BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control

My opponent has barely responded to my arguments not just in this round, but all the previous rounds. Also, my opponent has made new arguments in the last round which isn't allowed. But he is knew so he shouldn't be penalized but I just wanted to point this out. "My belief is that big government is bad, the amendments and orders set into place when the country was born were meant to limit the govt. 's powers. The men who founded this country saw examples of governments becoming too large and tyrannical. Take Rome for example, in the beginning of Rome's "nationhood" being a Roman citizen was an elite and honorable status. Eventually the rulers began to cut these regulations allowing just about anyone to become a citizen of the country. Good right? No, the Roman govt. began giving out much too many benefits and eventually reached the place were it couldn't give its people what it had promised. The world power fell apart. " My opponent's comparison is exactly the opposite of gun control. My opponent mentions how Rome stopped regulations and that is what made them fall apart whereas gun control is about regulation. As for when you said the father's found it too large I disagree because that is why America is not 13 colonies. And also, what does giving too much benefits have to do with gun control? "If someone is crazy enough to kill people they will find a way to do it with or without guns. " Unestablished and unproven point. Don't you think I will have an easier time killing 20 people with a gun or with a knife? After I kill the first person with a knife, everyone else will run and even try to take the knife away from me. And also, why do you think the army uses guns? Because it easier to kill more people with. I am not saying that Gun control will stop murders completely, but rather reduce them. "How much damage could a man do in a shopping mall with a 12in hunting knife before mall cops caught him? Most mall cops don't even wear guns. Should we regulate the purchasing of knifes? " I don't know if we should or shouldn't but all I could say is that it is not as necessary as gun control because guns are more dangerous than knives because 1. They are simply easier to kill more people with as I have mentioned before. 2. There has been more murders with Guns than with knives. Also knives have more benefit for civilians like cutting food and opening things. "Shootings have happened all throughout the history of this country, but they are getting more severe as we limit the areas decent people can carry weapons. " Unestablished and unproven point. "As the govt. continues to seep into every aspect of our lives we have to ask ourselves, is this the way of the great United States? " Wow your statement actually goes against the way of the United States. The United States make laws, elect people, and act, based on reason and not because of tradition.
Gun Control

It's perfectly alright, I understand completely. I am new here so I am just figuring this stuff out haha. I see where you are coming from. I will make this answer short in order to compensate. My belief is that big government is bad, the amendments and orders set into place when the country was born were meant to limit the govt.'s powers. The men who founded this country saw examples of governments becoming too large and tyrannical. Take Rome for example, in the beginning of Rome's "nationhood" being a Roman citizen was an elite and honorable status. Eventually the rulers began to cut these regulations allowing just about anyone to become a citizen of the country. Good right? No, the Roman govt. began giving out much too many benefits and eventually reached the place were it couldn't give its people what it had promised. The world power fell apart. This Roman government started small, the nation grew in many ways. The Roman government got big, the nation fell. Turning back to the original point, gun control. How can this work exactly? If someone is crazy enough to kill people they will find a way to do it with or without guns. It doesn't take two pistols to mow down 20 something kids and unarmed teachers. (Which are in fact the weapons the maniac used, not an assault rifle). How much damage could a man do in a shopping mall with a 12in hunting knife before mall cops caught him? Most mall cops don't even wear guns. Should we regulate the purchasing of knifes? We as a people have a right to bear arms, and as I said before, a right does not require regulation. Shootings have happened all throughout the history of this country, but they are getting more severe as we limit the areas decent people can carry weapons. As the govt. continues to seep into every aspect of our lives we have to ask ourselves, is this the way of the great United States?
Gun Control

