BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gun bans wont work (creating new laws to ban ALL guns)

There are changes that can be made to reduce gun-related crime. I actually don't fully agree with an assault weapons ban. It only covers a fraction of the gun crimes committed in the US, and it wouldn't get all of the weapons covered by it out of the hands of criminals. However, I see the opposition to it as silly: It was in effect for 10 years and nobody challenged its constitutionality. The Supreme Court even agreed that it is reasonable that the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right. In addition, the government did not try to take over, and nobody confiscated guns (existing weapons were grandfathered, they were legal to possess and transfer). Now, universal background checks are common sense and I strongly agree with this idea. If you look at most recent shooters, you'll notice a trend of buying guns in scenarios where they are either not given a background check or given an insufficient one. We could have prevented these shootings by not doing a half-assed job of making sure we aren't selling guns to known criminals and mentally ill people. And, of course, unless you are a felon or are mentally ill, you have nothing to worry about. A commonly raised counter-argument is that criminals will get guns through the black market. However, you have to take into account that people have a limit to their determination, and that most criminals are complete idiots who aren't that well-connected anyway. There is a golden rule for security - if there is something meant to prevent someone from doing something, then it will be circumvented by someone determined to get around it. You can't get around this. You can't stop 100% of violence. But you can make it difficult enough that most people won't have the willpower to do it. It is valid to argue that this comes at the cost of inconveniencing legitimate, law-abiding gun owners. This is why I mainly advocate background checks - there isn't much to worry about unless you are mentally ill or are a convicted felon. I feel that I should also point out that nobody is proposing a complete ban on all firearms.
gun bans wont work (creating new laws to ban ALL guns)

As I have stated before on rounds 1 and 2, the main thing which stricter gun control laws would do is make it more difficult for felons and the mentally ill to get guns through legal channels. Most guns used in high-profile shootings can be traced back to a legal gun sale where there was an insufficient or no background check. If we make this impossible, then criminals will have to resort to illegal means to get guns, which would be more difficult and more expensive. This would be something we have little control over beyond attempting to tighten security against black marketeers. While a determined criminal WILL get a gun, not all criminals are determined enough to get a gun illegally. And, of course, anyone who isn't a felon or mentally ill would pass a background check, therefore, they would not be subject to the extra need of determination for acquiring a gun. A total ban could only work as well as it could be enforced. However, the golden rule of security prevents this. There is always a loophole. Your murder rates are slightly (read: extremely) exaggerated. Washington's murder rate is 23 per 100,000. Indianapolis's murder rate is 13 per 100,000. In addition, Washington's population density is 10,298/sq mi while Indianapolis has a population density of 2,273/sq mi. Higher density cities naturally have higher crime rates. Therefore, this is a very inaccurate comparison. Furthermore, Chicago's homicide rate is 15.2 as of 2010. This is fairly close to Indianapolis.
gun bans wont work (creating new laws to ban ALL guns)

i think drugs are a good example of how easy it is to sneak something into the U.S. yes i understand there is a big difference, but that is not my point. also im talking about banning all guns, not just some. there are many people who believe all guns should be banned. this is the case i was talking about. how are we going to do background checks for criminals who obtain them illegaly? again Chicago is a great example on how gun laws would not work. 1982 chicago banned all hand guns, of course besides police, etc. look at the crime rate. all those gun murders were dont with illegal guns. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun. Washington DC 's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis ' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics." The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals http://www.rulen.com... yes i understand that these are sarcasm comments, but i think they make really good points.
gun bans wont work (creating new laws to ban ALL guns)

There are plenty of illegally obtained guns. I'm not denying that. However, many guns that were used in high-profile shootings were actually obtained through legal channels. The fact that known felons and people with documented mental health issues are getting guns through legal channels is an embarrassment, and something needs to be done about it. While it is impossible to know if these shooters would have bought their gun off the black market if they knew that they couldn't acquire a gun as easily as they did, it would stop part of them. This is as good as you can get with anything like this - there will always be one very determined person who will get one anyway, but it still would prevent countless others from doing so. While criminals don't follow laws, they have to deal with those of us who do. We can't directly take guns from criminals, but we can make it much more difficult for them to get them in the first place. Furthermore, background checks wouldn't have to be a burden on law abiding citizens. If background checks were able to be performed from a centralized database over the Internet, background checks would be about as easy as a Google search. This type of system would have potential for more thorough background checks that are also quicker. Now, black market gun sales would have a spike in popularity if universal background checks are implemented. This problem could only be dealt with by tighter enforcement of gun trafficking laws. I do support Mayors Against Illegal Guns on making gun trafficking a federal crime - in fact, I heard that the Senate just reached a deal to do just that.
gun bans wont work (creating new laws to ban ALL guns)

