BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Ok I won't provide more source material this round. Guns are for trailer park red necks, Militia types who are paranoid of the government and NRA members or just plain stupid people. Every year thousands die from accidental shooting, More guns are stolen from peoples homes than there are home invasions. People who believe they need a gun are just paranoid and stupid people who think that the gun will protect them. It won't Why do you think correctional officers don't carry guns in jail, Because it would be so easy for the inmates to overpower one officer take his gun and create a hostage situation or create a prison riot. Guns have one purpose, That is to kill. The rest of the world is laughing at the stupidity of gun violence in America. But guns will never go away in the USA, When the NRA makes more money in one year (36 Billion) in gun sales, More than Hollywood entertainment did, And 6 billion of that is paid to the government in taxes and bribes and payoffs, The NRA has the White house by the balls, So no matter how many school killings, How many Las Vegas shooting, Mall killing, Spree shootings happen, The government will never get rid of guns, They will always give the same sob story to the public after these senseless killing, That they are working on new legislation but nothing will change. They will suggest better screening but how do you screen the mentally ill kid who is bullied at school, Who's mother passed the screen test to get her gun, But leave it out and goes to work while the schizo kid takes it to school next day? How do you get a background check at a gun show that is gone in 48 hours, When the background check takes 72 hours? You don't I say let the morons get their guns and kill each other, But the victims of gun violence eventually will have enough like the students in Florida, More and more marches will happen as we have more and more victims of guns. Times are changing, The 300 year old constitution will be amended, And guns will be abolished, Some day. So in the mean time we will have to listen to confederate racist red necks and lunatic militia types about how the tyrannical government is coming after them, While they make moonshine and meth at their trailer parks, We will have to listen to the crazy paranoid people who think they need a gun in a modern society where we have police everywhere. So unless you live in the ghetto of Compton, Bronx or East South Central LA why do you need a gun. It's just stupid** ** Fanboy McTroll -1996 My source used only, No copy and pasting, Happy now punk
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

The United States has the most heavily armed civilian population in the First World; our homes contain enough firearms for every man, Woman and child. Why do so many Americans own guns? The main reason, According to surveys, Is protection. Advocates argue that guns in the home both deter crime (criminals refrain from even trying to break in because they fear being shot by an armed citizen) and thwart it (an armed citizen can stop a crime in progress, Preventing injury or theft). The scientific evidence, However, Provides little support for these arguments. Quite the opposite. In terms of deterrence, A recent study found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher levels of firearm crime and do not have lower levels of other types of crime. Another study, In 2003, Found that counties with higher levels of household gun ownership have higher rates of household burglary, Not lower. Burglars like to steal not only cash and jewelry but also guns. A homeowner with a collection of firearms may not want to advertise that fact.
I'm Pro Gun: Change my Mind

Guns save more lives than take them Gun bans do not decrease murder rates Concealed-carry holders are 14% more law-abiding than police officers If someone shoots up a school or at you or someone else in public, You have to respond immediately. You can't call 911 and patiently wait for police top come. The average time the police take to arrive is 7 minutes, The possibility between life death. Please do not copy and paste arguments from websites like you do on other debates.
MCX Today Tips

My opponent is ostensilby using this site as a free advertising platform in an egregious manner. "MCX today is the online weblog providing Indian stocks and shares free daily picks, calls and recommendation for intraday trading. Stay updated with share market daily news."The website he is trying to advertise in a cretinous manner is actually called MCXIndia. Its website describes itself in the 'about us' section, "Headquartered in Mumbai, Multi Commodity Exchange of India Ltd (MCX) is a state-of-the-art electronic commodity futures exchange. The demutualised Exchange has permanent recognition from the Government of India to facilitate online trading, and clearing and settlement operations for commodity futures across the country." http://www.mcxindia.com...The web blog or web log my opponent is attempting to debate does not exist:There is no "Today Tips" section on the website, and the search result confirmed that. http://www.mcxindia.com...;I'm going to assume this is a petty form of advertising until further information is brought forth. There are many better online brokerages, tips, and finance tool sites online than MCXIndia or my opponent's fictional MCX Today. A few of them:https://www.thinkorswim.com...http://www.stocktips.com...http://www.smartmoney.com...http://www.forbes.com...https://us.etrade.com...Thanks for reading!
I will not contradict myself.