Why did you forfeit? The 2nd amendment states that we as a people of the US have the right to own weapons. This statement was not written so we could hunt, or plink at cans on Saturday. Those things are fine, but that amendment was put into place in order to protect us from a tyrannical govt. Read this if you wish - http://www.infowars.com... However you take this information, you have to admit it is interesting, why would the govt. be buying 174,000 hollow point shells? They said they are for target practice... you don't use hollow point shells for target practice. They are meant for the kill. Criminals are also keenly aware of the prospect of an armed citizen and will almost always steer clear of potential victims who may be armed. James Madison, while criticizing the governments of Europe: which "were afraid to trust the people with arms" and argued for "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over almost every other nation." In 1942, Hitler made the following statement: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." The fact is, the police cannot be everywhere at once. If you choose not to defend yourself or your family, that is your absurd decision and I wish you luck. However, for those of us who choose to exercise our Second Amendment right"Remember the old adage: "It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!" In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law which required heads of household to have at least one gun in the house. The burglary rate immediately dropped an astounding 89 percent. Ten years after the law was passed, the burglary rate was still 72 percent less than in 1981. Some of these quotes were taken from this site - http://www.americanchronicle.com... We have rights, rights to protect ourselves. Which shouldn't have to have big brother (govt.) keep us under his eye. He shouldn't know everything. A personal right does not require registration.
Gun Control

Alright do you think that bad people are going to give up their weapons? Bad guys don't follow laws, they don't care. Sure the govt. can run all the background checks they want, but a black market for these guns will soon arise. The good people will be the only ones who turn their weapons in, if that. Alright, if this happens what will happen next? I used the example of drugs in the previous argument. Are drugs illegal? There's a dealing spot I pass everyday. It's not like murder, how many people die in car wrecks each year? http://www.cdc.gov... Poisoning? The only way to overpower an evil person with a gun is with a good person with a gun. Yes we have the army, but for how long? How long will America be respected for it's powerful military. You would have to live under a rock to not see that things are changing quickly for America. With the defense cuts made - http://www.politico.com... - "another $500 billion in additional cuts that would be required to take place through a meat- axe approach, and that we are convinced would hollow out the force and would inflict severe damage to our national defense for generations" Are guns an important part of America's heritage? I would not be able to conduct this conversation with you had not our forefather's split from the mother country, and our military continue to fight for our freedom using guns. See the guys who wanted to control us had guns, if we didn't how could we have maintained our nation? Without guns we would both, not be free men. I wasn't at the school when the man stormed the building, had I or someone else been there with a weapon do you think he would have gotten that far?? That is the problem. http://www.theblaze.com... I would like to ask you to read this, I'm not saying I go along with it or not, but it is something to chew on. The leaders we have now are failing, look at the past! Dictators who have wanted to gain total control of their people start by taking away their weapons. Before you call me a biased, radical redneck, remember this - history repeats itself.
Gun Control

"Taking guns from the good guys is not going to solve the issue." I agree that's why gun control is for good guys and bad guys. "If the govt. takes the guns from people, bad dudes will find a way to get guns again." Maybe. But some won't. It's like saying murder should be legal because some people will get away with it. "What if another world power invades one day?" That is why we have the army. "The fact that Americans owned guns discouraged the Japanese from invading in WWII" Unestablished and unproven point. "Guns are an important part of this country." Unestablished and unproven point. "If a russian comes into my home with a automatic combat rifle I don't want to go at him with my bolt action hunting rifle. If he comes to kill my family I want to match his firepower." When was the last time that happened in America? My argument however, are cases that are continually occurring such as the shooting in Sandy hook. More people have died from these shootings than a Russian. Also I don't know why you used Russian. America is not at war with them. "Yes I own an "assault" rifle, but this rifle will be used only to stop assaults." Uh hello? Have you not looked at the sandy hook shooting and all the other shootings I mentioned. They seem to contradict your statement.
Gun Control

I apologize for my delay, ideally this should be restarted due to my absence. Thanks for taking up this discussion. Yes I've heard about the shootings, and no doubt they are terrible. Senseless murder of innocent lives. But these events shouldn't sway us into believing that American citizens are not responsible enough to own weapons. Even high powered ones. Taking guns from the good guys is not going to solve the issue. Does the US have problem with drugs? Are they legal? If the govt. takes the guns from people, bad dudes will find a way to get guns again. What if another world power invades one day? With the cuts to defense Obama is making we're not in good shape. The fact that Americans owned guns discouraged the Japanese from invading in WWII. Guns are an important part of this country. Without them we are helpless to the tyranny of the govt. and forces abound. Eg. If a russian comes into my home with a automatic combat rifle I don't want to go at him with my bolt action hunting rifle. If he comes to kill my family I want to match his firepower. Take away the powerful weapons and you are servants of the world. Yes I own an "assault" rifle, but this rifle will be used only to stop assaults.
Gun Control