I know and understand that the government is not trying to put a full stop on guns. Now how would these laws work? Say we ban guns in general. Who's that going to affect? Good people follow laws, bad people don't follow laws. Banning guns would be a law (any type of gun). You would be taking guns out of good people's hands while it would have no effect on the criminals who don't follow laws. And you can't say we would be able to take guns away from criminals. It's not possible. There are way to many guns out there for the government to take away, (any gun). Chicago for example has very strict gun control yet has one of the biggest gun murder rates in America. So many guns used by criminals are obtained illegally, how would gun laws help this? How is the government doing background checks going to stop a man from selling a gun to someone in a dark ally? (You know what I mean) My point is, they wouldn't work to stop criminals only to keep actual law abiding citizens from owning guns. Criminals don't follow laws and there is nothing they can do to take away their guns. They can't track millions of illegal immigrants and there's a chance they can track any guns? Making stricter gun laws would only be a burden on the law abiding citizens.
Carbon dating is an accurate way to determine the age of the earth

I accept. I'll do definitions here to make sure we dont get into a fight over it during the single match debate. Carbon dating: The determination of the approximate age of an ancient object, such as an archaeological specimen, by measuring the amount of carbon 14 it contains[1] accurate: precise, not flawed, free from error. [2] [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Marriage equality should be accepted and allowed

My opponent hasn't clarified whether he wants to debate over gay marriage or North Carolina politics. Marriages are costly. The state should not allow gay marriage if it has no chance of propagating society, and thus will drain society every time. [1] Also, studies show that children need both male and female parents.[2] A gay union would deny this to the child.1. [http://www.freerepublic.com...]2. [http://www.cfcidaho.org...]Thanks
Marriage equality should be accepted and allowed

My opponent Has failed to give any rebuttals to my former points. I fell that my opponent either is flustered or doesn't care. If the republicans of North Carolina had been confident in there ability to win the marriage amendment they would have voted on it in November. I am suspecting my opponent is going to pull the religion card. Do I believe it is a sin yes. Do i believe it needs to be regulated by the government. NO! I again look forward to my opponents rebuttal.
Capitalism Is a Just Economic System

Let's go with the challenge. Full ResolutionCapitalism is a just economic system.BoP is on pro.DefinitionsCapitalism: "A system of economics based on the private ownership of capital and production inputs, and on the production of goods and services for profit." (I'm going to specifically refer to Laissez Faire Capitalism as opposed to a mixed-economy; I'll cover that more in my opening argument.)[1]Just: "Based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." (This isn't the only definition I'm going to use; I'm also going to define this more in my opening argument.)[2]Economic System: "An organized way in which a state or nation allocates its resources and apportions goods and services in the national community."[3]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No overuse of semantics (this debate may warrant some semantics), and no trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate.5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument.Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://www.investopedia.com...[2]: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[3]: http://www.businessdictionary.com...
National debt

Yes it is true economies benefit in the short run from government stimulus. But when the government spends money it removes it from the economy in one of 3 ways, taxation, inflation and debt. So stimulus is really just a fancy way of saying moving money from one place to another and allocating resources to unproductive sectors of the economy. First of all, most of the National debt is not to china it's to the people of the United States, and the way it's normally paid off is with more debt. In essence, the FED simply declares more dollars exist and credit banks with money in order to lend to the treasury to pay of its debt. Since the money is printed, that devalues the dollar and means that lenders are being paid back in dollars that are worth less than what they lent out. So why are they accepting money from the United States government? Think about the housing bubble... Why were so many investing in that sector? It couldn't have been because housing was so valuable, otherwise there wouldn't have been the drop in prices. It was based on the idea that you could hand it off to someone else and make money off of it. It's the same thing with the dollar. It really isn't all that valuable, it's just easy to hand off to other people because interest rates are so low. Eventually people start maxing out there cards and you run out of other people. With interest rates this low people are able to spend beyond their means, that isn't going to last. And to your point about the US economy being consumer driven. America is consuming way more than we produce. I think it would help if it was a little less consumer driven.
National debt

