BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun usage in some parts of the United States should be allowed.

The use of weapons varies. It can be used for both attacking and defense. However, this house believes that the use of weapons, mainly in this case about guns, should not be put into action. Imagine a world where armed citizens exist, threatening, injuring, and even killing people. Crimes would increase as the use of guns is allowed, legally. Death rates would be higher than the average rate, crime rates would skyrocket. The once-stable nation would be in a chaotic stage of death and terror. We are not saying that all guns should be banned for using. Rifles for hunting or sports and non-lethal weapons for self-defense that are legal for use is definitely allowed if one bears the proper license for it. If the use of guns is not put into action. then we wouldn't have to face as such violent crimes. If the crime rates are lowered, we would have the less need to own self-defense weapons as the people would not likely to have an access to a gun or other "proper" weapons besides kitchen knives, hardware tools, or sharp materials. Therefore, gun usage should not be allowed.
re: The pen is mightier than the sword

Are you sure these 'underground penmenships' that overthrow oppresions aren't 'underground swordsmanships?' The American Revolution, Vietnam War, and Hitler's Europe couldn't be defeated without the power of the sword. In fact, the work of the pen is meaningless without the sword to enforce it's will. Without the sword reinforcing it, the pen has no juristiction, and does nothing but write powerless words. It's like if I said "rougeagent 21, you must argue in the following rounds how I am right and how you made a mistake in trying to debate me!" Uhhh, or else. Who am I to tell you. You don't have to listen to me. Yet, if I threatened to destroy your account, and you knew I was able to, you would sorta have to listen if you wanted your account. I'm just being hypothetical, but you get the idea. I have therefore proven that without the sword, the pen is a weakling. So considering my arguments, I urge a CON vote. Thank you.
re: The pen is mightier than the sword

"History repeats itself." This has proven itself time and time again. We can usually predict the future by what has happened in the past. When dealing with this pen proverb, I must agree. (For the sake of the debate I will agree with all of my opponent's definitions) The "pen" IS IN FACT mightier than the "sword." Going back to what I was saying earlier, history repeats itself. In the past, peoples have been oppressed by the biggest swords. But, it was never permanent. Look to the American Revolution, the Vietnam War, even Hitler's Europe. "What do those have in common?" you say. Well, In all of these, the populace was oppressed by the sword. But, who came out on top? Who, through underground "penmanship" designed for the overthrow of the sword? The sword is often overtaken by the pen, having been proved by history multiple times. "The pen is mightier than the sword." Affirmed.
re: The pen is mightier than the sword

Now for my speech. People say "the pen is mightier than the sword. Writing and words hold greater power than arms. " I beg to differ. Actually, the sword is much mightier than anything. By sword I don't literally mean a 'sword' as in 'Oh, in a fight a pen is no match for a sword! ' Even though that's true, that's not what I'm arguing. The word sword symblifies arms of any kind. The one with the bigger sword will always be victorious, no matter how powerful the opponent's pen is. By pen I mean culture, arts, literature. With a bigger sword, you inherit the products of the pen. You may claim them as your own. The one with the pen must do what you say, or they die. You have the power of life and death. With swords, things are forced. With swords, people must obey your every command if they value their lives. Swords have shaped this very world, and the ones with bigger swords have forced their cultures unto their prey to eventually make the world we live in today. That's my openning speech. Good luck to my opponent.
re: The pen is mightier than the sword

