BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun control in the United States

However, he has not stated exactly which guns should be banned. I would like to know, in this debate, how many rounds would cause a gun to be banned. I would also like to ask if the ban covers all people including the military, etc. Arguments Guns are dangerous weapons and only have one purpose-kill. When guns are easily bought, people can easily get them and use them. Mark, a boy, gets frustrated with his mother. He soon gets very angry, and remembers that there are guns in the house. He takes a gun and shoots his parents and his younger siblings. Well, this case is true. Nehemiah Griego was Mark. He used the gun because he was angry and it was convenient. Imagine a man in debt and also owning a gun. He decides to rob a supermarket and points the gun at someone at the register. The person at the register attempts to push the alarm button, and out of panic, he shoots him. My arguments are short due to the word limit
Gun control in the United States

Gun control is a major topic in the US nowadays, so I am pleased that my opponent started this debate. I look forward to hearing new, fresh points. As Pro I will be arguing that gun control should be administered in the US. Con has not mentioned any rules, so let me propose my own. 1. No swearing or calling names 2. Arguments and rebuttals are allowed at all times, but no new arguments should be put forth in the last round. Con has not stated the definition of "gun control" in this debate. Please state it in the next round.
Gun control in the United States

First off I would like to say that gun control became a hot topic again after Sandy Hook. Taking away guns or banning the sale of them would be violating the second amendment. Taking away guns would also threaten the security of citizens. Taking away assault rifles will only affect the law abiding citizens. Criminals will still obtain assault rifles and other guns through the black market. Its much faster for someone to pull out a gun when someone is breaking in to your house. The police take longer to arrive to help and someone just simply shooting that criminal as self defense. A gun is a hunk of metal without the control of a human being. Guns do not have souls, people do. So should spears be banned in Zimbabwe because they "kill", I do not think so. Just like guns, a spear is just a inanimate object that can't do anything without a human being. In conclusion, gun control will cause a series of problems and crimes, though better background checks are good.
Gun control in the United States

"criminals could carry multiple mags in their coats" Yes, they could, but it take time to reload, which buys time for the victim to defend. "taking away guns would leave law abiding citizens defenseless" Again, refer back to the previous round. If no guns were in the market, criminals wouldn't have guns unless they owned a factory. (. http://www.themoscowtimes.com...) This article proves that the point about being 'defenceless without a gun' is wrong.
Gun control in the United States

First, I am sorry about the grammar mistakes, debate.org didn't detect them. I know that stones aren't used these days to kill, but stones and guns do have the potential to kill. My point was that should you ban stones just because they have the potential to kill? Limiting magazine sizes wouldn't stop crime, criminals could carry multiple mags in their coats, pockets etc. I know that guns and archery can help people. I was just giving a useful example of why guns are ok for citizens to have. But if you had to face a gang, who would win? You with the bow and arrow, or them with the shotguns, assault weapons, pistols, etc. of course they would. Like I said, guns aren't only meant to kill, they help develop skill and are used for hunting game. In conclusion, taking away guns would leave law abiding citizens defenseless.
Gun control in the United States

"I am not taking about" Grammar mistake "knifes" spelling mistake "Does that mean stones should be banned?" No, have you ever heard of anyone being killed with stones nowadays? "Round limits would not stop criminals from obtaining large magazines, just law-abiding citizens." If there were no such magazines in the market, unless the criminal owned a gun factory, it would be impossible. "There was a person(s) in..." My opponent has not stated the source so I cannot check it. "They help people develop accuracy and skill." Archery can do that too. I look forward to hearing my opponent's rebuttals. Sorry for the short points but i am restricted by the word limit.
Gun control in the United States

Mark was most likely mentally messed up. Its the parent's fault for placing their guns in obvious places. If Mark didn't know where they were, then that would have not happened. I am not taking about the government restricting the guns in the military, but to the citizens of the United States of America. Just about every "real" gun can kill. Round limits would not stop criminals from obtaining large magazines, just law-abiding citizens. There was a person(s) in China after sandy hook who killed 33 people using knifes. Like I said, guns cannot do anything without the control of a human being. Remember the story of David and Goliath, David used a sling shot and stone to kill Goliath. Does that mean stones should be banned? Killing is not the only purpose for guns. Guns can be used for hunting. Guns can also be used for sporting such as target practice. They help people develop accuracy and skill. In conclusion, guns are helpful for defense, skills, and hunting game.
Lame Jokes