1. While it may seem counter-intuitive, economies are consumer-driven. In order for people to have money in order to BE consumers, from time to time, it is necessary for the government to stimulate the economy by supplementing income, particularly the income of people who otherwise don't have money to spend. 2. And what, really, is the harm? Economies often improve even when they are deficit spending, and often contract when they are paying national debt down. While you will hear a lot of alarmist rhetoric about China or other nations owning much US debt, these fears are rarely completed with an actual allegation of what will happen if debts take longer to pay off. It isn't in China's best interest to ruin our economy, nor to attack us for the money. And if they wanted the latter, they'd hardly need to own debt to do that. Some argue inflation will skyrocket as we borrow more, but the dollar has remained amazingly stable against other currencies throughout the spendy Bush years and into Obama's term as President as well. 3. Lastly, people often make the mistake of equating national debt with personal debt. If YOU are in huge amounts of debt, you can be incarcerated, impoverished, or even killed by these poor financial decisions. Nation-states on the other hand are effectively immortal, and they cannot be imprisoned or "kicked out" the way an individual can. While I'm not arguing that debt is GOOD, I do think it is a massive distraction from bigger economic problems, such as the consolidation of more wealth into less hands.
National debt

I am going to try to conclude this succinctly. 1. Con has introduced many new topics and examples for what are essentially the same point "If we don't get a handle on our debt it's gonna be bad." I would submit that Con has done nothing to make these fears concrete for the reader. 2. Con has not provided connecting points that illustrate exactly HOW putting a stop to US deficit spending will equate new jobs. 3. Con has not properly refuted the premise that money which ends up in government is ultimately re-circulated through-out the economy. 4. Pro has demonstrated how deficit spending, as a stop-gap temporary measure, can in fact stimulate the economy and eventually result in the funds necessary to pay that debt back. 5. Pro has illustrated the lack of harm that really comes from deficit spending despite the fear-mongering about it. 6. Pro appreciates this debate and would like to extend thanks to Con for taking the time to engage in the conversation. Looking forward to more.
National debt

The purpose of the clothing store story was to explain on a small scale how growth that's brought about through borrowed funds isn't really growth. Why? Because businesses expand thinking that the borrowed money actually reflects the consumers actual purchasing power, but in reality the consumer is living beyond his or her means. Eventually they have to pay back what they owe. The economy is expanding in order to accommodate purchasing power that is only temporary. People are able to buy more than what they earn right now. But eventually they won't be able to buy even as much as they earn because they'll have to pay back what they borrowed plus interest at which point the phony wealth evaporates. But hold that thought for just one moment. Now a specific event.... That's a tricky one but I'll do my best to be as specific as possible.... When you print money it devalues the dollar, Keynesians won't even debate you on that. Therefore when you're paying off debt with printed money you're paying back lenders in money that was worth less than what was lent out. They'd be losing money if it weren't for the fact that its so easy to lend the money out and make more money with interest. But what do people need to borrow money? A means to pay it back, most likely a job. And when the phony wealth evaporates, like I talked about before, people start losing their jobs as a result of businesses over expanding. That's going to greatly reduce the demand to borrow and at that point it becomes to risky to lend to the us government. Their good faith and credit won't be adequate in backing the dollar because that credit will have dried up. And then comes the hyper inflationary correction in the market. Now to your point about the rich hoarding money... Of course wealth distribution is an issue, but your solution is the problem, and that is a more concentrated form of government. But if you go back to late 19th century to about 1890 when the United States passed Britain as the wealthiest nation, that was when the poor man had the easiest time improving his life. If you exclude the newly immigrated, at that time the income gap was much smaller. But of course the man who just sailed from Italy with nothing but the clothes on his back is going to be poor compared to the man who's been living here longer and has had time to establish himself. At that time the federal government spent about 3 percent of GDP, now it's over 20 percent and the income gap is huge. I'm gonna be provocative here and say correlation equals causation in this case and I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Yes the dollar is stable now but eventually we're going to be held accountable for the trillions we've borrowed and spent. Devaluation doesn't happen over night, just like when the FED is forced to remove dollars from circulation it won't regain value over night and we'll be in the midst of a crisis.
National debt

