BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 2nd Amendment should be defended and enforced.

You try to use a study by the New England Journal of Medicine in a gun debate. Why, because you can find no other studies to back up your arguments. You say that unless there are studies done of the areas around Chicago, a study done in Chicago is pointless. No, it is not pointless. The fact is that there are more murders today, with all the gun laws, than in the 1920’s when there were many fewer gun laws AND Prohibition was in place. That is a fact that is indisputable. Now, please clarify how they know that DC’s gun laws “saved” 42 lives. That is a vague statement that is improvable. Next, how do people “answer dishonestly” about murders? The studies are not done by asking the people. It is done by getting info from the police department. Next, you state that having a gun in your home makes homicide more likely by a factor of 2.7. Why? What proof do you have that this is true? Now, according to World Net Daily, a town that adopted mandatory gun ownership law had its violent crime rate drop in half while its population quadrupled. This is in contrast to Morton Grove, Illinois, which passed a ban on any guns except for police. There population decreased in size, but their violent crime rate increased by 15.7%. In conclusion, I ask you ask voters to vote for the person who is supporting the side that will help you maintain the freedom you so love. That freedom is the freedom that gives you the right to post things on this site. Without that freedom, all open discussion ends.
The 2nd Amendment should be defended and enforced.

1. And did these studies about Chicago compare the area with surrounding areas without gun laws--that is to say, did it use controls? If not, it's useless. Real, controlled studies found that DC's gun laws saved 42 lives a year[1], and that just having a gun in your house makes homicide more likely (by a factor of 2.7)[2]. And the famous Kleck study was contradicted by the NCVS, which had a much larger sample size and thus is more reliable[3]--small sample sizes are vulnerable to extreme overestimations. For instance, a very small percentage of people answering dishonestly in the affirmative would throw off the percentage. Worse, the sampling isn't random in the least (it overrepresent people in the South), it gives single individuals too much weight (since they used households and then applied their findings to individuals), and presented weighted data without explaining their weighting method[4].2. Round three, debate with wiploc. You argued that the government, under current law, couldn't take away WMDs[5].1. http://www.nejm.org...2. http://www.nejm.org...3. http://bjs.gov...4. http://www.saf.org...5. http://www.debate.org...
The 2nd Amendment should be defended and enforced.

You say that "The Second Amendment could be removed, though." True. The ability for us to vote could also be removed. That does not mean it should be. You say that there is no link between authority and duty. Au contraire, there is a huge link between them. Think of it this way. You are a leader of your community and you have the authority to enforce something that is beneficial to all the people around you. Should you enforce it? OF COURSE YOU SHOULD! The 2nd amendment is the same way. It is very beneficial to all those around. This leads me to your next point about a "cost-benefit analysis." According to a study done by Florida State University, approximately 2.5 million people use a gun in self defense every year. They later go on to state that through many interviews with the users of those weapons that a life is saved every 1.3 minutes by a privately owned firearm. So, if this is not beneficial to the general populous, please tell me something that is. There is your "cost-benefit analysis” for you. When did I say that things like restrictions on "things like bazookas" would be against the 2nd amendment? Just curious. As I already pointed out, the private ownership of guns make us safer. Let's look at an example: Chicago. According to Breitbart.com, in 1929 the average number of murders per month was 26. There were very few gun laws then. Now the average is 42 per month. That is with the toughest gun laws in the country. This proves that private ownership of guns makes us safer. So in conclusion, you are right that tyranny isn't bad because it is tyranny. It is bad because it restricts our freedom. That is exactly what repealing the 2nd amendment would do.
The 2nd Amendment should be defended and enforced.

1. The Second Amendment could be removed, though. We have no legal obligation not to remove it--the Constitution was deliberately made that way. I also don't see any link between authority and duty, not in the manner which you stated. Why is it made our duty to defend enforce it from it being our authority to do so?2. Scientists. They would have the necessarily skills and knowledge to assist in determining the effects of enforcing the Second Amendment. A cost-benefit analysis would then be performed to determine whether or not to keep it.1. Well, gun ownership does not actually appear to be correlated with freedom or democracy[1]. In any event, there are different realities today. In the past you've said that you consider restrictions on things like bazookas to be against the Second Amendment; I take it this is still the case?2. What about our safety? Would a sufficiently large death toll due to enforcing the Second Amendment be enough to make it not worth defending? If so, what is that death toll?Tyranny isn't bad because it is tyranny. It's bad because it's harmful to people. If your precaution against tyranny is of minimal effectiveness and causes lots of damage, it may well be advisable to get a different precaution.1. http://blog.foreignpolicy.com...
The 2nd Amendment should be defended and enforced.