Have you already contradicted yourself in this debate? No. Did I mention a substance that can be deemed harmful and usually subject to legal restriction? No. Do you believe that legendary/mythical creatures (i.e.: werewolves, witches, etc.) exist? No. Do you believe that I fooled you in any way throughout this debate? No. Do typical knights use helmets? Yes. Is this question visible to the naked eye? Yes. Do typical knights use horses? Yes. Do typical knights use swords? Yes. Are the three questions stated above factually correct? No. Based on the current situation, are you sure for a certainty that you're really not going to contradict yourself in this debate? Yes.
I will not contradict myself.

Thanks for the response. Here are some new questions: Have you already contradicted yourself in this debate? Did I mention a substance that can be deemed harmful and usually subject to legal restriction? Do you believe that legendary/mythical creatures (i.e.: werewolves, witches, etc.) exist? Do you believe that I fooled you in any way throughout this debate? Do typical knights use helmets? Is this question visible to the naked eye? Do typical knights use horses? Do typical knights use swords? Are the three questions stated above factually correct? Based on the current situation, are you sure for a certainty that you’re really not going to contradict yourself in this debate?
I will not contradict myself.

1. Similar to Q #10 of R1, Are you sure that you're not going to contradict yourself in this debate? Yes. 2. Did you respond to my very first statement? No. 3. Are you in favour of Abortion? For medical abortions, yes. For social abortions, no. 4. Did you answer ‘yes' to the last two questions in round 1 of this debate? No. 5. Did you answer ‘no' or some other no-related word to the above question? Yes. 6. Are we certain that we exactly know the future? No. 7. Are you a realist? Yes. 8. Do you believe in dwarves? Yes. 9. Do ideas exist? Yes. 10. Do you believe that the online dictionary you cited in the rules in R1 is an accurate source? Yes.
I will not contradict myself.

Similar to Q #10 of R1, Are you sure that you’re not going to contradict yourself in this debate? Did you respond to my very first statement? Are you in favour of Abortion? Did you answer ‘yes’ to the last two questions in round 1 of this debate? Did you answer ‘no’ or some other no-related word to the above question? Are we certain that we exactly know the future? Are you a realist? Do you believe in dwarves? Do ideas exist? Do you believe that the online dictionary you cited in the rules in R1 is an accurate source?
I will not contradict myself.

1. Are you a homosexual? No. 2. Do the knights in the middle ages have a connection with beavers and No. 3. Do you follow the law? No. 4. Do you believe the Bible and its inerrancy? No. 5. Do you believe that every human being should have equal rights? Yes. 6. Is killing another person ever morally acceptable? Yes. 7. Will you do anything to save your family and loved ones from harm? No. 8. Does this Round 1 post of mine have a total of 574 characters? (Excluding spaces) No. 9. Are semantics appropriate for this debate? Yes. 10. Will you contradict yourself in this debate? No.
I will not contradict myself.

Challenge accepted, let’s begin. Are you a homosexual? Do the knights in the middle ages have a connection with beavers and Do you follow the law? Do you believe the Bible and its inerrancy? Do you believe that every human being should have equal rights? Is killing another person ever morally acceptable? Will you do anything to save your family and loved ones from harm? Does this Round 1 post of mine have a total of 574 characters? (Excluding spaces) Are semantics appropriate for this debate? Will you contradict yourself in this debate?
I will not contradict myself.

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.12. Before posting his or her Round 2 argument, CON must challenge PRO to a debate that is an exact copy of this debate, except that Rule 12 must be absent.Good luck.
I will not contradict myself.

