BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The gun control debate is not this simple (see for details)

It is our 2nd Amendment right. People have died for this right in specific. If we did not have our 2nd Amendment right, then all of the other's would have nothing to fall back upon. Our rights are protected because of the 2nd Amendment, which, I remind you, says: "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." None of your rights would matter anymore, if you could not protect them! Moving on to what you said. Your general practice theory, is not true. I will give you an example. Do you remember the Aurora shooting in 2012? The shooter, James Holmes, bought his weapons legally bought his arsenal of weapons. His arsenal included 4 guns, mass amounts of bullets, and legal chemical grenades. Could you imagine how DIFFERENTLY that shooting would have happened if there were a man carrying a firearm in there? Other's agree, the third source I put will show you what a trained gunman with 29 years of experience has to say about the shooting. My friend also would like to input, what would other's do if there was a gun control law, yet a small variety of people still use their weapons to hunt, and put food on the table for their family. What are they supposed to do? I think you have overstepped your boundary about regulating the only thing that protects your right to be here right now. Be thankful. Sources (Plural): http://abcnews.go.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.slate.com...
The gun control debate is not this simple (see for details)

Most guns used illegally trace their roots back to a legal source[1]. The general practice is that someone buys the weapons out of the store, and then sells them to criminals privately. If guns were illegal, this practice would be impossible. The BoP is so ridiculously skewed in my favor that I don't think I really need to work any harder than this. So, I'll start the debate off with this fact, which quite clearly shows that the debate isn't as simple as the picture suggests. Peace. Source: [1] http://www.pbs.org...
I will lose this debate.

I had a previous account, and sports sometimes give me bad luck, when the Penguins lose the last night, then the following debate I lose. Otherwise, I win that debate. So in my new account, the Penguins lost that night, and so here I will lose the debate. If you are not sure that the Pittsburgh Penguins lost last night, check out this link: https://www.nhl.com... See, even the immortal Penguins lose once in awhile!
Israel's Current Actions in Gaza are Justified

Ok, so to summarize, my opponent's whole argument boils down to, "Israel has the high ground because they're just defending themselves from Gaza's aggression." Fair enough. Gaza is always the initiator between the two sides, and Israel is just defending themselves. I did indeed read your argument, but clearly my rebuttal won't suffice, so I'm going to switch gears here. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it, the day of judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews , when the Jews will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say "O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." My opponent is very fond of this quote, as he has used it twice. The key thing you need to notice here, is that their whole mission statement is religiously based. The reason Gaza wants all the Israelis dead, is because they are Jewish. If Israeli was Islam, there wouldn't even be an issue. The core of this issue is a religous one. What I'm getting at is that it's difficult, if not impossible to argue which side is in the right, because you would first need to decide which religion is in the right, and as anyone knows, that's a Sisyphean task. So ultimately, my opponent can't win, because he can't prove that Israel is in the right. Israel fights in the name of Judaism, and Gaza fights in the name of Islam. Sure you can sprinkle some sugar on the situation by saying that Israel is just defending themselves, but ultimately they're both in the wrong for fighting to begin with. I'm not religious, but I'm sure their respective gods would frown on them for killing each so much, and for so long. However that's not what we're here to discuss. By proving that neither side is in the right, I've proven that Israels current actions aren't justified, and thus fulfilled my burden of proof. Because my opponent can't possibly win, and I'm the only one that's fulfilled their BOP, voting Neg is the only option remaining. Thank you Aff, thank you voters, and vote Neg.
Israel's Current Actions in Gaza are Justified

