BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Rights

You can't just ignore my arguments by simply stating you don't know what they are. I didn't fail to do anything. However you failed to connect the fact that Australia has a violent crime rate three times greater than America has to the fact that guns aren't necessarily the cause of violent crime. And it can't be guns that cause this, because they restrict the ownership of guns greatly. So I am establishing that violent crime isn't necessarily related to gun control. Now, on to Chicago. Yes, poverty is one of the underlying causes of violence in Chicago. However, by stating that Chicago has one of the biggest homicide rates in the USA, I have further weakened the argument of a false connection between gun rights and suffering. You said: "...It wouldn't be reasonable to claim that the high gun control somehow causes more violent crime just because they correlate." You have repeatedly used surveys and studies to prove your points. But what is a study? Correlations, my friend. Correlations. I never said that using guns for self defense is implausible. I said this: "Yes, there are some circumstances that make it impossible to defend yourself with a gun. It has been done, but, yes, it is dangerous." Note that I said "some circumstances", not "all circumstances". No, I did not say that guns being used as deterrents alone justified my point of view and this argument alone cannot counter all of the arguments for gun control. However, this argument combined with other arguments can. The black market does sometimes get its firearms from legal sources, but that in no way means that they can't change their suppliers. Furthermore, legal gun distributors could become illegal gun distributors. Just to make sure: You think all amendments could be repealed if there was "good reason", right? I don't think Con understands how hard the Founding Fathers worked to give Americans the rights they have today. And maybe the Second Amendment could be changed. Maybe only muskets and one shot pistols could be legal. They still count as firearms, do they not? While the gun debate isn't necessarily US specific, the US is arguably the most important country involved in this debate, so yes, arguments about the US constitution do hold some weight. However, if you want to look outside of the US, Mexico has used citizens owning guns to stop some of the worst cartel leaders. Vice has a documentary on this, you might want to check it out. I value millions of peoples' freedoms all over the world to own guns to use as long as they are not harming others over destructive anti-gun groups that falsely claim that guns do more harm than good.Guns don't cause deaths, people do. That is what I am arguing. And it's very interesting that you are saying that I value peoples lives less than "temporary pleasure". Resorting to ad-hominem, are we? Saying people shouldn't be allowed to own guns doesn't mean anything unless we can implement it. So yes, the argument does hold some weight. I have refuted all of Con's arguments, and I have yet to see him properly refute mine. Back to Con, with his final speech.
Gun Rights

Thank you for accepting my challenge. Gun rights is an issue I have wanted to debate for a long time. C1) A ban on guns would reduce homicide rates "The most obvious positive impact that a gun ban would have is a decrease in homicide rates. This is rather intuitive-- if we take away weapons which make committing homicide easier, then homicide rates will inevitably decrease. Gun rights activists claim that even if guns were removed from society, violent crime would still continue at rates which are close to current rates (i.e. "guns don't kill people, people kill people"), but this is patently false-- if it were true, then cities with lower rates of gun availability would have very similar homicide rates to cities with higher rates of gun availability, yet no such trend exists. Instead, there is a clear upwards correlation between gun availability and homicide rates, as demonstrated by a large number of studies conducted by reputable research institutions" Ah yes, the classic homicide rate argument, but you are forgetting something. Let's take a look at Australia, or "The Land Down Under". Not a single mass shooting since '86. Let's take a look at its violent crime rates, though. 3 times higher than that in the US. This includes rape and assault. Let's take a look at Chicago, Illinois, arguably the most violent city in the USA. Illinois, however, is the only state where concealed carry is illegal. Yes, there is denying infringement upon our rights. Your argument is naive, because you assume that things are obvious, just because they seem obvious to you. If there is anything that you, or anyone for that matter, should learn in life nothing is that nothing is what it seems. (sorry if I seem aggressive right now, I feel very strongly about this issue). Now, for your second contention. Yes, there are some circumstances that make it impossible to defend yourself with a gun. It has been done, but, yes, it is dangerous. However, guns can be used as a deterrent. If, say, a burglar is looking for a house to break into, and you have a sign that says "THIS HOUSE IS ARMED, TRESPASSING WILL BE MET WITH DEADLY FORCE", the burglar is less likely to steal your possessions . It is not a fact that banning guns would lead to less criminal possessions of them. It is a myth, which leads me to one of my own arguments. The black market. What do they sell in the black market? Illegal things. If guns were made illegal, the black market would flourish like never before. And how are we going to modify the Bill of Rights? The ten RIGHTS we have, that America was founded on. I guess we can do with just 9 of them. Toss out #2, just like that. And what about the people who use guns as hobbyists, with no interest in defending themselves? Are we going to destroy their pastime? Collectors? What about them And how are we going to take the guns away from people who won't let the government take their guns away? I guess we can hire 5,000,000 police officers to patrol the streets? That wouldn't be disastrous for our economy or anything. Damn, i'm being too aggressive again. Good luck refuting my arguments, and my refutations.
Why debate.org should improve it current website