First, I’d like to clarify that the rules didn’t really specify that I’m entirely restricted to define words in my accusations, nor did I actually have the obligation to define the words at the same time asking the question. I didn’t misinterpret Rule 9. I used that rule as a reliable dictionary. Again, my opponent had the opportunity to define and clarify his answers, since all questions might cause a contradiction, he also could’ve asked me to rephrase the question with a definition, but he didn’t. So since I wrote those accusations in R4, I’m bound to define it for my advantage to prove a contradiction, if didn’t do that in R4 and let my opponent define those words instead, my accusations then would be invalid or unclear, which would be unfair since I can’t make new arguments in R5, how can I contradict someone without actual definitions? I technically have a de-facto power on defining words to support my accusations. Also, please note that I did define the words first in my accusations, and my opponent rebutting them using different meanings is not acceptable and is therefore, invalid. ---- Now, I’d like to refute some of my opponent’s relevant arguments countering my accusations: “Even if my opponent had the power to define words, which he does not, his proposed definition would not work, because "horses," plural, cannot refer to the slang term "horse" which is only used in the singular; "heroins" does not make any sense. ” I agree, but if you search ‘horses’, it will direct you to ‘horse’, it does not matter if it’s plural or not, or it makes sense or not. “The creatures are not images; they are creatures. It is not contradictory to claim that the idea of something is not that thing itself, or that the idea of something can exist while that something does not. ” Creatures can be considered as images when you picture it, since an image is a representation or imitation of something, and when it is an image in mind, it is a representation/imitation of something in your mind. Again, if we were referring to the original definition of what I defined, it is actually contradictory if you claim that ‘ideas’ exist and legendary/mythical creatures exist. Both my contradictions in C4.1 and C4.2 therefore, stand. In my response to C5 (seeing that I refuted my opponent’s defensive argument), is a valid contradiction, and is therefore, a contradiction made by my opponent. Yes, he consistently claimed that he didn’t contradict himself, but in response to the 1st question of R3, if he has already contradicted himself, to which he says ‘no’, it doesn’t matter if he continues to deny the question, it’s still a contradiction since a contradiction already happened before (See my previous argument in R4). --- Again, to prove a contradiction, I need to clarify it, and by clarifying it, I need to define it more accurately. My opponent’s contradictions were and still clear and were never refuted accurately, they stand firm.
Mc Donalds is healthier Than Burger King

1. The chicken tendergrill sandwich from Burger King contains 400 calories, 7 grams of fat and 49 grams of carbohydrates. The grilled chicken sandwich from McDonald has 420 calories, 10 grams of fat and 51 grams of carbohydrates. 2. The Burger King's chicken tenders also has slightly higher protein than McDonald chicken nuggets. 3. You also consume 120 less calories and 5 grams less of fat from Burger King's chicken fries than from McDonald's chicken strips.
Mc Donalds is healthier Than Burger King

We are not talking about who's company is better but which one is healthier. Maybe some burgers have less calories but it depends on what you take. Happy Meals are made so that children don't take in too many calories. They include fruit and and even normal juices. You don't have to take a soda. In McDonalds, Hamburgers contain 250 calories. Burger King has 290 calories. No matter how you see it, it is a big difference. Everything that relates to Hamburgers at burger king is not healthier than McDonalds. The healthiest hamburger of the 2 restaurants are both 410. The 2nd healthiest is 440 (Quarter Pounder) for MC but burger king is 500. (Double Cheese Burger).
Mc Donalds is healthier Than Burger King

1. The chicken tendergrill sandwich from Burger King contains 400 calories, 7 grams of fat and 49 grams of carbohydrates. The grilled chicken sandwich from McDonald has 420 calories, 10 grams of fat and 51 grams of carbohydrates. 2. Out of twelve websites, seven of those stated that they liked the Burger King burgers better than the burgers from McDonald.
That gangs should be banned

Look i have class soon, and honestly I am weary of the repittition. I am aware that it is that kind of gang you are talking about and so is the government. Let me get to the point.ConclusionWhy dont the government ban gangs and arrest gang members already!?It is agianst our constitution. Yes intiation, criminal activities and all that sh!t you see in TV. But without evidence or proof you cannot simply arrest a group of people who have assembled together, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR DOING! Why do you think we have the DEA and FBI infiltrate these gangs? to aquire proof TO put them away. that is the only way becuase going out and arrest a gang without proof or banning gangs would overide our 1st ammendment.Yes yes yes i have read through your reasonings and you are correct. But that is why the law enforcement infiltrate these gangs to put them away. you cannot simply take away ones right, whether they are black or white, or good or bad!.If you do not know or understand our 1st ammendment this site explains all http://bringvictory.com...;
That gangs should be banned

As the guy said in the comments the KKK is a cult and not a gang I am talking about gangs that harm or even do illegal things including Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations Research Date: 4.28.2013 A gang is a group of recurrently associating individuals or close friends with identifiable leadership and internal organization, identifying with or claiming control over territory in a community, and engaging either individually or collectively in violent or other forms of illegal behavior. Gang members are typically "jumped in" or have to prove their loyalty by committing acts such as theft or violence. Although gangs exist internationally, there is a greater level of study and knowledgeable information of gangs specifically in the United States. A member of a gang is called a gangster. They should be banned because they ARE DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL . A gang is a group of people who claim a territory and use it to make money through illegal activities (i.e., drug trafficking). Community organizations can reduce gang activity, so host a basketball tournament at your local Boys & Girls Club. Sign up for Off-the-Street Ball. 2. Gangs can be organized based upon race, ethnicity, territory, or money-making activities, and are generally made up of members ages 8 to 22. 3. Members of gangs wear specific articles of clothing to be recognized as part of the group such as bandanas, hats, scarves of certain colors, or gang-related tattoos or symbols. 4. Gangs are one of the leading factors for growth of violent crimes both on and off school property. 5. When joining a gang, often times there is an initiation that needs to be passed. This initiation is usually a violent crime that could include theft, murder, gang-rape, or drive-by shootings. That is a gang my friend
That gangs should be banned

