BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights.

SuicidesPro’s only rebuttal to my argument was that “if guns were banned, knives would be used instead and just as effectively.” This is blatantly false. The most successful method of suicide involving a knife is cutting the throat, which has a 51.5% lethality rate (Guns have a 99% success rate) [1]The SourceThe ‘evidence’ that Pro uses to back up the claim is from PreparedChristian.net [2]. I read the article, and what the blogger gives in support of knives being more dangerous than guns is that:1) It is easier to kick a gun out of a hand than a knife in his kung fu class. Not everyone knows kung fu, and knowing kung fu and knowing how to kick a knife out of someone’s hand does not have to do with suicides.2) It is easier to conceal than a gun. A gun causes a ‘bulge’, and a small folding knife cannot. Again has nothing to do with suicides.3) That people with guns are more likely to miss the target, someone with a knife won’t miss their victim. This again, has to do with homicide, not suicides.HomicidesPro says two things here:Guns are used in self-defensePro gives no evidence for his claim that guns are used for self-defense, therefore this argument goes unwarranted and has no impact.According to US Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics, firearms were the least used self-defensive behavior, at 0.8% [3]. Only criminals will have gunsThis argument goes unwarranted as well, and I dismiss it as such.This is more of a would argument rather than a should question. Banning guns would make it more difficult for a criminal to get a hold of a firearm. And we really don’t want the victim having a gun in a crime scenario, when the criminal has the gun, the victim is more likely to give them their wallet, purse, etc. And the criminal runs off with the loot being chased by police and the victim is not harmed, other than being a bit shaken.But when both the criminal and the victim have a gun, suddenly a situation that would have been a grab-and-run, is immediately escalated to a fatal situation, and someone is very likely to be killed. Giving the victim a gun puts both the criminal and the victim in harm’s way.“The presence of a gun makes quarrels, disputes, assaults, and robberies more deadly. Many murders are committed in a moment of rage...” -David Hemenway director of Harvard Injury Control Research CenterAccidentsPro basically concedes this argument, “If you don't like it, go to a different country.”And then relates it to other things that have consequences as well. These subjects a neither nor relevant nor impactful.[1] http://lostallhope.com...[2] http://preparedchristian.net...[3] http://www.bjs.gov... Pg.12
All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights.

I have a response to every reason you listed. 1, 2, and 3) This is evidently not true, as the government is currently very corrupt. The Obama administration has committed many unconstitutional acts. [1] Many times states have passed unconstitutional laws and gotten away with it. [2] Abortion is another major example. The Supreme Court ruled that it is a woman's fundamental right to be able to have an abortion. This was unconstitutional. The court's ruling put the woman's right to murder before the child's right to life. What happened to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? You may argue that a fetus is not a person, but that is unreasonable. There is scientific evidence that a fetus is a human and it shows all of the signs of life. [3] Anyone would agree that I am a person, you are a person, our families are people, our friends are people, and any other born human being is a person. So why would a fetus be the one exception? Why is a fetus not a person if every other human on the planet is? You may also argue that it is a "potential human" and it is not "developed enough". However, a fetus has a heartbeat, brain waves, independent movement, senses, and breathing. [4] It is definitely a human. 4) The UN has ultimately failed in its mission to prevent war and stop corrupt government. [5] Therefore, it will likely not prevent corruption in the American government. 5) You are not sure what methods rebels would use to overthrow the government, so you are not sure whether they would find a way to defeat the military. They could also take over the military, make allies within the military, or use guerrilla warfare. The 2.7 million people in the military are no match for the 270-310 million people with guns, along with possible foreign allies. Overall, the government can be corrupt, it is corrupt, and a successful rebellion is possible. [1] https://www.committeeforjustice.org... [2] http://www.sweetliberty.org... [3], [4] http://www.freerepublic.com... [5] http://www.un.org...
All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights.

