BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Libertarians are right on crime-- No gun control laws an no victimless crimes

Take note: Since my opponenet's resolution asserts two things with an AND [or a typo thereof], all I must do to negate it is negate ONE of these assertions. I will completely agree that I see no better alternative to the libertarian position on gun control. Less gun control creates a better society, since as my opponenet pointed out, it lowers murder rates, etc. Basically, it is beneficial to society to not have gun control laws, so therefore that is the best policy. HOWEVER, I must disagree with my opponent's assertaion that Libertarians are right when it comes to 'victimless crimes.' I will define a victimless crime as a crime in which no ones rights are being infringed. Examples: prostitution, people doing drugs, people gambling, etc. Let us look at the effects some of these have on society. Allowing prostitution creates an unproductive job and promotes infidelity in society. Someone is spending time at work, but not truly producing anything useful for society as a whole. Not only that, but it needlessly increases the risk of STD's spreading. Also, promoting infidelity [or rather, not explicitly promoting fidelity] has its own problems for society. This leads to less stable families, which means kids are generally not raised as well, people are often less happy because they are upset at a spouse, and are therefore less productive, etc. Drugs? Drugs cause many problems. Because of the mind-altering effects of drugs, people will often make bad decisions while on drugs - decisions that are often hurtful to society. Also, Marijuana makes people less ambitious, and therefore less productive. And many other drugs are dangerous, and their use runs the risk of prematurely ending lives, another loss for society. Gambling? Casino workers get money, but they do nothing to add to the wealth of the country. By disallowing Gambling, our society is more prosperous, since these people might actually have jobs that produce something useful. My opponenet states that "Nobody is hurt" by these things, but the fact is, we're ALL hurt by these things. Our society prospers more if people do not be prostitutes, use drugs, and/or gamble. By trying to elminate these things today, whether we have to pay money to enforce it or not, we are investing in a more prosperous future, and isn't that the goal of any society? I await my opponent's response.
Libertarians are right on crime-- No gun control laws an no victimless crimes

Gun control laws do not work because criminals will prey on citizens because criminals will be armed while citizens are defenseless. In Florida, the murder rate dropped 20% after gun control was abolished. Criminals fear armed suspects. My dad is a cop he knows that the main reason people think twice about robberies is because the may be armed. Our Constitution says, "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Gun control laws are unconstitutional. Our police spend a lot of their time fighting victimless crimes like prostitution, gambling, and drugs. No body is hurt but the police are being overstretched for these crimes. Our jails are filled with drug users, drug sellers, prostitutes and gamblers. Parole allows criminals to leave prison because the jail is overcrowded. If the jails were less crowded with victimless criminals, then violent criminals would not be back on the streets so quickly and people would not expect to get parolled and would be less likely to commit crimes. Plus, we spend trillions on the War on Drugs each year. That money could go to other forms of crime fighting or anything else including lower taxes.
Resolved that civil disobedience is justified and what not

Does using alot of space make you better about you feel better? correction, Flava flave IS black. Dont be fooled by Goofball, PAKKAOO7 is another way of saying Parker so he isnt liable in this debate and another thing Jesus cant be affiliated with Parker so jesus isnt a reliable source in todays debate. Black people take up...a good portion of the world, and since goofball cant' prove that these people aren't black i have a good portion of the world on my side so suck that you jewish asian penis.
Resolved that civil disobedience is justified and what not

penis... oh wait... yea... Peee.... nnnn... issssss... s. YOu suck I am not a racist. You are a jew. Let me answer by reciting a famous haiku I wrote today: I hate you. Debate.org Thank you.. I also call upon my drago man who agrees with the philosoopher PAKKA007 and JESUSIMREALoh and by the way JOHN GILMORE goes to my school, and he is black. I'm just gonna throw that out there. Thank YOu. MLKJ2 was a man and Micheal Jackson was better when he was *cough* not black.
Resolved that civil disobedience is justified and what not

Sorry i didnt know what the box labeled argument stood for, unlike mason I have a life and don't do debates online 24-7 so thats what "in favor" ment. My first contention is that black people use civil disobedience all the time, THEYRE BLACK! example one, Martin luther king jr was black, rosa parks was black, micheal jackson WAS black and flava flave was black so I Win unless you have evidence saying they are not black.:) My second contention is that you my friend, are a racist. My third contention is that these black people have bent the law for the better. Martin luther king jr, he saved us from racism, sort of and Flava Flave gave many black kids hames and rosa parks stood against the white people on the bus. My forth contention is that you my friend, are a racist. My last contention is that im right as supported by the BECAUSE I SAID SO THEORM recently discovered by sir JOHN GILMORE a professor at Duke university that teaches racial matters and has a 3rd bachelors degree in it so HA! HA HA HA HA HA HA! Parker is not a reliable sorce for this debate.
Does the God of the Bible exist

