend that not only is this belief false, but the opposite is true: Islam throughout its existence has been inherently violent against non-Muslims. I also contend that this is completely in line with the Quran, Hadith and the major schools of Islamic law. Definitions for the debate: Traditional Islam - Islam as it has been understood historically rather than modern reformations. Jihad - Warfare against unbelievers (kuffar). Inseparable - It's is part of the essence of Islam and removing it is removing Islam. Remember: The debate is not whether Islam is true or not, whether Islam is justified in being violent against non-Muslims, whether the same can be said for my Catholic religion but whether it is an inseparable part of Traditional Islam or not. I pardon the perhaps patronizing tone, but my debates about Islam have ended up in these arguments plenty of times. My opponent may use the first round for any change of definition, comments on the rules and other formalities etc. Arguments will be posted in round 2. http://www.youtube.com...
I believe that 80 popes killed 50 millions peoples

Kind Regards for your argument. I will now conduct rebuttal and any needed new arguments. Rebuttals and new arguments: Good job, you listed a huge amount of bloodshed caused by Christians in the crusades, the general Jewish persecution as well as killing of different Christian faith groups. All things that I am very aware about. What you however did not do, was read my Statement in round 1, nor understood what you are actually debating here. Nowhere in your list does it even mention one single person killed by a pope. The Debate topic is ' I believe that 80 popes killed 50 millions peoples'. Disregarding the linguistic mistakes, this means that 80 popes killed 50 million people with their own hands. You did not provide a single source showing even one death caused by a pope. Also, even if considering, I couldn't give you any credit for your 'source', as you simply copied, and did not even provide any evidence to any links with any pope. Even if you made the debate topic correctly, this would not suffice. However, you didn't, which means that this is in no way any evidence towards your case. Which is that 80 popes killed 50 million people. Conclusion: Pro has not provided any evidence for their case. The evidence they did provide does in no way link to their claim. Kind regards, I am looking forward to your next round
I believe that 80 popes killed 50 millions peoples

This will just be a short round. No, evidence is never a fact. That is impossible. You can prove a fact with evidence, however, evidence cannot be a fact. Also, if something happened years ago, it is 'had' and not 'have'. And regime is spelled with a g and not a z. And I know about the role of the catholic church in the majority of genocides and persecutions arising from the European area in the mediaevals very well, most likely better than you. However, we are not debating here if this happened, nor if one or several Popes initiated this, but that, as the title implies, 80 popes killed 50 million individuals with their own hands or by means directly linked to them. And until now Pro has not provided any actual evidence of this. Therefore, Con still has their round 1 as the standing argument, as Pro has neither attempted any rebuttals, nor provided evidence of facts (supported by evidence). Kind regards, I am looking forward to the next round.
I believe that 80 popes killed 50 millions peoples

And with that I mean stop plagiarizing arguments. I think you wrote around 27. And 5339 words you copied. That's 5366 in total. Good job, that's around 0.5% that you actually wrote yourself. And still, even with those 99.5% that you copied, not one single mention about Popes killing anyone. And that is what this debate is about. About Pro proving that 80 Popes killed 50 million people. And until now, Pro has in no way provided anything. Conclusion:Pro still needs to provide evidence, as stated in round 1 already, however, it seems like Pro has not actually read these rounds.
Religion is evidence of man's ignorance

You raise some valid points but I think you are conflating religion with humanism i.e the belief in the basic goodness of man. That said, when you allege that religion is not in opposition to science, it supports my point that the more we know the less we need religion. Religion has always been in opposition to science. I believe a good number of science-minded people have been accused of witchcraft and other assorted crimes in the past and have been subjected to very harsh punishments. One Galileo Galilei comes readily to mind. The religion of today is certainly not like the religion of a thousand years ago. This is not because religion changed because it wanted to, but rather because it had to in order to stay relevant. One reason religion morphs so reluctantly is because by nature religion is static, stagnant and terrified of change it can't control or manipulate. Each time there has been a paradigm shift in knowledge, religion has always been the last to acknowledge what even the most elementary science class knows to be true. Case in point, the hullabaloo caused by the pope's recent statement that evolution is real shows just how religion still clings to that which all reasonable men abandoned years ago. Lastly, let me comment on several points you raise in your last paragraph. The fact that religions change and evolve negates the very idea of constancy (the yesterday, now and foreverness) that is the central theme of mainstream religions. So when you say that as we grow the religions of today will fade away to something totally new it makes me wonder: is that an admission that religions of today are not true? If they were, why would they need to evolve? And by the way, calling atheism a religion really does a great disservice to the whole concept. I yield the floor.
Religion is evidence of man's ignorance

Although science has made many advances toward our understanding of the physical nature of the universe, this doesn't mean that religion will fade away as a result. Religion is not necessarily in opposition to science. Science is a way for us to test the physical world around us using a method that relies on strictly on the tangible nature of the universe. Religion on the other hand has more to do with a spiritual understanding of one's self. A person does not necessarily join a religion in order to understand the universe but more to help guide themselves toward happiness or enlightenment of some sort. Religion is very abstract and comes in many different forms. It is very similar to art in the sense that it is completely subjective to the individual's taste and does not necessarily rely on the outside world. That being said, religion has many benefits toward a person and their growth. Just about every religion encourages love and caring for others. Following a religion has nothing to do with a person's ignorance. There are many knowledgeable and wise people who follow religions and there are many ignorant people who don't. In the past, religions tended to be anthropomorphic and the gods were flawed and human like. As we evolved, religion became more abstract and grew as our scientific understanding grew. Most religions today tend to be monotheistic or pantheistic but there are even some atheistic religions out there. As we grow, the religions we know today will fade but new ones will sprout.
Religion is evidence of man's ignorance

The more man learns through science and technology, the less need he has to explain the supernatural. For example, now that we understand the causes of such phenomena like lightning and diseases and earthquakes, we don't have to rely on religious explanations. Ergo, the more we learn about the universe around us, the less important religion becomes and by extension the less relevant the idea of a supreme being seems. Eventually, all else being the same, the idea of a creator and a religion will just fade away into extinction.