What did the ghost say to the wall? Hey, just passing through. Why was the scientists head all wet? he had a brain storm. What did one plate say to the other? Lunch is on me. Why do you go to bed? Because the bed won't come to you. What did one fish say to the other? If you keep your mouth closed you will not get caught. Why are fish so smart? Because they live in schools. What is black and white, white and black, black and white? A zebra caught in a revolving door!! Why did the cook get arrested? Because he beat up an egg.
Lame Jokes

A length of rope walks into a bar. The bartender looks at him and says “get out, we don’t serve ropes in here!” The rope goes outside and cuts himself in half and ties his two sections together. Not pleased with his appearance, he takes a comb and combs out his ends. He walks back into the bar and the bartender says “hey, aren’t you that rope I just kicked out?” And the rope replied “no, I’m a frayed knot.”
Lame Jokes

A guy goes to his psychiatrist wrapped in plastic. His psychiatrist says "I can see your nuts". What did the racist parrot say? Polly want a cracker. What do you call it when a zoophile has sex with a dog? Screwing the pooch. If a zoophil and a dog have a son, what do you call him? A son of a b1tch. Why is it good to have sex with Jesus? Because when you yell "oh Jesus' during sex, it aint blasphemy. What is the difference between a pregnant woman and a lightbulb? You can unscrew the lightbulb. How many Republicans does it take to change a lightbulb? Zero, they fear change. What did Winnie the Pooh call his nanny? A Poohnanny. How did Hitler tie his shoes? Little knotsies. Would you rather eat a pound of bricks or a matter baby? What's a matter baby? Nothing sweetie, how about you? How many Democrats does it take to change a lightbulb? I don't know either, it hasn't been legislated yet.
Lame Jokes

What do you call it when a dinosaur crashed his car? Tyrannosaurus Wrecks What do you call a pig that does karate? A PORK CHOP Why is the ocean blue? Because all the little fish go blu, blu blu. What do you call a deer with no eye? No idea There were four grannies and a fatman standing in a line. Nanna, Nanna, Nanna, Nanna, Fatman! Did you hear about the fire at the circus? IT WAS IN TENTS What's the best way to carve wood? Whittle by whittle. Did you hear about the Hyena who drank a pint of gravy? He was a laughing stock! What did the grape say after the elephant sat on it? Nothing, it just let out a little whine! How does a lion like his meat? ROAR Why couldn't Dracula's wife get to sleep? Because of his coffin. What did the cobbler say when a cat wandered into his shop? Shoe! Why did Cinderella get kicked off the softball team? Because she ran away from the ball! What type of music do mummies listen to? WRAP MUSIC!
Lame Jokes

How did Hitler tie his shoes? Little knotsies (Nazis). What is the difference between a pregnant woman and a lightbulb? You can unscrew the lightbulb? What did Winnie the Pooh call his nanny? A Poonanny. How many Republicans does it take to change a lightbulb? Zero, they fear change. How many Democrats does it take to change a lightbulb? I don't know either, it has not been legislated yet. How many Libertarians does it take to change a lightbulb? No taxes! Why are zombie apocalypses sexy? You have an excuse to say "eat me" What do you call it when a zoophile has sex with a dog? Screwing the pooch. What do you call it when a zoophile has a son by a dog? A son of a b1tch.
Lame Jokes

Make up the lamest jokes that you can. Good luck! A guy walks into a bar and sees 3 pieces of meat hanging from the ceiling. The guy asks, "What's this about?" The bartender replies, "Well, if you can jump up and slap the meat, you get free drinks for the rest of the night. If you miss, you pay for everyone's drinks for the next hour. You wanna do it?" The guy replies, "Nah, the steaks are too high."
Music Composition Contest