I will start off my argument with a very well known statement in this topic. "There is a basis of ethics and morality." now if you have read the book Mere Christianity you may be familiar with this statement. If not you are probably thinking I am throwing out a red herring. You will have to bear with me here for it is a long process before I get to the conclusion that there is a God and that God is the god of the bible.So I will first start of with a statement that I hope everyone would agree with me. Lets say the most strong atheist buys a new Ferrari. Now the next day someone comes and steals the car and he catches them right before that drive away and says "Hey you cant do that its wrong." Now we will be looking at the statement "Hey you cant do that its wrong" as you can see the athiest has some type of standard or thing he holds as what people should and should not do. Now if we look at other people most would say thats wrong and they shouldnt have done that. What is this standard of right and wrong. For brevity sake I will just call it the LOHN or the law of human nature. Now most people would confuse this with the law of nature but i must tell you it is very different. The LON or law of nature is like gravity and the laws that we as humans can not break. were as the LOHN is the feeling you get that makes you feel bad when you do something wrong or the standard you have for what you expect of people. Now if you disagree with anything I say please say something. But I hope we can come to agreement on everything I have said so far. To recap there is some standard we have that we expect others to follow and it seems to somwhat all agree with. I am not saying there arent any differences in our standard but the important ones stay the same.Now please tell me anything you disagree with.
Does the God of the Bible exist

Pro has misunderstood my argument. I agree that human moral intuitions have remained relatively constant for as long as civilized society has been in existence. However, that does not make those intuitions objective. For morals to be objective features of reality, they must exist regardless of whether or not humans do. Yet human intuitions by definition cannot exist withouy human minds to conceive of them... Therefore, my rebuttal remains standing: morality is not objective, so the base premise of whatever argument Pro is trying to make is unwarranted. And my opponent has yet to even mention why it follows that the Biblical God exists. A personal message to my opponent: I must remind you that the purpose of debate is NOT to try making your opponent agree with you -- concessions are rare and usually accidental. You should instead focus on trying to convince the voters that you have successfully affirmed the resolution. I recommend that you go ahead and link your argument to the existence of the Biblical God this next round... The resolution remains negated.
Does the God of the Bible exist

So I assume Con mean that it was created by us. And I respect this position and I believed it would come up. Now I must ask if we made it we should be able to change it or have some affect on it. But no for thousands of years men have been bound to this feeling that people should act a certain way. Now I understand some things changed in right and wrong but I am talking about the essentials like: Murder, stealing, adultery. Now You might say that the people in the middle ages who executed people because they thought they were witches they must have a different type of standard or LOHN. And my answer to this is they believe with all their hearts that these people are evil and are a threat. This is not changing the LOHN if they were asked to kill someone they thought was not a witch they would think it was wrong. You may also say that people only say things are wrong because they affect them. I am here to tell you this is not the case. I will give you another allusion. Imagine if a group was getting on the bus now someone on the bus while your walking in accidentally trips you you would not be mad at the person for it was an accident. But lets do the same allusion except this time someone tries to trip you but fails would you not be mad at him but yet this action does not affect you.You also said that I did not relate my argument with how the God of the Bible is real but as I said in round 2 I will do that soon first I am trying to get us to agree so I ask again do you agree with what I have said so far.
Does the God of the Bible exist

Pro starts off with a bare assertion about the existence of morality. I disagree that "there is a basis of ethics and morality". Since Pro has the burden of proof, it is his job to warrant that proposition. Pro notes that we all have moral intuitions, but that has a perfectly sound atheistic explanation: "According to the esteemed evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, in his book "The God Delusion", morality first arose through evolutionary changes in human psychology favoring altruistic behaviors (i.e. kin-selection, symbiosis, etc.). As time went on and human societies became more complicated, these empathetic tendencies were reinforced into a true sense of morality by religious doctrines/authority (i.e. incentives of reward and punishment) and cultural traditions (i.e. pressure for social conformity)." -- Genghis_Khan Moreover, even if an objective standard of morality exists, Pro hasn't even attempted to explain why that necessarily entails the existence of the Biblical God. Pro's burden of proof remains entirely unmet. The resolution is negated.
I stink at debate.org