Pro’s only argument was that taking away a citizen’s right to own a gun, will impede their ability to rebel against a corrupt government, and will therefore make the US corrupt. There are five problems with this.1) In the United States we actually have a democratic-republic, which means that citizens get to vote on just about everything, meaning that the majority of Americans would have to agree with, and allow the government to become corrupt. 2) We have a separation of powers, meaning that the power that the government has is divided up among different groups (Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches). This prevents the government from getting too much power, and in effect becoming corrupt. 3) The Judicial, Legislative and Executive branches have the power to check and balance each other. If the Executive branch is becoming too powerful, the Legislative branch and Judicial branch have the ability to take away some of that power, and so on for every branch. 4) The United Nations (UN) is a peacekeeping organization that prevents war and stops corrupt government. Even if the paramount improbability of the US becoming corrupt happens, the UN has an obligation to resolve it. 5) Even if the significantly more paramount improbability that the UN cannot resolve our corruption, the people can still revolt, violently if they choose to, with every weapon or tactic available to them except firearms.The chance that it will come to the people to have to overthrow the government is so small that the risks much outweigh the benefits. Even if it were to come to the people, what are they supposed to do against the military, with tanks, airstrikes, etc. It will likely just lead to more deaths.
All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights.

Suicides I do not deny the fact that many people successfully commit suidide with the help of guns. However, if guns were banned, knives would be used instead and just as effectively. [1] We can't ban knives, as they are important to carving, cooking, and many other important activities. A gun ban would not affect suicide rates. Homicides This is the most common argument made by gun control proponents. It is also the most fun to respond to. People use guns to kill people. Guns are also used in self-defense. People who kill people with guns are criminals. If a gun control law like the one you suggested in the first round was passed, anyone who had a gun would be a criminal. So now only criminals have guns. That would likely only increase homicide rates. Accidents Many gun accidents happen, and this is very sad. However, you could say this about any other human right. Freedom of religion comes with societal divisions, freedom of speech comes with offensive speech, and the right to a fair trial comes with criminals getting away with crime. You could even say this about the right to life; it comes with more money the government has to spend, more carbon dioxide emissions, less space, less food, and many other things. Since America is a free country, these rights must be kept. If you don't like it, go to a different country. [1] http://preparedchristian.net... http://thefederalist.com... http://bearingarms.com...
All law-abiding adult citizens should have gun rights.

Thank you for clarifying the round structure. Now for my arguments. Right to rebel A government can easily become corrupt, even a republic. When this happens, the people have the right to rebel. As Thomas Jefferson said,"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." Patrick Henry said,"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Alexander Hamilton said,"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." I could go on and on with similar quotes by America's founders, but I think this shows how wrong it would be to deprive citzens of their guns.http://econfaculty.gmu.edu...
Capitalism is better than communism

My opponent has forfeited his turn. I have completely taken his argument apart. I believe that I have shown how weak his argument is. I stand by my arguments. In communism, no one has any initiative to work hard, resulting in a horrible economy. He never refuted this point. Communism has been a complete disaster by all that have tried it. He never refuted this point. That is why capitalism is better than communism.
Capitalism is better than communism

Although my opponent's argument was true, he failed to complete his argument. He made his argument (I call it argument since he only gave paragraphs of one same idea) in terms of people who have a chance in life, not of people who were born in poverty. The people you forgot to mention. You may have misunderstood, or confused the word "greed" and "selfish". My opponent "selfish" is what you seem to be since you forgot to include the poor people, or just didn't care about them. Communism is about a classless society, this means that there are no poor nor rich. Capitalism is all about classes, there are rich, mid-class, and poor. Communism gives same pay to everyone, regardless what kind of people there are. Communism, in theory, represents a classless society in peace. This means, no poor, nor rich people. Capitalism In Capitalism there is always something your greedy heart wants to hold on to, in Communism there is nothing you want, because you have everything you need. Capitalism is greed, since people always want more than it is necessary. Selfishness well since you are always wanting something more everyday of your life, without thinking about those people who stand in light waiting for you to at least drop a coin in their empty containers. Fortunately, not everyone is like this. "So is Michael greedy because he doesn't want to give away large amount of his hard earned money, or his Tony greedy because he thinks he's entitled to money other people have worked hard for? " To be honest, I had to fix some of your punctuation before going into this sentence. I think the sentence would have actually made sense if you replaced the word "greedy" with "selfish". What about the people who work hard all day picking up trash to make a living because its the only way they can make a living out of? While in Communism they can make the same living just like everybody else. Maybe you don't notice this because you never think about it. That is selfish. "Many people say that capitalists are greedy and selfish. " This is actually true, but obviously not all. Did you know that deal, I explained about US giving Iran $20B? Do you know who are the ones who pay those taxes? The U. S. tax payers. Conclusion: I have weakened my opponent's argument with true facts and evidence. Also consider voting for me in punctuation, spelling, and grammar and about sources and information, and more to come.
Capitalism is better than communism