Introduction This debate is a competition of music compositional skills. Here I intend to isolate technical acuity of the composition as a key area of the debate. To this end, I desire that voters on this debate use the following criterion to distribute points in a weighted fashion:VotingS/G (1 point): Subjective desirability -Which composer created pieces that were, overall, more enjoyable to listen to?Conduct (1 point): Which composer had superior thematic relevance? Arguments (3 points): Which pieces displayed superior creativity and skill?Sources (2 points): Which composer displayed greater fluency in form and technical structure of the piece? StructureThis debate will involve 2 contrasting compositions. The first is to be presented in the form of sheet music written for a single instrument. The second is a digitally produced piece made via any digital audio workstation. Round 1 is for acceptance only. Round 2 will start with Pro presenting item one, followed by Con's item 1. Round 3 is for the next piece. Round 4 is a back up round in case anything bad happens in a previous round. We won't use that round if all goes well.ThemesEach round will also have a specific theme. For this debate, the theme for the first round is 'Stars,' and the theme for the second round is 'Dance.' How you interpret these words is up to you, within reason. When you post your piece, you must also choose a specific subtheme that encapsulates the piece you made and more accurately describes your interpretation of the grand theme. For example, I may write a moving piece for a flute and make my subtheme 'glitter.' This better describes the piece and also explains how my piece links to the theme of 'stars.'AdjudicationPlease only vote if you are able to use the criterion provided. This will necessitate that you read and understand music and have a grasp of some music theory. You will also need to be able to listen to music pieces hosted externally from this site.CopyrightsAll work must be original and created specifically for this debate. You may submit work you've done previously if it fits the themes, however, I would prefer the pieces to be made with the intent of this competition in mind. When submitting audio, you must acknowledge any samples, soundfonts, clips or sounds which are not your property. It is recommended that you create your own sounds or samples for this debate. Acknowledging copyrights when using sounds which are not your own is perfectly acceptable. Additional notes> Attempt to upload sheet music as pictures to this debate. Permalinks must also be provided. > When uploading music, embed using youtube and use a second source as a permalink> Your permalink for your audio must store the music in a lossless format, such as .wav> Do not use temporary file hosting services or data storage sites> If you would like to accept this debate, please indicate interest in the comments or via pm.GLHF!
Debate.org should have a better search

I think the search engines have become intelligent over the period of time and you should agree with that. Anything you do not know or understand, what's your first thought---------let me guess Oh ya ........GOOGLE IT. And if you think GOOGLE ain't intelligent enough, no one can argue with you,sir. Try out finding anything on GOOGLE or BING , you will get it.And, I believe you do not know how a search engine like GOOGLE works so please have a look at it also. Thank You
The world is coming to an end because of Global Warming

While you make good observations, I do believe the sites you have given as evidence were proved false by NASA and many Global Warming Specialist Networks. CO2 rises first, yes, and this causes the heat levels to rise, like a chain reaction. I do not argue with the fact that the Oceans release Carbon Dioxide, but there have always been enough trees and plants that absorb the gas. Our intervention with the forests and wildlife has made this natural cycle unbalanced, and the lack of trees in the world are letting the CO2 gas to spread more and more into the air, absorbing more sunlight rays and trapping the heat within our atmosphere. This, with the addition to excess CO2 release from fossil-fuel powered machines is having devastating consequences on the environment, and practically the air we breathe.You have mentioned that the last Ice-age didn't wipe out everything, and you are completely right, there are many evolved animals on this Earth today that survived the ice-age. However, may I remind you that we are not debating about ice-ages, we are debating about 'Global Warming'. which is a completely different matter. When Ice comes, there are ways to stay warm and alive that nature will always succeed in doing. If the world is too hot, there will be no escape for the wildlife. Water will rise in temperature as well as the land, resulting in devastating consequences as most marine animals cannot survive a 4-5 degree difference, let alone 20. Chain reactions are funny things, sometimes they have quick responses, other times they can take centuries. As I said before, your graphs are very faulty, but another reason you do not see a rise in temperature in this period of time is because C02 levels can take a long time to respond to the environment and spike the temperatures. We are only feeling the effects of CO2 released 50 years ago today. The same as we will only feel the CO2 being released now in the next fifty years. It is why we must stop emitting now.There will be no escape for anything from Global Warming, our technology is not yet developed enough to reduce Carbon Dioxide Levels, cool the earth, or even save humanity by blasting off into space. If we don't stop polluting our atmosphere now, life will cease to exist on Earth. You have asked me to prove my point, 'How will it end life, CO2 being the main culprit'. Well I must ask you, my contender, why won't it? At the rate we are going?
The world is coming to an end because of Global Warming