When you say that it is "our authority" to enforce and defend it, it is our authority, and it is therefore our duty to enforce it. The definition of duty is "a moral or legal obligation. " Something that is our obligation is something we should do. This debunks your rebuttal of my first argument. You then say that “just because George Washington and Thomas Jefferson said it doesn't make it true. ” That is true, but they are the ones who were instrumental in writing the 2nd amendment. So, what better source than them is there when talking about whether or not we should enforce the 2nd amendment? Now I shall disprove your arguments. First, you say that the Constitution is not infallible. Of course it isn’t. No book, save one, is completely infallible. But your premise that the 2nd amendment’s purpose was to protect us from an invasion is false. The purpose of the second amendment was to keep us (the people) from being oppressed by a tyrannical government. The founding fathers saw how important the right to bear arms was. It was the very protection of liberty. As David E. Vandercoy of constitutioin. org puts it, “Both the Federalists, those promoting a strong central government, and the Anti-federalists, those believing that liberties including the right of self-rule would be protected best by preservation of local autonomy, agreed that arms and liberty were inextricably linked. ” Next, you say that no right is absolute. Correct, but the second amendment comes the closest. It says something at the end that no other amendment says. It says “…shall not be infringed. ” The definition of infringe (d) is “to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress”. The only thing you thing you can TOUCH regarding the 2nd amendment is that you can restrict when a person is mentally incapable of handling his mind and/or physical body. Other than that, according to the Constitution, you cannot do ANYTHING. Just because the Supreme Court says something, does not make it truth. Remember that Supreme Court justices are not elected by the people, but appointed by the President. In conclusion, you say that “they can be abridged to protect the public interest. ” OK, but not enforcing the second amendment it would be a detriment to our liberty and freedom, not something that is good for the public’s interest.
The 2nd Amendment should be defended and enforced.

1. Point taken that it's our authority to enforce and defend it. But that doesn't mean we should. 2. Just because George Washington and Thomas Jefferson said it doesn't make it true. Which leaves it to me to provide an argument that it shouldn't. I will merely remind the reader that the Constitution is not infallible. The Second Amendment was invented in a time when weapons were much less advanced, and the political climate far different--there was a legitimate threat of invasion from England in that era, and we didn't have the same sort of standing army we do now. No right is absolute. Freedom of speech is not absolute--I cannot shout fire in a crowded theater, and most would agree that this is a reasonable restriction. The rights in the Constitution are commonly agreed not to be absolute; they can be abridged to protect the public interest (see my previous example). Even the recent Heller decision affirms this[1]. 1. http://www.supremecourt.gov...
The 2nd Amendment should be defended and enforced.

Here are the rules for the debate.1)Forfeit a round, forfeit the debate.2)Swear and you forfeit the debate.3)Name-calling and you forfeit the debate.4)Break any of the stipulations to be mentioned after, and you forfeit the debate5)Burden of Proof(BoP) is shared.Round 1-Acceptance only.Round 2-DebateRound 3-DebateRound 4-DebateRound 5-Conclusion. Keep under 1000 characters and no new points
I will not contradict myself

Do you really live in Anderson, ---Miscellaneous---, British Virgin Islands? This was not a lie because I don’t live in Anderson, ---Miscellaneous---, British Virgin Islands, I live in Anderson, British Virgin Islands. There is no such place called Anderson, ---Miscellaneous---, but there is an Anderson, British Virgin Islands. Do you object to dumb policies (or laws, rules & regulations)? There has been no definition of “dumb”, so I will define the term. “Dumb” according to Merriam Webster is “not expressed in uttered words”. If a law couldn’t be expressed in uttered words, then I would of course object as I wouldn’t know what they are. But I believe currently there are no such things as “dumb” policies or laws. But if someone was to try and create one I would of course object, so the answer to the question is “yes”. According to The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary abide is defined as to accept without objection. But I do abide by the law as I do not object to any laws as none of them (at the moment) are dumb, at the moment I am law-abiding, if a dumb law was to come into existence, then I wouldn’t be. But at the moment there are no dumb laws, thus I am law-abiding. No contradictions so far, onto the new questions! Are you not happy? At this moment I am not not happy, so the answer is No. Have you made a contradiction yet? No. If you responded to the above question, did you lie in your answer? No. Are you a capitalist? No. Do you believe in the principle of laissez faire? No. Is honesty the best policy? No. Did Abraham Lincoln ever tell a lie? Impossible to know, but probably Yes. Do you believe in the theory of evolution? Yes. Are you liberal? No. Do you favour limited government? No.
I will not contradict myself