Hello, thank your for challenging me. I have been studying Communism and Capitalism for a long time. I think this is the time to settle this. Since you allowed me to make my first arguments, then I shall start. Communism is better for the People Communism is a form of government that calls for a stateless and classless society, which is freed from oppression and scarcity. Firstly, communism is better for the people in security. Personally, I think Communism is another word for equality. Viewing the theory of Karl Marx as Marxism, which is the one I follow, is the theory that stands for equality. He viewed Communism as a place where everybody have the same things others have, but in this case, only the necessary things, which are, Water, Food, House, and Health. With this cause, there would be no crime for ownership. Capitalism encourages private ownership. How is private ownership acquired? Money. Money means Power in a Capitalist society. In Capitalism we can say that without money, there is no life. This is why Communism is better for the People. Also, since Capitalism encourages private ownership, you can create your own business. The problem with this, is that when making a company it is not necessary to answer to government regulations, this means that practically I can sell whatever I desire, such as inside of a can, when a completely different substance can be found within. Communism is better for a Country I explained that Communism is based on equality, but I didn't mention that if a Communist country has a government then it is not Communist. In a Communist country, it would always be neutral, it would have no relations with other governments whatsoever. Capitalism means war. Capitalism were the ones to mechanized weaponry, thus lowered the cost of entry to war. Such as the United States of America. United States is currently in war with ISIS, and they made a deal with Iran to give them $20B from the tax payers, they also actually made plans to commit acts of terrorism to their own people, the North Americans. The CIA had been illegally doing experiments on Americans with drugs, this was known when George Bush revealed and apologized to the American people for having done this terrible acts. Communism is an idea of peace. This is why Communism is better for a Country. Conclusion: I have shown enough evidence that Communism is better than Capitalism as a theory. I have shown true facts and evidence. Sources: http://www.haaretz.com... http://www.usnews.com... http://foreignpolicy.com... http://www.marxist.com...
Evolution based on Abiogenesis is more Rational than Creationism

Con forfeights the debate, so at this point we are just chatting. Unfortunately my opponent thinks that I do not care what he has to say. I clearly do, which is why I tried to have a real debate with you. Clearly though Con is not interested in providing any good arguments or showing any relevent evidence he just wants to play the childish game of excuses. Con had many opportunities to show and support his case for Creationism, and show how evolution is flawed but he does not even know what true biological evolution is, and it shows with his redefinitions. If Con or anyone else for that matter showed me some serious flaws of evolution and provided a more rational alternative I would have no choice but to accept it. Unfortunately, I have yet to see any such argument or supportive evidence, Con certainly did not provide anything relevant or worthwhile throughout this entire debate. I could have argued for Con's side (way better than Con) with much more compelling arguments and evidence but I know the side of evolution just blows it out of the water. Sorry Con, I do know both sides of the argument apparently much better than you do so please spare me and the audience with your excuses and please present some kind of relevent argument, or better yet just admit that your belief is not as justified as mine. I must say sorry to the readers of this debate for my inadequacy to get a competant opposition that sticks to the focus on the debate (origins and development of life). This is already my second debate on this topic and I have yet to see any good argument against abiogenesis or evolution.
Evolution based on Abiogenesis is more Rational than Creationism

When I started this debate I believed I would learn something. I believed I would either come to believe more strongly, or I would lose it all together. Sadly that is not what happened. I am a person of facts. And the facts that the con has provided have not proved anything. He twisted my poorly spoken words because he is more experienced. Here is my final argument. Evolution based on abiogenesis requires that the universe just exist. This cannot happen. Nothing can just exist. It is ----Irrational----. Sadly this debate is no longer about what is write and what is wrong. It is about winning. Winning on a debate website. I have always loved debate because you would find out which one was right, but sadly because of my opponent it is just about winning. And yes. I do forfeit, but only because I see no purpose in spending my time to type arguments into a text box, if it wont do anything. My opponent is stubborn. He does not care what I say. He will always be right in his own eyes. I ask you, how can you debate pro if you cant see both sides.
Evolution based on Abiogenesis is more Rational than Creationism

