BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control

Many young kids are taught at a young age how to handle a gun and by restricting gun laws you will prevent them from learning this skill. Do not limit a child's education by controlling guns. like i said if you control guns more then the black market could eaisally sell millions but if we get less leanent on gun control we could protect our children as well by allowing teachers to carry weapons. Arming teachers with guns will result in safer classrooms and we will be able to defend ourselves from potential criminals. Works Cited Wogan, J. "Advancing the Debate: Should Teachers Carry Guns? "March 13, 2013 : Governing the States and Localties. 21 Oct. 2013.
Gun Control

Gun control is wrong on several different levels. What happens when someone makes a mistake when in their life and they have a serious crime on their record and they cannot get a firearm that they feel they need to protect their family after they realize what they had done was wrong? How can we take their personal right to protect themselves away? If guns were banned whos to say the black market wouldnt start selling millions? What im saying is there will always be firearms around no matter how strict the laws on gun control are. " Studies have shown that locations where guns have been outlawed, neighborhood burglaries increased. We cannot rely on the police to deter crime. Remember: the police arrive after a crime has been committed." People who have crimes on their record will not be able to purchase weapons, sounds good, but what happens to the criminals who actually understand what they have done wrong and now cannot protect themselves by purchasing a firearm. People could also be discouraged from purchasing a gun do to this "rigorous" check. Works Cited Bentleym, Thomas. "Gun Control is Wrong on so Many Levels." April 8, 2013: N.P. The Times News. Web. 16 Oct 2013.
Gun Control

Gun Control has nothing to do with taking away citizens second amendment rights and nor did I say anything about doing so. Although times have changed since the Constitution was written and the laws have not effectively evolved with the times. Gun control is not about taking away all guns from civilian, but to limit the amount that are aquired by those who are unqualified whether it be for mental health issues or trainin g issues. The process in which you can legally buy a weapon should be more involved than it is today. It does not matter that guns cause only 8% of deaths, even one life taken by a gun in the hand of a ill qualified person is to many. "We can't stop every person who is determined to do harm, but common-sense measures can prevent tragedies. Expanding background checks will help create a uniform standard for all gun purchases and prevent criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining powerful weapons" (Giffords).WorkcitedGiffords, Gabrielle. "Gun Rights Come with Responsibility." USA TODAY. 02 Jul 2013: p. A.10. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 18 Oct 2013.
Gun Control

There should be less gun control in the united states for many reasons. One reason is in the United States 40-45% of households owned a gun. Thats about 47-53 million people who have access to a gun. With these numbers how can you take their 2nd Amendment rights away by making it harder for them to protect themselves. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This quote is taken from the constitution so who are we to take away a constitutionally protected right. In 2008, 5,340,00 violent crimes were commited in the united states. Of these about 436,00 or about 8% were commited by offenders visibly armed with a gun. Guns only cause 8% of these deaths thats less then motor vehicles, poisoning, falls, suffocation, drowning, fir/burns or being struck by or against. In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the U.S., which makes up 0.5% of 123/706 fatal accidents that year. Works Cited Agresti James."Gun Control Facts". Just Facts. 9/13/10.Web10/11/13.
Gun Control

Tighter gun regulations are needed to prevent gun-related violence. Civilians will all ways and should always have the right to bear arms, although those who own a fire arm should have proper training and background check. A more in depth process to recieving a fire arm will limit the guns we put in the hands of those who are not qualified and those with criminal intentions. "California is an exampCalifornia’s rates of killings, robberies and assaults involving firearms were all higher than the national rates. But California had lower rates of armed robberies and armed assaults that year than Arizona or Nevada, which conduct less stringent background checks for gun store sales and no checks at all for gun show or private, person-to-person sales.le of a state that implimented a background check system and have seen positive results. The Golden State definitely has a lower rate of gun deaths — including accidents, suicides and homicides — compared with the nation and many other states, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.When prospective gun buyers stride into California gun stores such as Ron Kennedy’s Canyon Sports in Martinez, they must swipe their driver’s licenses or state IDs. That sets off a review process that runs their names not only through the same FBI criminal database other states use but also almost 20 other sources, from mental health records to DMV data. It’s a check more rigorous than any other state’s."(Richman). Workcited Richman, Josh. "California's Gun Background-Check System Could Be National Model." San Jose Mercury News. 05 Feb 2013: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 16 Oct 2013.
Whites are discriminated against more than minorities are today in the US