Well this is certainly an interesting argument presented - albeit almost completely misguided. First of all, I said 5% of greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are then an even smaller percentage of our atmosphere. But that is irrelevant. Here is a graph for you: http://www.randombio.com... Yes, CO2 levels are rising - I don't deny that. But look at this graph - what do you see? Temperature changes, then CO2 changes to follow - lagging behind a few hundred years. What does this tell us? Well, as the temperatures rise, CO2 levels rise, because the higher temperature causes the ocean to release the CO2 trapped inside it - thus, causing a global rise in CO2 levels. And telling us that every life form will die is ridiculous - I am fairly certain the last ice age didn't wipe out EVERY living cell on the planet. Now, take a look at this graph http://www.oar.noaa.gov... Here we see that the 2 are inextricably linked - as the sunspot activity increases, we see a global rise in temperature. Amazing, huh? http://www.bbc.co.uk... Also, note the cooling period between 1940-mid-1970s. This was a period of mass industrialisation - where a lot of CO2 was being released - why do we see no rise in temperature in this period? If CO2 causes the world to heat up, why do we not see this? (NB: I am not disputing whether climate change is occurring. It is. We know this. But I am disputing whether or not CO2 is responsible, and whether or not it will end all life on this planet.) So, I would like to see pro prove 2 things: 1) That CO2 is the leading cause in climate change. 2) That the world will in fact end. Please prove this.
The world is coming to an end because of Global Warming

Firstly, I am a girl. While my contender has provided a sufficient argument, there are parts of it that have been proven not true. Yes it has happened before in the history of the Earth, it is a completely natural cycle, however our contribution to Global Warming is becoming more and more of a worldwide problem. Recent study has proven that Co2 levels are rising abnormally high, and within the next fifty years temperatures will get out of hand. 5% is actually a lot of atmosphere, considering the dimentions of Earth, and with our contribution to the levels of Co2 in the air we are raising those scores. While our experts try to warn us of these problems, our own destruction is becoming oblivious to us, And by the 'entire world' ending I mean every living life form on the face of our planet. Animals will not be able to evolve fast enough to adapt to these conditions, resulting in extinction.
The world is coming to an end because of Global Warming

First of all, these statements that the world is "Going to end" because of global warming, is what I will be arguing against. Firstly, I do not deny that polar ice caps are retreating, and that the sea levels have risen *a little bit*. But, this has happened in cycles over hundreds of thousands of years - the earth has gone through countless global warming AND cooling periods. Secondly (And this is the main point in this debate in my opinion) is that CO2 does not raise the temperature of the earth. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas - but it makes up 5% of all greenhouse gases, which are in turn, a minority of our atmosphere. The other 95% is water vapour. If you look at the graph that shows the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and global temperature, you will notice that CO2 in the atmosphere does not cause temperature rise. Temperature rise causes CO2 levels to increase. As the earth gets warmer through activity of the SUN, the warmer temperatures cause carbon dioxide to be released from the ocean into the atmosphere - CO2 has such a MINOR effect on climate, it isn't really even a factor. And thirdly, my opponent has provided to evidence at all to back up his claims. Thank you.
We can all ignore Gender

Since there is a limit on the number of words in this debate. (Red fox really needs to expand this. You are simply giving me a disadvantage. ) I am going to go brief. A. Gender Terms keep changing and growing exponentially. That is true, However, Terms, Aren't what Gender itself really is. My opponent argued on how gender definition changes frequently, And somehow deems it ignorable. Despite his arguments does make sense, The thing I emphasize upon is the fact that gender is something much more bigger, It is an industry/field that focuses and conducts researches on treatments between male and female workers and also discrimination based upon gender. B. Everyone have the responsibility and time to understand outstanding issue in gender problem. When I say that people have the responsibility and time, In our current day and age, It simply means swiping through your phone to get the latest updates. One of the most outstanding issue should be the #MeToo movement, Started from the online social platform in 2016, It quickly expanded into a huge movement that focuses on woman's treatment in industries such as film. It doesn't take much effort and time like my opponent suggested to understand something that is easily reachable and understandable on your phone. C: Despite most of the world's population falls into male and female categories, It doesn't necessarily means that we can ignore those who are left out. Perhaps the easiest and the strongest argument of all 5, My opponent talks about how most people classify themselves as either male or female. However, In my understanding, My opponent is basically saying that: because so many people are identifying themselves as either male or female, Let's not pay attention to the ones who are left. (Next time, Say your argument more carefully. ) Not only is this argument against the human right which states that we are all equal: (http://www. Un. Org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/), But it is also against our current social ideology, In which we style ourselves as equal, Democracy and freedom. D: I am running out of words, However, My opponent talk about the list being too big, These lists aren't intended for you anyway, Used in only sociological researches, These words are ProFessional. F: Finally, My argument would be: You can choose to ignore gender, But it is every person's right to choose to ignore gender. While some may certainly be blacked out about it, It doesn't take many efforts and is simple to learn and you will certainly benefit from learning it. Going without the knowledge of gender in this society, Is Dangerous.