Contradictions: Do you really live in Anderson, ---Miscellaneous---, British Virgin Islands? No. Have you ever lied on debate.org?` No. In response to R1Q3, Pro claims that he doesn't really live in Anderson, ---Miscellaneous---, British Virgin Islands as is clearly stated on his profile, then in response to R2Q9 he claims he has never lied on debate.org, if he puts a false location on his profile, he is lying about his location thus he has lied on debate.org. This is a contradiction. Are you a law-abiding person? Yes. Do you object to dumb policies (or laws, rules & regulations)? Yes. According to The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary abide is defined as to accept without objection. In response to R1Q9 he states he is a law abiding citizen. However in R2Q8 he claims he objectifies to dumb policies/laws/rules/regulations. Therefore he objectifies to these and he does not abide to them. Contradiction. Questions: Are you not happy? Have you made a contradiction yet? If you responded to the above question, did you lie in your answer? Are you a capitalist? Do you believe in the principle of laissez faire? Is honesty the best policy? Did Abraham Lincoln ever tell a lie? Do you believe in the theory of evolution? Are you liberal? Do you favor limited government?
I will not contradict myself

Are there any false statements in the Bible or Koran?Yes.Did you respond to my very first statement? Yes.Do you like to sexually objectify women?No.Are you sexist?No.Do you believe that homosexuals should be killed?No.Is it acceptable to beat your wife?No.Are you in favor of the death penalty?No.Do you object to dumb policies (or laws, rules & regulations)?Yes.Have you ever lied on debate.org?`No.Are you happy?Yes.Are men superior to women?No.Do you support euthanasia? No.
I will not contradict myself

Are there any false statements in the Bible or Koran? Did you respond to my very first statement? Do you like to sexually objectify women? Are you sexist? Do you believe that homosexuals should be killed? Is it acceptable to beat your wife? Are you in favor of the death penalty? Do you object to dumb policies (or laws, rules & regulations)? Have you ever lied on debate.org?` Are you happy? Are men superior to women? Do you support euthanasia?
I will not contradict myself

Are you a homosexual?No.Is killing never morally acceptable?No.Do you really live in Anderson, ---Miscellaneous---, British Virgin Islands?No.Do you enjoy looking at attractive women and their lady parts?Please try to keep this debate appropriate (this is inappropriate), you can ask 12 questions next round.Do you enjoy looking at female breasts?See above question.Have you ever picked flowers freely?No.Do you consider the Bible or the Koran an authoritative document?No.Do you believe that judging people on their intelligence is wrong?Yes.Are you a law-abiding person?Yes.Do you enjoy being happy?Yes.
I will not contradict myself

Challenge accepted, let"s begin. Are you a homosexual? Is killing never morally acceptable? Do you really live in Anderson, ---Miscellaneous---, British Virgin Islands? Do you enjoy looking at attractive women and their lady parts? Do you enjoy looking at female breasts? Have you ever picked flowers freely? Do you consider the Bible or the Koran an authoritative document? Do you believe that judging people on their intelligence is wrong? Are you a law-abiding person? Do you enjoy being happy?
I will not contradict myself

This is a "I will not contradict myself debate." This will function the exact same as Mongeese's debate a while back. I have taken the liberty of copy-pasting the rules into this debate and the definition of contradiciton:Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org......Rules:1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked.http://www.merriam-webster.com......10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.Also, if copy pasting Mongeese's R1 and rules counts as "plagarism" on this site, please inform me in the comments. If I am not told of this, it will not count as plagarism.Thanks and good luck to my opponent!
Male privilege is a myth.

How do males wish they didn't? Your explanation would be a lot more interesting. I'd like to see that. Females would rather trade having periods (cramps every month that's painful) and childbirth (very painful), And other things for being a male. Some females have sometimes tell males that they are lucky, I've experienced it for myself. That's point. "And there are probably some males who wish they didn't. " So they would wish for a vagina? To birth children and have menstrual cycles? Males, On a general consensus are glad and thankful to have something dangling in between their legs.
Should all severely mentally ill people be killed

your argument changed my opinion of mentally ill people lets have a bs debate jneeklkflfjbhvsewe3qdev90efrhgd839i2owfukbd893ifewofluhgidsrokeljfkbd9u3wo;ihbi;t4rwoejihg;7y8590[e2ies78raikdwdfbx;0iO[QOVIHBR'W4O23LPKBGUOH'EI43LQ;WNGD -[RAEIHPUI-4O
Contender's Choice