Good argument on the side of the Aff, but now i will rebuke him and prove why Gaza is in the right in the current conflict. In order to explain this, I need to take a trip back in time. The conflict really started back in 1967, when Israelis invaded Palestine, and stayed there all the way up until 2005! That's the same year that the Hamas organization took over in Gaza. Now, the Israelis finally left after this, but set up a blockade on Gaza which have had a number of negative effects on the people living there, because the Israelis believe that Hamas is a terrorist organization. All entry into Israel from Gaza and from Israel to Gaza is severely limited. There isn't even a working airport. Because of this, it's nigh impossible to get good in and out of Gaza. Food is allowed in, but various aid agencies in Gaza say that families aren't getting as much meat, fruit, and vegetables as they once were. There are also often power cuts. There's also a lot of unemployment, because businesses can't get their products out of the country. Because of this, many people are poor and can't buy things. So already, we can see that Gaza is in bad shape due to actions taken by the Israelis. Now let's travel back in time once again. In the 1948 and 1967 wars, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced out of their homes due to the Israelis taking it from them. That is why Gaza fired/fires rockets at Israel. Gaza still feels sore for being occupied for so long and believes that Israel should be punished, which is a logical reaction for anybody if their home was taken from them for so long. Now we'll go back to 2005. Israel withdrew their troops from Gaza in that year, however, this hasn't stopped them from making other offensives on Gaza in later years. In 2008, Israel sent soldiers into Gaza. An estimated 1,300 people, many of them civilians, were killed in Gaza before a ceasefire was declared; 13 Israeli soldiers also died. That's a lot of casualties on the Gaza side, and very few on the Israeli side. In 2012, at least 167 Palestinians and six Israelis were killed during an Israeli operation. Once again, very few losses on the Israeli side. This has a been a pattern with Israel. They kill a bunch of people in Gaza, both sides call for peace, which is courteous and generous on Gaza's side, and then Israel inevitably comes and and kills a bunch of Gaza members once again. So as we can see, Gaza is simply reacting to the injustice that was enacted on them by the Israelis. And the Israelis have have killed way more from Gaza than the Israelis have lost on their side. This is simply exacerbated by the fact that Israel performed the revenge killing. They may have shown their disapproval, but if Israel truly wished for peace, they would search for a diplomatic resolution rather than killing so many Palestinians. Clearly it is Gaza who is in the right here rather than the Israelis. Thank you for following this debate all you voters out there, and vote neg.
Private high schools sports teams should not be allowed to compete with public high schools

No matter how little the power the government has over private schools, the private schools are still affiliated to the government through the Department of Education. They still follow the government's instructions regarding education and most of them follow the national curriculum. So the government still has power over them. Concerning the "parents spend their money thing", there are still ways to tackle the problem. In some countries there are laws that limit the salaries of football players, the aim of such laws is to create a fair and competitive atmosphere. The same thing can be applied to private schools as well, laws can be introduced limiting the amount of money parents spend for their children's sporting interests. Some sort of quota can be enforced to create an equal amount of children from private and government schools to participate in training camps. Your solution is weak because you don't see possibilities in the future. There is a possibility that, if separate divisions were introduced, each division would not be equal. The private school division would be on a higher level than the public school division due to the amount of funding that private school children receive from their parents. Ironically you don't want to tackle the funding problem by following my advice of introducing laws to limit that funding. Do you see some a sporting competition where there is a first division and a second division? That's what would happen if your solution were enforced.
Private high schools sports teams should not be allowed to compete with public high schools

I will start off my argument by stating that I am a High school soccer player and play for what is currently the #16 best team in the state. The first 5 are of course private schools. The main difference between athletes from public and private schools is the average family income. Private school students tend to live in a family that makes more money which allows for them to attend expensive soccer camps, higher more experience coaches as opposed to having a players parents coach, and purchase better equipment. Money isn't the only issue here either, Private schools can offer a better education to students of their choice who will play for one of their athletic teams. No one from my soccer team has been recruited but a few of our star football players have transferred to other schools because they were offered free education at a prestigious private school. The point of competition is to see on a level playing field who is better than the other, and this is certainly not what is going on in the high school level.
how many times should you forgive a person for cheating on you

First Error: My opponent switched from affirming zero times in their opening speech to then saying one time in round two meaning I had to completely alter my rebuttal to their different standpoint.Second Error: No evidence given at all, not even 'logical evidence' meaning a coherent justification.Third error: Never rebutted my points.I shall now reinstate my contention that would oppose forgiving once being any more or less stupid than more then once.As I said in round 2, "If you forgive them once, it is equally stupid as the millionth time since the immorality of cheating is constant for each time it occurs and if anything the pain the second time would be far less since you'd already have had experience of how to deal with it and would overcome it quicker."I think I have won but leave it up to the voters.Thanks for the debate.
how many times should you forgive a person for cheating on you

a person constantly cheating on you is not love so therefore they can not love you better than anyone else because the right person would not cheat on you. i still stand by the fact that you should not forgive a person if its more thann once know the saying cheat once shame on you, cheat again shame on me its that real p.s im a young lad keep your words in laymans terms cheers
how many times should you forgive a person for cheating on you