So I'd love to get into a more general discussion of economics in general, but I feel like this is going to balloon badly if we try to do that, so I'm going to ignore some of the questions. Please understand that it isn't because they aren't good questions, but questions that don't really relate back to the debate in a way we'll want to try to cover in 8000 words by the end of this. Feel free to raise them as new debates, or even throw them up on the comments page and I can try to address them there. Okay, back to the points. 1. I'm not sure how to use the clothing store metaphor because I'm not entirely sure what points you're trying to relate it to. If you hire more people because you've been paid with credit, and then you cease to have customers because they run out of credit to spend, obviously, you lay off some workers, but that still isn't going to help you get new customers. If the idea is that we stop spending money, that's fine, but how does it lead to job growth? I would argue that a government willing to spend money within reason puts money in pockets that can be spent on goods and services, get saved, and eventually be used to start new businesses. A government that is obsessed with debt and retracts and retracts does nothing to help people OR the economy in any way. Austerity measures have yet to pay off for any country that has pursued them. 2. Can you tell me a very concrete event that will lead to a lack of good faith in the US? You need to actually give me a catalyst or a scenario which leads to this lack of faith...and then you have to tell me what happens as a result of that event or scenario. Do people abruptly stop accepting our money anywhere? Does it gradually depreciate in value? When? What amount of debt will trigger this reaction? 3. How does someone being successful cause others to be less successful? I didn't say that it did. What I said was that successful individuals or ventures have the potential to keep money out of economic circulation by hoarding it. The government spending money tends to allow funds to circulate to the bottom rungs of the economy and gradually work their way back up. Money that is hoarded at the top MIGHT be re-invested n business or spent domestically, but often it sits in vast accounts in the Cayman islands or other tax havens for decades, thus effectively keeping it out of the hands of all but the one who hoards it. To posit a counter-question: How does someone rich simply holding onto money and having more money help the economy? 4. My point about American currency being popular is that it sort of proves debt isn't hurting us. Your ENTIRE argument is that debt will cause other countries (or our own citizens) to lose faith in our currency and that this will somehow destroy the dollar's value. But your argument is sorely wounded by the fact that debt doesn't seem to be impacting people's faith in the dollar or its use here or abroad.
National debt

Look at it on a small scale. Lets say I own a clothing store and I noticed my sales have increased. What I don't notice however is that most of my sales were generated through credit card transactions. I decide to hire more people and expand thanks to the new inflow of sales. Eventually, however, my customers no longer can live beyond their means because they have to pay off their debt plus interest so mistaking this as real growth is a mistake. My point is, people can't borrow money to buy stuff forever. Eventually you Max out the card and at that point you run out of other people to hand the bad apple off to. And when that happens being backed by the good faith and credit of the United States government isn't going to cut it and the actual value of the dollar will be realized. What is my solution to our problem of consuming more than we produce? Allowing interest rates to come up in order to incentivize people to save and invest rather than spend. Allow wages to fall in order to make the us more competitive. Also I'd eliminate the capital gains tax. Now I have some questions for you. Is it capitalism you have a problem with? Or is it chrony capitalism that bothers you? Because I'm pretty sure the wealth distribution gap has grown with the increased role of government that we've seen, not the other way around. And if we want to get into which system has improved the life of the ordinary man I'd have to say, socialism loses pretty hard to captitalism. How does someone being successful cause others to be less successful? I'm so sick of people bringing up what other countries do with their currencies. America is the reserve currency of the world, sixty percent of all transactions world wide are made with the dollar. So what are you saying? Because a good portion of the other forty percent of currencies are manipulated, ahhh screw it! Why not the other 60 percent. Forgive me if I didn't address every point...