If there were some kind of food that was extremely addictive, harmed those who ate it as well as giving various deadly diseases that can kill, harmed those beside those who ate it, harmed those in the room even after the food was eaten, then surely we have the right to ban this kind of food!I have already show that smoking has inhibited an individual's autonomy. 92% people lose their freedom of choice because they can't quit smoking.Your logical alternative makes no sense, either you are half-conceding to me or you haven't read my arguments and studies.In conclusion, my opponent has not given a lot of arguments, while I have rebutted every single case of them and contructed a strong case for the horrid health effects of smoking, as well as demonstrating the lack of freedom of choice in either situation, which brings likability to the banning of smoke. Vote me.
Contender's Choice

Again, my opponent has overlooked my contention on the purpose of law. Surely it is not a legislator's duty to regulate the dietary habit of the common citizen. If my opponent claims that smoking should be banned due to it's negative impact on health, at what point should his legislative control cease? Should various foods be banned as well? The more logical alternative is to allow the citizens free reign over their lives in as many ways as possible while still ensuring their protection from other citizens. As smoking is a choice that is only personally detrimental it does not violate this standard for law. In order to prove his contention my opponent must show that smoking is so negative that it actually warrants directly inhibiting an individual's autonomy, and given the sole reason of a poor health choice he has not shown that at all.
Contender's Choice

Okay, here's the problem, if one does not smoke, and never does smoke, then my argument has full effect and is irrefutable. Alright, you agree, eh? I already proved this in the previous round.So now, what if there's a guy who knows the harmful effects of smoking but still smokes? Well, then he or she has, based on stats, a 92% chance to lose their freedom of choice forever. (Since, they will try yet fail to quit smoking) Banning of smoke restricts freedom of choice as well, except you don't have the negative health effects, thus, it is shown to be much better than allowing smoke.However, what if this guy smokes then manages to quit smoking? Then, they will obviously not smoke ever again, having tasted the horridness of smoking. Great. But quitting smoke is extremely difficult; statistics show within round 2 that only 8% get their "freedom of choice" back. But then, do they really still have their freedom? Sure, no negative effects befall these people, but they have chosen to restrict their own freedom of choice, thus doing the same thing as if the banning of smoke was effective. I bet you're saying now "well the banning of smoke is annoying and dumb. It won't help those people who never smoke, or manage to quit smoke." Ah, but did I mention that 92% people fail to quit smoke? Yeah. So, if we ban smoking, these 92% people will not be addicted to smoking and practically forced to take an inhalation out of a cigarette.As for the alternatives, they do not help to those 92% people I mentioned. They will still smoke, and the addictiveness of the cigarette will get to them, forcing each and every one of them to smoke as much as possible, even within these restricted areas, and they will obtain so much darn health problems, and their family will be financially burdened.In conclusion I have shown that the banning of smoke is preferable to allowing smoke. I hope you and the voters understand my evidence, logical reasoning, and how they contribute to the resolution on my side.
Contender's Choice

My opponent begins with a fallacious assertion- that all well informed individuals choose not to smoke. This is not the case. Humans often participate in actions that they know will ultimately harm them, even to the furthest extreme of suicide. Typically these actions are not taken based on delusion or misinformation, but based on a difference in values from an individual who chooses not to act in such a way. My opponent also states that choosing not to smoke is an individuals choosing to limit his freedom of choice. On the contrary, choosing to lose one's freedom of choice would involve not participating in the decision making process at all. Choosing not to smoke involves just as much freedom of choice as choosing to smoke. As to my opponent's request for me to address his specific contentions more closely, most of my rebuttal can be offered in the single argument that smoking may be unhealthy but should not necessarily be banned. Forcing individuals to smoke or pay for the medical expenses of smokers is of course immoral because it violates their autonomy, but in the same respect banning smoking also violates the individual's rights to make personal choices (be they wise or foolish). To summarize and restate my argument from the previous round, my opponent has failed to present compelling evidence to show that smoking is incurably detrimental to individuals who choose not to smoke. There are alternatives of regulating smoking areas, restricting purchasing age, insuring consumer awareness, and not providing federally funded health care for smoking related illness- but no compelling evidence to justify the restriction of an individual's freedom of choice in such a totalitarian way.
Contender's Choice

To pro: It is okay if you take your time, as long as I finish this debate by July fourth, then all will be good.As far my rebuttal, well, a well-informed individual knows not to smoke and has thus chosen to limit their own freedom of choice. Why, the banning of smoke will have absolutely no effect upon those individuals' choices. Don't ban smoke? They don't smoke. Ban smoke? They don't smoke.I extend arguments about cigarette's dangerous chemicals, addictiveness, pretty much 92% loss of freedom of choice, showing the longetivity of cigarette's harm, second-hand smoking, thrid-hand smoking, and finally the financial burden of the families. All of these massive arguments have yet to been refuted. I ask my opponent to take his time on his next round and try to refute these arguments.