I like that saying because it supports the pro side of this argument. "It's part and parcel of life that people get hurt all the time." Now onto my rebuttals."wouldn't[sic] you rather be alone than with a person who is constantly cheating on you?"This is simply a question and actually does not constitute a contention at all nonetheless I shall answer it for the sake of being cordial to my opponent.My answer: Not if they could love me better than anyone else could. I believe that this cancels out that point and is a sufficient rebuttal."fair enough one time is forgivable more than that then you are a door mat" So now my opponent has seemed to think that the 'amount' that Pro speaks of is inherently more than one. Well okay then I can easily argue that if you forgive them once, it is equally stupid as the millionth time since the immorality of cheating is constant for each time it occurs and if anything the pain the second time would be far less since you'd already have had experience of how to deal with it and would overcome it quicker (emotional resistance works like immunity to disease).
how many times should you forgive a person for cheating on you

I think that you should forgive the person because to not do so merely puts an emotional burden on you.You are left alone, but no new boyfriend/girlfriend comes along for a long time usually.You are left depressed because you wish you could have them back but know that since you have devoted yourself to not forgiving them, this will never happen.You wonder if they really have changed but out of a grudge you limit yourself of the happiness they could offer you for the sake of protecting yourself from pain (when ironically being in a more painful situation after all).
Tekken Vs Street Fighter Which is Better

ok so i thought i won this debate because i though i expressed my points well (as did my opponent) but i also feel i counted his/her points alot better than he/she did mine and with alot more detail than with them. Well thats about it, as well as this there were alot of inconsistanes and i felt i highlighted why i though tekken was better as opposed to how street fighter was better from my opponent
Tekken Vs Street Fighter Which is Better

though i agree character development is far greater in tekken, but lets not forget street fighter was designed as an arcade game where due to data limitations of the time ment very simple back stories were in order as the game didnt have the capability to go into details on why those characters are doing those things, now this reason also covers why some of the characters are so similar not through lack of creativity but a lack of resourses of the time and i feel if the first tekken game was made around the same time as street fighter then i feel tekken would fall victim to the limitations of the time, now onto game play, yes the game play is smoother in the tekken series making it more friendly to casual players but you dont get the satisfaction when youv got all these combos learnt and your kicking some serious butt, also some charecter do have very detailed back stories though its never really gone over in the first games but some of the later games offers charecter bios, showing these great back stories. a few quick things i feel sets street fighter above tekken is the fact that street fighter does not take itself to seriously its made jokes about itself it has a great art style and gave us some of gamings most iconic characters my final point is this, street fighter is arguable the most important fighting game ever as its success, its style its almost everything set course for most fighting games to come and influenced the likes of tekken, mortal kombat, even smash brothers and for that reason street fighter is better than tekken in my opinion
Gay marriage should be legalized.

hello there, I want to talk about the debate we are having. Gay marriage legalization, is a topic, and issue that is being questioned at the moment, all around the world. Countries are unsure of whether to legalize, same sex marriage. I have collected a couple of strong arguments, that are for the legalization of same-sex marriage. I'd like to begin with identifying gay people. Gay people, are no different than me or you, they have the same rights as you, all around the world, whether the country permits their marriage. It is a human right to have their freedom to love, whether that be a man or a woman. Being gay is not a choice, people believe that it is, but people are born gay, they don't become gay later in life. I believe that gay people should have the right to express their feelings to others without being judged. This meaning, that even when people come out to others, they shouldn't feel scared for their life. Statistics show that 9 out of 10 school kids are bullied, beaten and bashed because they are gay. They take their lives because they feel unaccepted in our society. I don"t think people should die for feeling what they fee, it is as much of their right to love who they love, as it is for the straight population, to love who they love. Homosexual behavior is an act of freedom of choice, people should learn to understand and respect other people"s feelings for each other. Secondly, religious beliefs say that it is offending to the bible, but no where it the bible does it say to go against gay marriage. Gay marriage should be legal worldwide because they are people and they should have the right to love. People shouldn't be judged or frowned upon for having feelings they can't control. Who are we to say that someone can't be married to the same sex, we are not God or anyone special to judge others so we can't tell people how to live their lifestyle. Everyone deserves to be happy and if being gay is something that makes someone feel accepted in this crazy society, then everyone should let them. People should be allowed same rights as men and women.
Proof of God Through Revelation