1. Opponent claims that blacks resist arrest at a higher rate than whites. No link cited. I deny this claim. He's free to post a source in the comments. That source has to show a 2. 5x rate of resisting such that the police shooting to kill is justified to make up the difference in my claim. It will not be, And he will not be able to. 2. Opponent denies generational wealth is a concept that takes time to recover from. Even hundreds of years. Poor people tend to stay poor. Rich people tend to stay rich. There is a reason blacks per capita are twice as likely to be poor. It is either a genetic reason, To which you can not point and have no evidence for, Or it is an environmental one. Poor environments make for poor people. This is statistically proven. Your anecdotes of "All the black people I know are delinquents and get in trouble" is thoroughly uninteresting and has nothing to do with the topic. Asians and Indians are more likely to be wealthy than whites. The reason is simple. While most blacks who were brought to America were brought in chains, Statistically more Indians and Asians who traveled and immigrated to America are relatively wealthy. This is a large difference. All you have to do is step outside your bubble of an existence and look at the larger picture for just a few moments to notice these differences. 3. Black names 30% Your quote: "Did you ever think that's because they may not be qualified for the job and not due to racism? " They controlled for the qualification factor. Do you think statisticians are 12 year olds with calculators playing guessing games? They go to school for years and their whole job is to calculate for confounding variables. 4. Beating people up. Willing to put money on more blacks having been beaten by whites than blacks beating whites, Even in current day America. Neither of us has stats for this so I'm willing to drop it, But why would anyone give you points for this? 5. White people 'suffering' now. There's no need for white people to have to suffer based on what our ancestors did. The idea is just to make it to where everyone has an equal shot. Right now with how property taxes fund local schools we have rich and poor districts. This is one example of a policy that is in place now that is actively hurting equality, And something easily remedied. Have you seen the disastrous state of some schools versus the wealth of others? Public schools should all be equal. Education is supposed to be the great equalizer. With proper education and funding for it the generational wealth gap will close much faster. To conclude, First we have to recognize the problem. Next we have to talk about solutions. No white people need to 'suffer' to help black people succeed. In fact, When the population of a civilization are doing well, The whole civilization benefits. If the consumer pool shrinks, Companies do worse. Rich people do worse. If the consumer pool expands, Companies reap the rewards for their efforts and rich people do better. Life is not a zero sum game. Don't be one of the people who see it as such. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
Whites are discriminated against more than minorities are today in the US

" here are more whites in jail than blacks. You would expect this based on the population distribution. The statistic doesn't say that more blacks are jailed than whites. It is saying police shoot AND KILL blacks twice as often. This means that police officers tend to shoot to kill against blacks twice as often as whites. " This statistic does not account that blacks resist arrest and commit crimes at a much higher rate than other minorities such as Mexicans do. " You can look in the comments for this. To say discrimination against blacks hasn't caused them to be poor is to invalidate the concept of generational wealth. Are you claiming that generational wealth is a concept that does not exist, And that blacks are still trying to recover from slavery and discrimination that has barely ended mere decades ago? Even when discrimination clearly still exists in job hiring practices? " Blacks have have over 100 years and right now have nothing stopping them from rising above whites and a black president proves this to be true. Besides i'm not buying this whole idea that they are still trying to recover when the majority of blacks at my school are delinquents and get in trouble at school. Especially when Asians and Indians whom are minorities are as successful if not more successful than whites are. " I note that you haven't addressed the 30% less likely to be called for an interview claim if they have a black sounding name. " Did you ever think that's because they may not be qualified for the job and not due to racism? " Are we saying the KKK doesn't still exist and that whites never beat black people up? " I don't even think you read the title of the debate lol. I am not arguing that blacks were never discriminated against, I am arguing that TODAY whites are more discriminated against than blacks are. Also your analogy fails as black panther did the same thing as the KKK did. " We as whites have built generational wealth off the backs of their ancestors. It may take some time to even it out. " So? Why should I have to suffer because of something my ancestors did? Using discrimination against discrimination is not the answer. By your logic we should punish Jews as the Jews killed Jesus. And we should also kill mongols as their ancestors genocided millions.
Whites are discriminated against more than minorities are today in the US

" All of this in a country where blacks are over twice as likely to be shot and killed by police as whites. (unless my opponent would like to argue against basing statistics around per capita) " How is that discrimination? Did you ever think that blacks are twice as likely to be shot by police is because their the ones who commit the most felonies? " Where black poor people double the number of white poor people. " Like I already said just because there are more poor black people, Doesn't mean the system is rigged against them Now I will provide you evidence about how white people are discriminated against. For starters at UC Berkeley there was a protest in which minority students blocked white people from entering the campus for NO reason. Secondly at a San Jose trump rally, White trump supporters were beat up, Pelted with eggs, And called white supremacists. Thirdly minorities at colleges are given scholarships and are let into the campus simply due to their status of being a minority while white and Asian students are denied entry.
Whites are discriminated against more than minorities are today in the US