Let you know I'm a new user of this website as well. I only created the account less then a month ago. And i have notice flaws in the webpage, that hinder the browsing experience. It is very uncomfortable whether i try to search issues and pop up irreverent issues. The inherent flaws shouldn't even have existed. By improving the website how does it make it less accessible to the new user and general public. Let me mind you that my statement is to improve it current website. Rather to change the website design.
Why debate.org should improve it current website

Currently whenever I try to searching for a topic. The unreliable search system of this website can't pick up keywords or phrases. Which made the searching experience quite uncomfortable. Furthermore, sometime when im able to get a proper topic. But by clicking on next would often lead up to irreverent topic. This is the main issues i have encounter and i think should be improved upon for a better surfing experience for all people that visit this website.
Euthyphro's Dilemma

Introduction The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a) In other words, do the gods love something because it is pious, or is something pious because the gods love it? This is an argument for atheistic moral platonism against polytheism but it’s been transferred to an argument against theism. Definitions Objective is something which is valid and binding regardless of human opinionMoral Values are morals in terms of good or bad, and bespeaks moral worth.Moral Duties are morals in terms of right or wrong, and bespeaks moral obligation Our assumption in this debate is that there exists an objective distinction of good and bad, right and wrong. Burden of Proofs Con must show that Euthyphro's Dilemma fails as an objection to classical theism in which God is a maximally great being. Pro must show that Euthyphro's Dilemma succeeds as an objection to classical theism in which God is a maximally great being. (Round one for acceptance of hte burdens, introductions and definitions only)
Solar Power is the future not wind or being oil dependent

Solar power has replaced many Nuclear generators in Germany, the sun gives rays everyday ,wind is not everyday,the suns rays can be magnified and wind can not,any type of gas keeps us oil dependent,Abeam and Romney and Harper should be wearing Head Turbins ,protestors and citizens don't want wind turbines or gas powered plants in thier communiites but the media does not ever show solar as a better solution under fear of the Governement for not following the mandate to squeeze more money from you and i even when it means our health and saftey, solar panels or solar power has not exploded or leaked into valuable water sources or cities , does not require pipes to distribute it or send it to be processed to another country and then bought back for an higher fear amist complaining of no refineries to turn gas to oil i.e Canada and the U.S. . building a pipeline to have Canadas oil refined and then sold back to Canadians at a way higher rate is insane, the billion spent on pipeline can build 10 Oil refineries right here in Canada creating jobs and saving tons of money not to mention safer to the enviroment then building pipes from Alberta to texas lol,Solar is relatively free but there is a push to use wind turbines and electricity which is powered by you guessed it oil and gas lolIn Ontario Canada there is a move to charge criminally the Miinister of Energy for moving 2 gas powered plants in midst of last election then burying the paperwork and fees and now hes in Contempt and may face criminal charges ,Governements should fear the people not the peoiple fearing the Governement but our Media outlets wont print or broadcast anything opposing Political parties that in Rule at the time ,Ontario Minister Dalton McGuinty hides behind his decisions while the Energy minister is thrown under the bus, thousands of people from dozens of ontario Communities are protesting wind turbines and gas powered plants in thier communities but never once is solar ever mentioned ,i can provide proff of Solar Producing Plants in Germany that have replaced dozens of Nuclear and gas powered plants ,safer, cheaper , practically free, quietter, can be magnified like science in school when using a magnifying glass the suns rays can start fire ,produce heat and energy while not hurting the enviroment or pocketbook
Solar Power is the future not wind or being oil dependent