Firstly, in my arguments I will neither deny God nor Revelation. As humans we can only know of God either by using rational faculties or by God revealing Himself. So we cannot prove the existence of God, but can have reasons to believe there is God. By that, we can question the one's reasons for their belief. If their reasons are baseless, then their belief is baseless also.So let's analyze claims of Pro.1- "God revealed many facts ...." Where? How? For what purpose? How do you know they are facts? And etc.2- "... I know the facts about myself better than you could."No, you do not. Because I am god and this is my revelation to you.3- Logic?You can inform someone about where you live empirically. Study epistemology.4- "... atheist Dogma ..."Define Dogma first. And talking about atheist dogma does not prove your or any other point.Pro's argument consists of 560 words (yes, I counted them one by one) and was answered in 4 points. I need better argument.
vote stuff

Your argument still does not make any logical sense, and falls apart quite easily without my help. However, saying that a smoker cannot vote on anything pertaining to smoking is akin to saying that people who support, say, building a wall on our border cannot for that, leading the vote to fail. Or saying that someone who supports a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, cannot vote for that. You are trying to make it so that the decisions are rational, without any personal beliefs involved, but that is what politics and religion are; matters of personal belief. Some people believe that Donald Trump is the best candidate, others support Hillary Clinton, however in order to enact the rules you are saying, no person could vote for either candidate because they have a tie to them as a supporter. You are saying that nobody should vote for anything, because that is your core argument. Either you are saying nobody should vote for anything, due to irrationality on their part due to personal beliefs, or that only people who oppose certain things should be able to vote, destroying America"s Constitutional Republic. Our system may have some few flaws, but there is no reason to try to destroy how America works. Those who smoke should have the same value on their vote and their opinion that anyone else has, and those who are religious should have the same vote. On religion especially, because only about 3%(1) of America are atheists, and therefore would be able to vote on religion in your plan. However, since while atheism is not a religion, it has its own views on the world and therefore should be able to vote on religion. An interesting note is how your idea was applied before; to slaves in America. They were kept as property, and mistreated because they had no representation whatsoever. However, after the Emancipation Proclamation only 8 years later there was the first African American senator. Oh, and another thing, you talk about how smoking is unreasonable so those who smoke should not be allowed to vote on it? Cigarettes contain nicotine a highly addictive substance. Which is why they smoke, not because they want to, but because they cannot stop smoking. That is like saying anyone who drinks cannot vote on alcohol laws. And saying that religious people cannot vote on religion both would be impossible to enforce and also violate religious freedom. 1. http://www.pewresearch.org...
vote stuff

The problems with your argument, however, is that every citizen has some ties to one side or another. On smoking, there are two sides, for and against. If anyone involved in it cannot vote, then neither side could vote, leading to a stalemate of 0:0. On religion, if neither side can vote, then there is a stalemate due to everyone having a religion/being atheist, or agnostic, or simply not caring enough to vote. The only people who would be allowed to vote in this scenario are the ones who have no opinion whatsoever, and therefore have no side to vote for. This would lead to a world where no laws are made or changed, due to an eternal stalemate. However, I do see the upsides of a purely rational world, but there is no way to truly reach that impossible goal, due to each person have some beliefs core to their person, that are near impossible to change.
If not in a liquidity trap, monetary policy is more effective than fiscal policy.

Definitions: A "liquidity trap" is when interest rates cannot be lowered enough to make a significant change in the economy. (In other words, the zero-bound problem). "Monetary policy" is the use of open market operations (buying and selling securities) by a central bank to influence interest rates. "Fiscal policy" is the use of deficit spending to stimulate the economy. Alterations to these definitions may be considered. First round: state that you accept the debate. Actual debate will start in round 2. I'm looking forward to it.