Happy to think with you today. I'll start off simple enough. According to 2010 US Census data, 64% of the US population describes themselves as "white. " Several additional subsets would likely be called white. My opponent has to explain how some portion of the roughly 2/3rds of the US population that is white are actively discriminating against themselves. All of this in a country where blacks are over twice as likely to be shot and killed by police as whites. (unless my opponent would like to argue against basing statistics around per capita) All of this in a country where white-sounding names are 30% more likely to get called for an interview over black-sounding names. Where black poor people double the number of white poor people. Where black people are subject to disproportionate voter suppression, And jail sentences. Where black people only got the legal right to vote (not that they all actually get it) in 1964. There are millions of people alive who fought for this right. I can go on for long periods of time. What I'm more interested in is seeing what arguments my opponent has that white people are so discriminated against. The calls I hear from black people are mostly simply asking for equality. The best you can do is point to affirmative action. This effects an extremely low portion of the population in comparison to the above numbers. To conclude, With the above stats I mentioned, I simply can't think of any way black people are discriminating against whites that is so heinous as to overcome nearly a 3:1 population difference, And all of the above statistics. I simply can't continue to go forward without a coherent argument from my opponent. I would, In fact, Wager that the population of 'whites' that discriminate against blacks, Or are actively racist nearly outnumber the literal number of black people that are in America. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht Statistics sources available on request. (Wash. Post, US Census, Huffington Post, And specific study links)
free will is an illusion

Every action has a cause and effect. Unless we just reacting without thinking.... for instance slapping someone who makes you angry. ( not by choice) every other choice has a different expected outcome. we will always choose the outcome which is more preferable to us. This choice is based on personality/preferances/past experiences. these 3 p's are constant unless an external influence alters them. Therefore you will always make the same choice in the same situation. In a different situation you may make a different choice, but its the situation that has altered your choice. Having choices does not mean you have choice if there is only one choice you can make. Lets try an example.... A teacher asks your class "Who likes milk?" Your choices are a) raise your hand or b) dnt raise your hand. Factors affecting your choice 1) do you like milk? (Preferance) 2) are you honest? (Personalty) 3) are you shy or afraid to draw attention to yourself? (Personality) 4) what happened last time you raised your hand? (Past experience) If you were in that class now, would you raise your hand?
free will is an illusion

Like most people con is mistaken about choice. Choice is not real. It is a hypothetical construct of the mind. This is what gives us the illusion of choice. At the moment of action every action is predetermined. A rapist knows his action is wrong but can't control the urge to rape. There are also people who do not know the action is wrong. In this case they are hospitilised in a mental institution. I am not saying we are not liable for our actions. The possibilty of being caught and punished is one of the many potential outcomes of our hypothetical choices. what I'm saying is when it comes time to act, there is only 1 possibility. Example. .. . we will always do good if no other vector affects it. ref last round for explanation of vectors. Even a criminal will not commit a crime unless it either benefits him or he likes it. likewise we will not do something we don't like unless its the right thing to do (good) or it benefits us. For example diets. The determining factor is priority. At any given moment we can only have one priority. Therefore at any given moment we can only have 1 action. As time is just a continuous moment after moment there is no moment we actually have choice.
free will is an illusion

It is definitely clear that Pro and I have different definitions of free will here. I am sorry to Pro for this misunderstanding as I feel maybe it's my fault.Pro believes that free will means that absolutely nothing influences one's decisions and that every single aspect of any given scenario is within one's conscious control. If this is free will then it basically is a debate of whether we are all god or not and yes as an atheist I believe god is definitely an illusion. On the other hand, I prefer the looser interpretation of free will, which is actually the one most go by; the capacity to choose between more than one option with conscious effort to reach the decision.In other words, for me this debate boils down to what free will really is.To me it's accepting that while things influence decisions, decisions are undeniably made by that individual and they deserve full blame for the consequences.We throw rapists into prison because we assume they chose to rape. If there is no free will, no one should go to prison and you should just laugh along as some guy rapes your mother, girlfriend, daughter or sister and cheer as someone murders all those you love. They can't help it, after all, so why punish them? WRONG! They chose to do it and that filthy mongrel must scream in agony as they are buttf***d nightly in a prison shower. That is the beauty of this world. if they really did bad they will even scram beneath the power of electricity.This world is not a nice place. Everyone's out for themselves. We can only punish those who use their free will to look out for themselves too much in a way we deem 'evil'.This must be the truth. There is no illusion of it, only a psychopath would want to get out of prison by having 'diminished responsibility' due to insanity which is the only way in which someone could be considered to have less free will than most.
free will is an illusion