Ok then, to refute my opponent: "My opponent assumes that the pen means nothing without the sword. However; given my examples, the sword reinforcing the pen is actually a result of it. By having the pen, you have the pen itself, and the sword as well. People are roused to action, or swordsmanship, by the will of the pen. Therefore, if you have the pen, you have the power." First of all, we are debating not whether the pen is mighty or not, but if the pen is MIGHTIER than the sword. How can your argument be valid when the will of the pen has no jurisdiction without the power of the sword? This is why I have won this debate. My opponent has not proved that the pen has no power without the sword, though the sword has power without the pen. I gave the example about if I threatened him with and without any jurisdiction, and he has yet to refute that point. I told him that without arms, The American Revolution would've never happened, and neither would the defeat of Hitler's Europe occur. My opponent's logic works like this: well, since the sword would've never been used without the pen, the pen is mightier than the sword. That's completely wrong. The sword is what's mightier than the pen because the PEN HAS NO WAY TO ENFORCE ITS WILL WITHOUT ARMS. You see, for all these revolutions to occur, the people eventually needed arms to enforce their will. Otherwise, their words would be as strong as ours. ie: "This is my law or revolution or whatever: rougeagent 21 shall do everything I say." Yeah. We're friends, right? You'll listen right? Sure. "Oops, I meant or else I'll blow up your house." Now that's more like it. :) Uhhh, thank you. I urge a CON vote.
The Christian God exists

Thanks, Pro. And welcome to DDO!!!!Next time, state that round one will be for acceptance and that round two commences debate or something of that nature. Just check out some of the other debates on this site for some pointers.Since Pro has the burden of proof, as he should. I will argue against his case fulfilling my burden of rjoinder via a kritik. 1. -(The universe had a beginning)2. -(The universe is perfectly balanced)3. -(The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate designer)4. -(Something can't come from nothing. Since the universe can't cause itself, there must exist the uncreated Creator)5. -(Jesus Christ)Thanks for starting this debate, and good luck in the coming rounds!-WSA
The Christian God exists

I will be pro and arguing that the Christian God exists...... My arguments for the existance of God 1.The universe had a beginning 2.The universe is perfectly balanced 3.The complexity of our planet points to a deliberate designer 4.Something can't come from nothing. Since the universe can't cause itself, there must exist the uncreated Creator 5.Jesus Christ Definition of God: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority I will have the burden of proof....... This is my first debate so if I left anything out of thr norm please add whatever that might be.
The Christian God exists

Voting Issues1) Seeing as though my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I ask the voters to award me the conduct point as recompense. 2) Also, since my opponent hasn't upheld his burden of proof, I ask to be awarded the arguments points; please read and reread the arguments for yourself to see the holes in my opponent's arguments, how they don't tie into the resolution, and that they aren't Christianity-specific (save the Jesus non-argument). 3) For sources, I have provided many, while my opponent hasn't provided one (his one link goes to a picture). Therefore, I ask to be awarded the sources points. Thanks :DConclusion My opponent has presented no evidence that demonstrates that the Christian God exists. He merely comments on how awesome the universe is and that Jesus was a human. In all opportunistic spots, he regrets to tie direct links to the resolution, and instead babbles on incoherently. I have upheld by burden of rejoinder, while Pro has yet to have a single argument clearly affirm the resolution. He has provided zero sources for the entirety of the debate and has made zero legitimate arguments. Fighting theists and statists makes the world a better place.
The Christian God exists

Voting Issues1) Seeing as though my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I ask the voters to award me the conduct point as recompense. 2) Also, since my opponent hasn't upheld his burden of proof, I ask to be awarded the arguments points; please read and reread the arguments for yourself to see the holes in my opponent's arguments, how they don't tie into the resolution, and that they aren't Christianity-specific (save the Jesus non-argument). 3) For sources, I have provided many, while my opponent hasn't provided one (his one link goes to a picture). Therefore, I ask to be awarded the sources points. Thanks :DConclusion My opponent has presented no evidence that demonstrates that the Christian God exists. He merely comments on how awesome the universe is and that Jesus was a human. In all opportunistic spots, he regrets to tie direct links to the resolution, and instead babbles on incoherently. I have upheld by burden of rejoinder, while Pro has yet to have a single argument clearly affirm the resolution. He has provided zero sources for the entirety of the debate and has made zero legitimate arguments. I almost didn't type this debate round out, because my opponent's arguments were so flagrantly oozing with ineptitude, but I realized fighting theists and statists makes the world a better place. More sources:[1] Christopher Hitchens's speech "Indicting God for Fine Tuning"[2] . http://astro.berkeley.edu...[3] . http://dogmadebunked.blogspot.com...[4] Neil DeGrasse Tyson's speech "Fine Tuned Universe? "[5] . http://www.wnd.com...[6] irreligion: A mathematician explains why the arguments for god just don't add up; John Allen Paulos; pp.
Aliens do exist.They just haven't made themselves public yet.