Unless I am mistaken, while you are in the Con position, your argument is that of the Pro position. This shall put the debate off to a very interesting, or very boring start, considering you've started by shooting yourself in the foot. Now, it is principally more difficult to predict the future than to mould it. One cannot say that solar power, or any other power, is the future, with any predictable accuracy if one is not ensuring what the future is to be. With that technicality also out of the way, I shall make my case (Pro, that solar power is the future, and that oil is not). The two most basic reasons that hydrocarbons are inferior as a fuel source to solar energy are that A) The planetary supply of hydrocarbons is highly limited, and near depletion already. Scraping the metaphorical bottom of the barrel cannot harvest sufficient hydrocarbons to power the world's industries, and will only damage the environment further, which brings up the next point, B) Normally, the vast majority of Earth's carbon dioxide would be found in the crust, with only a small percentage found in the atmosphere. By burning and hydrocarbons for fuel, we release massive quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which has resulted in a massive spike in average global temperature, and the often disputed Global Warming. Solar energy does not have such potentially lethal side effects, and is completely renewable. I would like to make an amendment to the topic, being that wind energy is a form of solar energy. Wind is a series of complex convection currents resulting from uneven heating of the atmosphere by solar radiation, en lieu with the planet's rotation.
Black Lives Matter Should Not Exist

"Your point is to make separate movements, However, This further supports my argument that people should not isolate themselves. Not to sound insensitive, But the black lives matter movement is a bit selfish. There should be one cause for everyone. There shouldn't be 'Black lives matter. ' or 'Hispanic lives matter. ' It should be all lives matter, To say one community is worth more than the other is what it feels like they are promoting. "They are not isolating themselves, They are simply pointing out the issues of one specific group. Even if you had one big organization, It would have to break up into divisions in the end because the same problems don't affect the same demographics. "The point where you say 'Why not both? There's nothing stopping you from promoting an organization that promotes equality for all. ' When people do that, It seems racist, It seems like it's belittling the black lives matter movement. "So then you have to decide that you don't care what other people think. "Not my words by the way. People, Even those who advocate the Black Lives Matter movement, Should support a movement that helps everyone and not only themselves. "I never said that we shouldn't support one for everyone, But that still isn't a reason to get rid of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Black Lives Matter Should Not Exist

Your point is to make separate movements, However, This further supports my argument that people should not isolate themselves. Not to sound insensitive, But the black lives matter movement is a bit selfish. There should be one cause for everyone. There shouldn't be 'Black lives matter. ' or 'Hispanic lives matter. ' It should be all lives matter, To say one community is worth more than the other is what it feels like they are promoting. The point where you say 'Why not both? There's nothing stopping you from promoting an organization that promotes equality for all. ' When people do that, It seems racist, It seems like it's belittling the black lives matter movement. Not my words by the way. People, Even those who advocate the Black Lives Matter movement, Should support a movement that helps everyone and not only themselves.
Black Lives Matter Should Not Exist

"Personally, In the UK, Discrimination is not mostly targetted towards the Black race, But instead immigrants. From the point of an immigrant (me), I've found that my black friends face less discrimination than me and my other friends from Eastern Europe. "Black Lives Matter is based more in the US, And Americans are MUCH more racists than Europeans. But again, This is not a reason to get rid of Black Lives Matter. "Instead of a movement, Which further isolates a certain race, Shouldn't people promote a movement that gains equality for all? "Why not both? There's nothing stopping you from promoting an organization that promotes equality for all. "Additionally, If police show brutality towards an African-American man, The community explodes, Yet if such action happens against; for example a Mexican, The media does not show the same coverage. "How is this a reason to stop Black Lives Matter? It just means that we might need a Hispanic Lives Matter.
Black Lives Matter Should Not Exist

Personally, In the UK, Discrimination is not mostly targetted towards the Black race, But instead immigrants. From the point of an immigrant (me), I've found that my black friends face less discrimination than me and my other friends from Eastern Europe. My argument is that people promote black lives, And they promote equality, However, It feels as though they are isolating themselves. Instead of a movement, Which further isolates a certain race, Shouldn't people promote a movement that gains equality for all? Additionally, If police show brutality towards an African-American man, The community explodes, Yet if such action happens against; for example a Mexican, The media does not show the same coverage.
Black Lives Matter Should Not Exist

Thanks for the debate! I am arguing that Black Lives Matter should exist. Your whole argument basically says that Black Lives Matters targets only black people and leaves out other races, Which creates discrimination. This is completely wrong. Would you tell a teacher that they have to stop teaching unless they teach elementary, Middle school, High school, College, AND graduate school? No, Because that's ridiculous. There is no reason not to focus on one group. Black Lives Matter simply focuses on the injustices committed towards African Americans, Because they experience much more than the average white person. That is why it is important.
Black Lives Matter Should Not Exist