Doing neither a nor b is option c. Also a choice. But having choices does not mean we have choice. At any moment in time we can only make 1 choice. That choice is based on predetermined factors. Therefore its not free. people always say "I can raise my hand if I want to, therefore I have free will. This summise is faulty. Nobody out of the blue just desides let me raise my hand..... there has to be a purpose. Even if you do it just to prove you have free will, that is the purpose. Your thoughts have led you to the conclusion that raising your arm proves you have free will. Denial that you dnt is the motivation. This may be unusual, but lets try a little experiment. Pick something you can do.
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

first i'd like to clear some things up from my side of the debate. i took the affirmative with the intent of showing why vigilantism should be justified. i bring up the value of Justice and to uphold my value i use the "well-ordered society" from john rawls a theory of justice. in order to acheive a well-ordered society we need to ensure that the civilians are being protected, in order to have a well-ordered society we need to enforce the law with a justified reason (this being my criterion) now i stated vigilantism is justified by the fact that we need to ensure that convicts are entitled to be punished by the government or when the government fails, as stated in the resolution, we must look to another alternative such as Vigilantism. now to fully expect vigilantism will be used to produce justice we must look to my definition of what a vigilante is by the American University Law Review are to be 1) members of an organized committee 2)established members of a community 3)proceed with definity goals not with the intention of random violence 4)act as a last resort because of a failure of the established law system now i've given real world reasons as to why vigilantism should be looked upon. not as a means to use random violence but to ensure justice is due to those who deserve it. for my first contention i bring up the Social Contract, stating that when the S.C. is broken it is justly entitled to take means into their own hands to the extent that "JUSTICE" will be served in a justified way. my Second Contention is just a few examples of Vigilantism that has worked to serve a greater purporse, which is to distribute Justice that benefits the community. as for my third contention i basically just pondered the idea of the pain of what happens when the government fails to enforce the law, and why vigilantism should take effect to enforce not only the law but to ensure that Justice to those who deserves it. now on to my opponents case i would love to accept his case being that they not only support my side of the argument but they strengthen the affirmative. my opponent seems to take the aff's side meaning he agree's with me. that is why you should affirm the resolution. (i dont know if that was intentional to use the aff, if not we can make a new debate so it'll be fare :))
i am so beautiful

This is not an argument of how much or little beauty I possess. We are simply debating whether or not YOU are beautiful. For reference, I will attempt to add a picture of my ghastly brother. http://image.guardian.co.uk... Enjoy! Of course, as he is sitting across the room from me, he has already disclosed that he will be putting a picture of a "beautiful man" up to prove his claims. He has also altered his profile picture. Beware of this trickery.
i am so beautiful

I'm gobsmacked. I can't believe that you've assumed someone else's identity to prove a random, quite ridiculous point. First of all, google image searching for "beautiful men" and then putting their picture up onto your profile was really stupid, but is a great example of internet hoodwinking. See, Mr. Cop, maybe if you really WERE 27 years old and from Anchorage, Alaska, you wouldn't be sitting in the room next to me, typing away on your laptop. Secondly, if you were that old and had a degree from "some college" then you could learn some proper grammar and spelling (example: "ravonos beuty" from Round 1). I implore you, folks, to vote con on this outrageous bill. If my brother wins this, I will never hear the end of it. Thanks. <>
i am so beautiful

LOL i find that pic VERY funny. my brother has always had a good sense of humor. i will change my pic but to one of my pictures. In this picture i was in greece on a business trip (you can tell i still have some of my cop 'tools' on me). From this picture you can tell that i am a VERY beautiful person in my own rights. Even the ugly person that you put up is beautiful in his own right.
Pc is better than mac

I think that pc is worse than mac because unlike the macs,pc's have way more crashes,errors and a whole lot of other nonsense aside from that you have to deal with driver problems,but not only that,support is trash on windows whilst on mac support is actually great.Before you argue that mac has lesser upgradibility accessibility,let me tell you that the reason apple does that is so that Apple can diagnose your problems with an easier and more stress-free way,not only that,Aplle develop it's own softwares so Applr could easily provide support to mac users knowing the specs of the mac and the supposed problem of the software,it is dummy-prove so dummys couldn't access the important files,all that nice features come at a price so yeah.Your turn!