Seeing that you weren't able to debunk any of my claims,AGAIN! I will just put more evidence for you. 1.The Belgium Wave: Residents of Belgium reported dozens of sightings of unidentified flying triangles which the military couldn't account for,they weren't picked up on radar and numerous photographs where taken to.prove it really happenned. http://www.ufoevidence.org... 2. Washington DC 1952 This has to be some of the military best evidence.Back when people were being ridiculed for claiming they've sighted a ufo,the beings seemed to introduce themselves to the world leaders as they flew past the White House in Washington DC. http://www.ufocasebook.com... 3. Even more intriguing is the fact that astronauts have seen ufos,Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong saw them when they where headed to the moon but you see,NASA prepared for this and therefore told the 2 astronauts to call back if they noticed something unusual,which they did.The Ufos where given code names,one being "Santa Claus" so the public wouldn't know what was being witnessed.Quoted " Every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control, who ordered absolute silence '. He added 'I think Walter Schirra, aboard Mercury 8, was the first astronaut to use the code name 'Santa Claus' to indicate the presence of Ufos '. But it was James Lovell, on board the Apollo 8 Command Module, who came out from behind the Moon and said, for everybody to hear 'Please be informed that there is a Santa Claus!' Even though this happened on Christmas Day, 1968, many people sensed a hidden meaning in those words.' http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net... http://www.syti.net... That'll be all for now until your next response.
Aliens do exist.They just haven't made themselves public yet.

Quite a boring article I must say... Nonetheless,proceed. Apart from that article you provided no other evidence whatsoever to debunk my claims which is quite disappointing really.You couldn't explain ancient hieroglyphs,the remaining 5% and you mocked the Drake Equation.Well what I provided isn't new yes but you haven't been able to debunk it either.You said it's not solid,prove it! Anyways,let me go on. (If the links aren't clickable please copy and post) 1) Have you ever heard of the Black Knight Satellite? Please try and debunk this. http://www.mysteryoftheiniquity.com... 2) We both know from our history that our ancestors weren't able to do certain things by themselves e.g Nasca lines.If you've heard of them you know they are only viewable from high altitudes.Hence having been constructed to serve a purpose for those coming in from space.These lines make images of animals,human figures etc. http://www.go2peru.com... That'll be it for now.Since we are debating the fact that can my evidence convince an ordinary citizen into believing the existence of aliens,I think I've done so and until you can debunk some of my evidence,instead of mocking it maybe you'll achieve something.
Aliens do exist.They just haven't made themselves public yet.

You presented nothing new or solid, so my response will be brief. I am happy to provide any specific clarifications. 1) Outside the scope of this debate. 2) Debunked here: http://www.csicop.org... 3) Pro admits that most sightings are false. Not an argument. 4) http://xkcd.com... http://xkcd.com... Anything else?
Aliens do exist.They just haven't made themselves public yet.