You made it sound like you smelled bad whenever you were at Debate.org. You did this way too late and failed too clarify this. You also did not rebut my definition. My case stands. Since you haven't rebutted my definition, this means you have the BoP of addressing that you smell bad, and you failed to fulfill that. Therefore, I have already won. "F@*! Trolls" Is not only offensive to trolls, but also, this is a statement. I think you're implying that I'm a troll, though you haven't really supported the statement or pointed out anything. But since you technically didn't call me a troll and tell me why, I am not a troll.
The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished

Con, you did it again. You broke the format the first time, but I was willing to let that go because you messaged me an apology. But now, you did it again. I asked you to simply re-post your arguments, even letting you add new ones as long as they weren't rebuttals. But the only thing you posted was your rebuttals of my argument, which you shouldn't have added until round three. I was willing to let you off the hook the first time, but not this time. You have taken it too far. Con has broken the rules twice. Voters, vote pro for everything, except for the first two if you don't want to. Con, I am angry with you, but if you want, we can continue the debate, under the circumstances that you will still lose for breaking the rules.
The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished

Actually pennies aren't unless as you think and if you get rid of it the poor pay the most - the poor will be affected the most, because they are most likely to make more frequent, smaller purchases, thus suffering the rounding up more often. And Nickels cost even more to make, If we eliminate the penny, we will need more nickels. Nickels cost 7.7 cents to make, making each nickel costs 1.44 cents more than making each penny. Since the penny costs 0.26 more than face value to make, the Mint can make 5 pennies and still lose less money than making 1 nickel. And, of course, if we eliminate the penny, we'll need a lot more nickels, which will offset the savings of stopping penny manufacture.
The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished

Although Con did defy my rules, Con messaged me in a friend request his/her apologies. Voters, please do not take off points as long as Con does not do it again. Con, if you would, please repost your arguments when it is your turn. I don't care if you copy and paste what you had written, as long as you stay with the format. Anyway, onto my arguments. I have two main arguments for my case, both of which are comprised of smaller points. My first main argument is that U.S. pennies are just a drag on not only the economy, but all of us in general. My first proof is that pennies just aren't worth the time to earn them. The average hourly wage for workers was $22.33 in 2013 (Source: http://www.bls.gov...). That means more than a cent every two seconds, and five cents every ten seconds. Even if you use the median wage, the calculations are still very close. It takes such a little time to earn pennies that it wouldn't affect finances if it was removed. As further proof that pennies aren't worth the time, look to the grocery store. In the U.S., unlike other countries, the tax isn't included on the price tag. The vast majority of people just can't do the math in their head without a calculator, and most just wait until the checkout to find the true price. This means it takes time to count out the pennies, wasting time. It may not seem very important, but it could make a huge difference if pennies were removed. As a matter of fact, there's relatively little that pennies are used for now. No modern vending machine accepts pennies. The only one that does is Coinstar, which is a machine that takes your coins and gives you them back, with a slight amount taken away. Essentially, it is an ATM for solely coins. Lastly, it would benefit the U.S. economy to get rid of pennies. Pennies cost more to make than their face value (no pun intended) (Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com...). There is potential of saving money by getting rid of the penny. Con, if you would, please re-post your arguments. I will even allow you to add new ones as long as they are not rebuttals.
The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished

You should not eliminate the U.S. penny! First of all If we eliminate the U.S. penny, everything will have to be rounded to the nickel. Merchants will probably round everything up in their favor! Costing us more for everything we buy. Last Charities need pennies, alot can add up from pennies and that helps people because most likely people going to give away their pennies because it's 'cost less' to them.
The U.S. Penny Should Be Abolished

This debate is a redo of one of my previous debates. If you wish, you may view that one first to get the gist of my opinion. However, I am adding the rule that you may not quote anything I said in that debate for the duration of this one. This debate will follow this pattern: Round 1: Opening Statements Only (No Arguments) Round 2: Opening Arguments Only (No Rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Arguments (No Rebuttals) Round 5: Rebuttals and Closing Statements I am for abolishing the U.S. penny. I believe it will do the U.S. good
Harry Potter is both an implicitly and explicitly Christian series