I will give it my best shot. Okay, as we all know there was a terrible shooting at sand hook elematary. I am not going to be cheap and state a source just to get source points, you all know that happened. Another guy opened fire in a movie theater when the dark night was in theaters. There was another shooting in Oregon, the list goes on and on. To summarize, basically, there has been a lot of shootings and action needs to be taken. . http://www.infoplease.com... . http://www.boston.com... These links also show more examples of shootings. The point is, the only way to stop shootings from happening is gun control. I am not advocating for complete gun control, but there needs to be some sort of regulation whether that be how much guns, what guns they buy, how much ammunition they buy, I don't care. But gun control of some sort needs to be implemented to stop these shootings.
Pro-choice

1. Not giving blood is different than directly killing someone or having a baby murderer doctor kill them. 2. Everyone deserves a chance. A baby may be unwanted but they can become an incredible person. What would you say to a person who was almost aborted?. For example their mom wanted to kill them but wasn't allowed to because of the abortion laws in their state. Because of that abortion law that prevented the mom from killing the baby that person exists today. They can live their life happily. When you ovulate or masturbate your not harming a person. Women are meant to have periods. Otherwise they would have hundreds of children in a life time if each egg was used. An egg is not a person and neither is a sperm. Once those gamete combine they become a person.
Pro-choice

1)If my mom was in an accident and needed a blood transfusion to live and I was the only person on earth who could donate blood to save her, no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown, legally realized person (instead of a group of cells), it would be illegal to force me to donate blood if I didn't want to. There is this concept called "bodily autonomy," the notion that a person"s control over their own body is above all important and can"t be infringed upon. We can"t even take lifesaving organs from corpses unless they gave consent before they died. To tell women that they have to sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, and risky process to save what you view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when most abortions are performed) is unethical. You"re asking people who become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant dead bodies. 2a) A baby should not come into the world unwanted. Having a child is an important decision that requires consideration, preparation, and planning. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stated that unintended pregnancies are associated with birth defects, low birth weight, maternal depression, increased risk of child abuse, lower educational attainment, delayed entry into prenatal care, a high risk of physical violence during pregnancy, and reduced rates of breastfeeding. [Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, "Family Planning Program," colorado.gov (accessed July. 7, 2014)] 49% of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Unintended Pregnancy Prevention: Home" (159 KB) , cdc.gov (accessed July. 7, 2014)] 2b) Everyone was also a sperm once. An egg once. Does this mean that all women who ovulate without becoming pregnant, and all men who masturbate are "murder[ing] a person who hasn't even had a chance to live?"
Pro-choice

First and foremost I would like to clarify the semantics here that this is a pro-choice argument, not a pro-abortion argument. I myself don't think I would ever get an abortion, but i beileve that women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies.1) The US Supreme Court has declared abortion to be a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the US Constitution. The landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, decided on Jan. 22, 1973 in favor of abortion rights, remains the law of the land. The 7-2 decision stated that the Constitution gives "a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy," and that "This right of privacy... is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." [Roe v. Wade (342 KB) , US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, Jan. 22, 1973] 2) Reproductive choice empowers women by giving them control over their own bodies. The choice of when and whether to have children is part of a woman's independence and ability to determine her future. [Our Bodies Ourselves (OBOS, aka Boston Women's Health Book Collective), "Reproductive Choices," ourbodiesourselves.org (accessed July 7, 2014)] Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al. v. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al., law.cornell.edu, June 29, 1992] Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) that undue restrictions on abortion infringe upon "a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature." [Gonzales, Attorney General v. Carhart et al./Gonzales, Attorney General v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al. (383 KB) , US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, Apr. 18, 2007] CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, JD, stated that Roe v. Wade was "a landmark of what is, in the truest sense, women’s liberation." [Jeffrey Toobin, "The People's Choice," newyorker.com, Jan. 28, 2013] 3) Personhood begins after a fetus becomes "viable" (able to survive outside the womb) or after birth, not at conception. [Kenneth R. Weiss, "Fertility Rates Fall, but Global Population Explosion Goes On," latimes.com, July 22, 2012] Some states even have laws implace that do not recognize a fetus as a baby until it has taken a breath outside of the womb.[S.D. Mumford and E. Kessel, "Role of Abortion in Control of Global Population Growth," Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mar. 1986] Embryos and fetuses are not independent, self-determining beings, and abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. A person's age is calculated from birth date, not conception, and fetuses are not counted in the US Census. The majority opinion in Roe v. Wade states that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment [of the US Constitution], does not include the unborn." [Roe v. Wade (342 KB) , US Supreme Court, lp.findlaw.com, Jan. 22, 1973]
Pro-choice