You cannot just go on to say that " Eye witness testimony is extremely unreliable. People have been misreporting and misremembering their observations for all of human history." without being able to back it up.If your claims are true then it means all the.hieroglyphs ancient humans left for us are misleading and that they "misremembered" what they saw.I believe extraterrestrials have been on Earth for reasons such as: 1)Ancient humans have left clues behind,clues in the form of hieroglyphs of aircrafts which look more like modern flying machines.It is quite impossible for humans living miles upon miles away from each other with no.means of communication whatsoever to depict what looks almost the same.This leads to one conclusion,which is that they where being visited by some sort of advanced flying crafts which where obviously navigated by intelligent beings. www.xfacts.com/old/ 2) Close Encounters are one class of encounters reported by our people.It is one thing seeing a UFO but it is entirely another having been taken on board one.I'm sure you want proof,of which I don't have but many victims have had radiation poisoning from these objects and have been treated for radiation poisoning. www.ufocasebook.com/Pineywoods.html 3) I believe the fact that most UFO sightings are nothing but misidentified objects.In fact,stats have shown that approximately 95% of these sightings can be easily explained,it is the remaining 5% that worries me.And no I am.not suggesting that if it cannot be explained it is alien. 4)The universe is too big of a place to think that we are "alone" There are over 1billion known galaxies in our universe,each of which contains millions of stars,stars which,much like our own.sun,have planets orbiting them in the habitable zone.To think that we are alone in this universe would be really an ignorant thing to do.The Drake Equation also supports my claims. www.setileague.org/general/drake.htm
Aliens do exist.They just haven't made themselves public yet.

Key concepts An extraterrestrial is an intelligent being from a planet other than Earth. The proposition that Pro is defending is that there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to conclude that extraterrestrials are currently on Earth. I deny that proposition, and will address the evidence Pro presents to demonstrate that a reasonable person would not conclude that extraterrestrials are on Earth but would instead draw another conclusion to explain the evidence (or fail to draw any definite conclusion at all). As a threshold matter, consider the following: 1) Eye witness testimony is extremely unreliable. People have been misreporting and misremembering their observations for all of human history. 2) Literally thousands of examples of intially unidentified flying objects (UFOs) have subsequently been explained and identified, having been shown to be, among other things: flocks of birds, stars, planets, atmospheric phenomena, insects, photographic flaws, buildings, and conventional aircraft. Even experienced pilots have reported "impossible UFOs" that were later conclusively demostrated to be civilian aircraft or naturally-occurring phenomena. Because of so many "false alarms" over the years, there is a high threshold of evidence necessary to determine that a UFO represents an extraterrestrial phenomenon and is not more likely to be something else. I look forward to addressing Pro's evidence.
The Bible is not evidence for God

"Here in America we a lot of times we use God (capital "G") as a synonym for the god of the bible. I sorry if you thought my grammar was unsatisfactory." There are a few spelling and grammar errors in your work but it's not the grammar which is the problem. It is the presumption that everyone who reads the bible perceives the God in it to be an "invisible friend" in the sky and perceives the bible as a historical accurate document . The fact is that the bible is perceived in many different ways and so is the word God. "I think the title is fine. We just have different options. Instead debating me, you should have left a comment expressing your views." I chose to debate the way I did to point out that any fictional story can be used as evidence of the characters within it. It is not necessary for any book to be historically accurate for it to be evidence of what is written within its own pages. Therefore it's historical accuracy is irrelevant to the title of the debate.
The Bible is not evidence for God

"I say again in spite of your denial that you did not specify which God you were talking about or whether you were talking about a mythical God or a real God." Here in America we a lot of times we use God (capital "G") as a synonym for the god of the bible. I sorry if you thought my grammar was unsatisfactory. " Apparently Pro is confused about a lot of things and can't make up his mind whether he wants to know or does not want to know an answer" I did not want you to answer at that part in the debate but rather, the end of my statement. "I picked this debate to prove that there is more than one way to perceive God and the title "God" can be used to relate to any real rulers and judges as well as being perceived as a mythical character." I don't know anyone who is arguing agents that. "If you wish to debate whether the bible is a historically accurate document you need to start a new debate and make sure you explain to the opposition that they will need to prove the historical existence of talking animals and dragons with seven heads if they take on the challenge." I think the title is fine. We just have different options. Instead debating me, you should have left a comment expressing your views.
The Bible is not evidence for God