I feel sry for my opponent. Accepting something just because everyone else does is idiotic and sheep-like. I am sorry that I was unclear when explaining evolution and creationism. I was explaining aspects of them. No religion that believes in creationism believes the universe has just been. All religions of that nature have some explanation. Please note that this is relevant to the debate. If Evolution based on Abiogenesis cant even explain where the universe came from, is it really all that rational. All atheists believe that the universe has always existed. This doesn't make any since when you think about it. Nothing can just exist. The universe cant just exist. So please. I am not forfietting, but answer my question. What is your explanation on how the universe and everything just happened?
Evolution based on Abiogenesis is more Rational than Creationism

The belief of Creationism is as follows. All of the universe was created by something such as a higher being. The belief of Evolution is as follows. Everything has always existed and has simply changed arrangement and form. Darwin did have a point. Everything is made up of abiotic substances. It is also true that with enough time anything can happen including life comming from abiotic substances, but where did the abiotic substances come from. It does not take complex logic to realize that saying," it was just always there" isn't a sound argument. Many people turn to Evolution because it makes more since. This is interesting because it takes even more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe in Creationism. In Creationism it is accepted that something cannot come from nothing, but god has always existed because he is and always has been. It is logically acceptable to say this because god is a divine figure. In order for matter to exist forever you would have to say that it was like god, which would defeat the point of Evolution which is to eliminate the need for god. One can state anything they want and it would happen eventually. Unicorns could theorettically exist. The fact of something happening does not need proof. Humans exist. The sky is blue. Therefore you could just say that it happened this way no matter how improbable. There are an infinite number of explanations for everything. And no one could say it was wrong because the outcome was correct, but their is one inescapable fact that defies Evolutions explanation for this outcome. Nothing can just exist. You have to justify everything, including matter itself. To quote the great Sherlock holmes, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." In other words I accept what tou are saying. It is quite possible for life to spontaneously form, but it must form from matter, and matter must form from something that is not matter. Because nothing can form from itself. Evolutionists have been hung up on creating a way for life to begin. Sadly, this has caused them to ignore the fact that matter can't just exist. I am aware of my dissadvantage, but I am also aware of yours. You have given me plenty of facts to support something theoretical. Because life exists, something must have caused it to exist. You spent forever just listing facts and quotes that everyone allready knows. Yet the jury is still out on whcih is right. You are an excellent debater, but you believe anybody with a degree. A degree does not mean that everything that comes out of your mouth is correct. You have fallen into a pit of self questioning. Just to say, Darwin was a christian untill his wife died and he tried to elliminate god because he didnt understand why god would do that. So isnt funny how Evolution came from lack of understanding. Thank you, and I hope you will give me your vote.
Evolution based on Abiogenesis is more Rational than Creationism

Important Definitions:Evolution - Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.Natural Selection - The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.Abiogenesis - The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter. Also called autogenesis, spontaneous generation.God - A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.Creationism - the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.Rules:1) 10,000 characters will be allotted for each round of debate. All arguments and sources must be made within these 10,000 characters; nothing within in the comment section should be counted. Any glitch which would allow a debater to bypass this 10,000 character limit is strictly prohibited.2) Any tactic which could be reasonably seen as semantics is forbidden.3) The burden of proof is shared.Breaking any of these rules will result in an automatic loss (via voters awarding all 7 points to the other participant). By accepting this debate, my opponent accepts and agrees to these rules.We will be debating whether or not evolution after abiogenesis is more rational than Creationism based on accurate peer-reviewed evidence as well as logically sound arguments. I would prefer Con to accept the definitions and rules above before accepting the debate. I want a genuine believer to argue and show his/her best evidence and reasoning for an actual, observable, and provable account of Creationism. First round is for acceptance. My previous debate on the same topic resulted in Con forfeighting the last two rounds. I hope that the debator who accepts this debate, will stick to their convictions and fulfill all five rounds with relevant arguments. I hope to have a stimulating and worthwhile debate with Con.