1. A sperm can't become a person on its own. An egg can't become a person on its own. A zygote can become a person on its own. Have you seen pictures of a fetus?. They have toe and fingers, a head and a face. Have you seen pict ores of a dead fetus? The little hands, facial features ect?. That's just some sack of cells?. Haven't you ever heard of people talking to fetuses ?. My dad used to talk to me and my sister when we were in our mom and after we were just born we were in the hospital room with our parents and our dad said his girls and we looked at dad because we recognized him. A fetus has a personality. Some are more active and kick more and some are more mellow. It's been proven that fetuses feel pain when they're being murdered. Also when my dad would talk to us when we were in our moms uterus we would kick because we liked hearing his voice. My pregnant teacher told me about how when she drank orange juice or sugary stuff the baby would kick because he liked it. Haven't you ever felt a pregnant women's belly? Are you sure that baby has no rights? . 2 if a pregnant women accidentally kills the baby by falling or lifting something too heavy than she is not a murderer because she did not mean to kill the baby. That's manslaughter. Murderer is when you kill someone on purpose . 3 you were almost aborted? Do you enjoy your life? Aren't you glad you got a chance?. If you don't enjoy your life than imagine of you were a person who was almost aborted but got a chance and was born and as this person you enjoy your life. Your glad that you got a chance and you believe you could help people and make a positive impact on this world. Would t you believe that your life was not a choice? Wouldn't you be glad your mother didn't make that choice to Abort you? Wouldn't it bother you to imagine what could have happened if you had been killed? You wouldn't have gotten to experience all these wonderful things or hep the people you've helped. Think of all the middle class or upper class people who kill their unborn children. That child would have had a chance to grow up in a nice loving (maybe not loving depending on why the parents got an abortion and how bad they felt about it afterwords) family with enough money but instead their parents were y ready or were focusing on their careers and decided that this baby-their baby wasn't as important as their plans and killed it. Normal people love their children more than anything and would never put their plans or careers in front of their children's life.
Pro-choice

1 and 2a) "Baby murderer doctor" would imply that you can prove that a fetus (remember, at this stage it is called a fetus, not a baby) is a fully realized and legally recognized human. As I have pointed out to you several times now, a fetus is not. You say that when we ovulate or masturbate we are not hurting a human life. No one is hurting a human life when an abortion is preformed, merely taking away the potential for human life, just like when you masturbate or ovulate.2b) Implying that anyone who causes the "death of a baby" is a "murderer," must mean you believe women who have miscarriages are murderers? If they lift something a little too heavy or fall. Are these women to be held accountable and imprisoned for the "human life" they have ended?2c)As a child who was almost aborted myself, I don't need to say anything to anyone. I, as a person who has known struggle in my life, understand the things my mother was dealing with and why she wouldn't want to bring a child into that situation.
Should there be Football at Mount Saint Charles

No that's dumb. The only reason why mount is so "prestigious" when it comes to hockey is because THEY DON'T HAVE A FOOTBALL TEAM. Football is greater than hockey and I think most kids at Mount would agree. Hockey is popular because mount doesn't have a football team. The football team would bring real life into the school and football games a way more fun to watch and go to the games than hockey games are. A football team at mount would surely create an immense amount of amazing-ness and everybody would be happier. I think I won this debate.
Should there be Football at Mount Saint Charles

I agree with you that football would be great sports for kids to make friends and have fun. But I think that we should spend that kind of money, only if we have, for hockey team. For example, the arena of Mount is wicked old and antique, which looks like that it will be dilapidated soon enough. So if we will have enough money to buy all the equipments needed to play football. It would be better off to spend that money for hockey to re build the arena or remodel the area at least. And i also think that Mount should more focus on spreading the Mount hockey team to other states instead of just Ma and RI. I see the big potential for Mount to be literally considered the best hockey team in the Nation. However, I think, if Mount has money to spend on Football, that they should spend that money to expand the prestigious of Mount Hockey team to all around the world.