First off I would like to clarify one thing. By "Accurate and correct" I mean historically true. "The bible is very good evidence that stories of God exist. In order for the bible to be evidence of its own stories, no person needs to prove the stories are accurate and correct." Why is the Bible good evidence. I'm very disappointed that you did not explain why it is. "In order for the stories about Santa to be evidence of the Santa character in the stories, you have to prove the stories are accurate and correct. " In order to believe in Santa, you have to have prove he exists. You can believe in things without proof, but that is a different topic. " Mythical stories contain mythical characters and the evidence of those characters is obviously in the stories themselves. That principle applies to all imaginary characters including the one named God." So your saying if I told you a story about a dragon that lived in a cave in my yard, that story would provide enough logical evidence to prove that dragon's existence? What kind of logic is that? And did you just call your god imaginary? By the way your god's name is Yahweh, not God. But call him whatever you'd like. "Stories do not need to be proven to be accurate and historically correct for a myth or concept to exist. The story is evidence of the existence of the mythical character regardless of whether the story is historically accurate or not." Not to exist, no. But to be taken seriously, yes. You must believe that Christoper Columbus rode a magical dolphin to find the New World. "Mythical characters might not exist in reality but the characters do exist in the fantasy realm. To deny that is quite foolish. Why does anyone need to prove the accuracy of a myth? Since when do mythical stories and allegories need to be accurate and correct to prove that the characters in them exist in the stories?" Yes, imaginary figures that have not been proven to exist only exists in your mind. You need to prove the accuracy of a myth so that we can separate fact from fiction and so we can experience the universe in a more logical state of mind. That's why Greek Mythology is not followed anymore. So based on your reasoning, it is safe to say that you believe in every god and every mythological creature ever told. You still have not prove to me that your holy book is true. Resources: ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof (Sep 24, 1996) ISBN 0802838200 pages47-51 ^ Jump up to: a b c d Mercer dictionary of the Bible by Watson E. Mills, Roger Aubrey Bullard 1998 ISBN 0-86554-373-9 page 336 ^ Jump up to: a b The Ten Commandments: Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church by Patrick D. Miller (Aug 6, 2009) ISBN 0664230555 page 111 ^ Jump up to: a b Theology of the New Testament by Georg Strecker (2000) ISBN 0664223362 page 282
The Bible is not evidence for God

The debate topic claims the bible is not evidence of God. I take the position that the bible is indeed evidence of the character named God. The bible is very good evidence that stories of God exist. In order for the bible to be evidence of its own stories, no person needs to prove the stories are accurate and correct. All myths are self evident. For Pro to claim that in order for the bible to be evidence, its stories need to be proven to be accurate and correct is much like saying "In order for the stories about Santa to be evidence of the Santa character in the stories, you have to prove the stories are accurate and correct. " That is illogical reasoning when you are talking about a mythical story in the first place. Mythical stories contain mythical characters and the evidence of those characters is obviously in the stories themselves. That principle applies to all imaginary characters including the one named God. Stories do not need to be proven to be accurate and historically correct for a myth or concept to exist. The story is evidence of the existence of the mythical character regardless of whether the story is historically accurate or not. Mythical characters might not exist in reality but the characters do exist in the fantasy realm. To deny that is quite foolish. Why does anyone need to prove the accuracy of a myth? Since when do mythical stories and allegories need to be accurate and correct to prove that the characters in them exist in the stories?
There is literally no proof that God exists

I apologize to my opponent for my lack of attempting to debate. But my computer isn't really good for this kind of stuff. It's old and slow so I have to keep it small and sweet or my computer will take forever to submit my counter. And about your counter to what I said. If people like you actually paid attention to certain events they'll see that the lord had something to do with it, and you'd all realize that there's proof. All that proof you say that there is "literally" none of, is all around you, y'all just pass it off as random coincidences. Others just rearrange the facts to prove their point. And if y'all don't want to believe, that's not my problem, just don't do stuff like this, and actually pay attention to every little detail.