First of all, I'd like to say thank you for accepting me. Your argument was very convincing and greatly detailed, so I'd like to congratulate you on that. Now, I can see your point and slightly agree with you, in that phase where I half agree but am half unsure, haha. Now, I'll start my side of the argument: 1) Harry Potter is not an explicitly Christian book series. A) By saying that, you are stating that those themes are strictly Christian themes when they could also resemble other theme's of seperate cultures around the world-Catholic for example. That religion closely resembles Christianity, except they honor their saints more than we [I'm assuming you're Christian] sterotypically do. With the resemblance of the same Bible, same God and Jesus, same stories, etc, I can therefore assume that we're going to have the same themes too. If you say this series is a strict Christian series, I can therefor prove you wrong because of other religion's themes. An another side note, loyalty, friendship, and self-sacrifice are common themes and the author, J.K. Rowling coukd have easily heard of these themes from another source and interperated them into her own series because she wanted to teach her audience that this is good and this is bad"so you're arguing that an example, say, the TV series My Little Pony; Friendship is Magic is explicitly Christian, and morals from Aesop's Fables are also Christian-themed. It could've been an entire coincidence, or just a teaching moment. B) I gave never read a Fantasy novel in my life where the theme wasn't "Good VS Evil"--I can honestly say this is also a common theme for Fantasy series or novels, and a good plot. C) On tombstones, Bible quotations are common if the corpse in him/her's living time was Christian, meaning that if some characters in Harry Potter are Christian, who can limit all the possibilities about a character's religion? For all we know, Voldemort could've been Jewish. 2) Harry Potter is implicitly Christian A) I actually have to agree with you that Harry Potter is implicitly Christian-themed because of the similar themes, so on. But just because it has Bible quotes it doesn't mean it's strictly Christian and could have Catholic, Jewish, even Buddhism values about being good. B) Fawkes the Pheonix represents the innocence of Harry Potter, not the symbol of Jesus. When Fawkes burst into flames it meant Harry was maturing--such as in Dumbledore's office where he learns an important life lesson. When he flies out after Dumbledore dies this represents that Harry has learned that the world is truly cruel and must be strong to deal with it--a thing that we all realise wheb childhood comes to an end. C). There are so many assumptions that I am slightly confused. Like I stated above, this is a common plot for Fantasy novels, Mrs. Rowling just added her flair which happened to be very close to The New Testaments in the Holy Bible. I really cannot argue on this point because of plots, so on so forth. I am sorry if I accidentally leave a typo or made a mistake"it was nice debating on this topic!
Schools Should Be Able To Use Rats In Their Own Computers

I do agree with my opponent that it teaches kids about the real world, but this would mean that many kids would fail. Students at younger ages are lucky enough to have parents nudging them to do their work, but if students didn't feel at least a little watched than the freedom might lead to many students slacking off. Plus some jobs do have programs like rats to watch over their employees. If many students fail in their schools then there will be an overload of jobs like garbage men. I think if they feel like someone is watching over them then they will comply more to do work and will be more likely to go to college. I hand this over to my opponent.
Schools Should Be Able To Use Rats In Their Own Computers

Let me ask you a question: How can children learn to do their job through anything but experience? I have seen numerous examples of people during my years at school who get disciplined for being rude/not doing work and other things over and over and still doing those things. It's only experiencing freedom on the internet and getting what you need to do done anyway that will teach kids to thrive in the professional world. If you spend all your computer class time watching porn or playing a game, then when you get a bad grade (at least if you want to do better) you learn better. Even if you don't, a teacher could assign an essay and give kids freedom to roam the internet. Those who complete it on time get a reward, and those who don't get immediate disciplinary action. This would be a simulation of the real world, as if you complete a project on time at your job, you get paid. If you don't, you either don't get paid or even get fired. Handed off. Bernard Out.
Schools Should Be Able To Use Rats In Their Own Computers

Let me ask you a question. Your school or work area probably tracking the websites you visit and making sure that you do your work instead of playing a game or anything like that. My question is, why do you care? If you are doing your work it wouldn't matter anyways. The point of a job is that you do work to get money. If you are playing a game then you wouldn't even be doing your job anyways. A rat is only used to make sure that you do your job. The same thing can go for schools. If you are supposed to be writing an essay it wouldn't matter if your teacher/school is using a rat, if you are doing the job and actually learning nothing bad will happen to you. I hand this over to my opponent.
Schools Should Be Able To Use Rats In Their Own Computers

I personally don't believe in this, but I thought I'd play devil's advocate to get an opponent faster. Rules: 1) No ad hominem, insults, or personal attacks. 2) This first round will just be for my opponent to accept my debate. Rounds 2-4 will be used as a three round debate If any of the rules are violated, the voters should vote for the one who didn't violate them in terms of "conduct"