This is my first proper debate so I apologise in advance. In my opinion, The black lives matter movement shouldn't exist. If people wish to promote equality between all races, Should they not promote all lives matter? Therefore my argument is that Black Lives Matter, Is only targetting one race rather than all the races, Which too could face issues in society. I would also like to point out that although the matter at first helped with civil rights and all, It has lost its true meaning, And should start advocating for something targetting everyone.
violent video game ages of teenagers

Why exactly do you want 16 to be considered the new threshold for teenagehood? Are you wanting video game developers to have a 16 year old in mind when making their games? A game that's rated T for teen doesn't necessarily mean you'll get a bad or childish game, Dark Souls 2 for instance, is rated T. When I'm choosing a game, I look at what I'll be playing and how much fun I'll get for every dollar I spend, not at the age rating on the box. Those 24 hours could be better spent learning physics.
violent video game ages of teenagers

This one is quite simple: 13 is a teenager because twelve does not end in -teen, thirteen is the first number that does. As far as society is concerned, 14-17 is a teenager because 13 is still considered a pre-teen, and 18 is an adult. As far as video games ratings, a child who reaches the age of 13 has seen more sex, blood, violence, and criminal activities on T.V than any video game could show them in 100 hours of playing, not even grand theft auto.
Evolution is not a Scientific view, and is a fairytale for adults.

My opponent has completely failed. Instead of sticking to the resolution he has spouted a bunch of pseudoscience about the age of the Earth which has nothing to do with the validity of evolution or whether it is a scientific view. Pro has therefore failed his BoP. Evolution has in fact been seen firsthand many times. Here is just one example of evolution. In this case e-coli evolved in the lab. Specifically gaining the ability to use citrate-a trait often used to distinguish bacteria from e-coli. (1) 1. http://www.newscientist.com...
Evolution is not a Scientific view, and is a fairytale for adults.

The resolution has a severe problem from the get go. Evolution is neither a tale nor does it have anything to do with fairies. Semantics aside let's get to the heart of the debate. Is evolution a scientific view? Yes. There is an overwhelming support among scientists, especially those in relevant fields for the theology of evolution. (1) There is, of course, good reason for this support. Here is a one stop site for 29 different types of evolutionary evidence. (2) I'm not quite sure where the controversy is here. 1. http://ncse.com... 2. http://www.talkorigins.org...
There is no logical proof for the existence of God.

Frankly all you asked for was a logical reason to why there is a God, I gave you that. It doesn't prove there is a God but it shows a logical reason to why there may be a God. That is simply put, The best I can do. No one can prove there is a God, in that case no one can prove anything at all. The best I can do is what your Debate Title suggest: Give a Logical reason for God. That was extremely Logical. Whether You think My analogy was good or not is irrelevant. If 100 rolls of quarters fall on their ends all together... That is impossible, simply put. If you think I was proving God by the quarter scenario you are wrong, no one would do that in a debate, I was however comparing them to the chances that all of the variables on earth happened by chance and therefore giving a logical reason of God by those variables. In your variables rebuttal you proved exactly what i was saying... You said if the variables were different then we wouldn't be here to debate this anyways. I agree and that was my point. There is no way the evolutionary process could have molded all things within inches of life or death. Gravity is almost exactly what it has to be for us to live here, if it was any more we would be crushed, if it was any less we would float away. Realizing this you must realize that gravity couldn't have evolved into the perfect percentage, it would have crushed everything or let everything float away in the process. Even darwin stated that if it could be proved something couldn't have evolved by small changes his theory would break down. Well gravity couldn't have. along with many other things. That is why all of these things would have had to happen precisely the instant of the Big Bang. That is the reason it is similar to quarters falling exactly on end and comparable to a googleplex of other universes out there, NOT BILLIONS OF PLANETS like you stated but googleplexes of UNIVERSES. Now the Googleplex statement. A google is different from a googleplex. maybe a googleplex is an office building i dont know. But it is also the following... A google or googol is 1 followed by 100 zeros. It is precisely the same distance from 1 as infinity. A googleplex is actually a 1 followed by 1 Google of zeros or 1^google. there are not that many universes in our solar system. No computer can figure that number out. The chances of 100 variables being perfect in our world are past the odds of infinity. It cant happen and that is why my argument is more than logical for the existence of God. Finally I will give my opinion of God, and it is simply an opinion and is free in this debate. God is so simple, He is love, He is just, He is strength, He is Freedom, He is everything and though that may seem complex In human eyes God is saying I am the way and the truth and the life... if you trust in me I will open your eyes to wonderful things which you do not understand! Thanks for the debate you are very intelligent and this was a fun one!