AcknowledgedI understand many "gangs", as you would have it, does intend to focus on criminal acts. But you see, over the years we Americans have interpreted and redefined the word "gang". The Official definition for "Gang", and the Federal government's interpretation is "An association of three or more individuals"(1). Examples can be used as, "My gang and I plan on heading to the movie theater and visiting the zoo this afternoon" or "The gang of students got together to discuss politics".RefutationThe First admendment: "..The right of the people peaceably to assemble.."(2) Protects citizens to assemble, whether that is to discuss Black Power, Women rights, or the Promotion of the Nazi Party, and give us the right to do so without Fear of Government interference. It does not matter if it is a gang, cult or party, any way shape or form that we decide to call a group of people assembling, it is our right to do so. If the government banned gangs, who's to say they can ban the Democratic Party? Or the Women Rights Group? Reality CheckAlso those who are really concerned about the assembly of violent groups should have already done research about this topic. Thou shalt note that the KKK has publicly rallied the street of Atlanta just this past march and had done so many years before (3). The Neo- Nazi party has rallied too in the United States, PROTECTED by the law (4).ConcludeIt is wrong to kill steal and take part in illegal drug activities, but you cannot ban or arrest a gang because suspicion or assuming future criminality. That almost like saying government should ban Firearms because there is a chance citizens can rob banks and kill; "The Right to bear arms" (5). Until a citizen, or citizens (Gang), breaks a law, that is when they shall be taken into arrest.Sources (1) http://www.nij.gov...;(2) http://www.law.cornell.edu...(3) http://www.addictinginfo.org...(4) http://www.nydailynews.com...(5) http://constitutioncenter.org...;
That gangs should be banned

Gangs that prove criminal evidence Including the KKK, and MANY other shall indeed be banned. They are not considered "gangs" if they haven't committed a crime including graffiti. They poison our streets with drugs, violence, and all manner of crime. Some 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs with about 1.4 million members are criminally active in the U.S. today. Many are sophisticated and well organized; all use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun trafficking, fraud, extortion, and prostitution rings. According to the 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment report, gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions, and up to 90 percent in others. We"re redoubling our efforts to disrupt and dismantle gangs through intelligence-driven investigations and new initiatives and partnerships.
That gangs should be banned

Your argument is invalidCorrectionMany "gangs" do not sell drugs and kill, this is a stereotype and opinion.Killing and selling drugs are illegal, yes, But being in a gang is not. Until you start doing the illegal things, you will not be arrested.RefuteYour arguement is invalid. If gangs were banned, that authourity to up hold and enforce that law would have to come from the govenment. This would be a direct violation of our 1st ammendment, the Right to Assemble withou fear of government or mob. The government banninggangs would also have to ban the Ku Klutz Klan, Neo Nazi Group women feminist group and workers union, all which is legal.Scourceshttp://score.rims.k12.ca.us...
Affirmative Action once again

Affirmative action is wrong and is just a fancy way of saying racism, discrimination, and worst of all, favoritism.The policy was enforced 50 years ago when times were rough and racism was at it's peak. To correct decades of discrimination towards African Americans and underprivileged races, affirmative action was used. It is obviously not needed anymore since it causes more problems than it solves. It was meant to eliminate discrimination but now, all it does is leads to it.
Chuck Norris Is The Ultimate Character In Mugen

My opponent's argument is entirely irrelevant because I already dealt with this. Ultimate implies that there can be only one person. As such, if anyone ties/beats Chuck Norris, he is not the ultimate character of mugen, as there would not be only one unbeatable character. Weegee ties Chuck Norris in a fight, as neither of the two can defeat the other, due to neither of them having a hitbox. For my opponent's argument that a blue screen appears should Chuck Norris draw, and crashes Mugen, this is due to either of these: 1)Chuck Norris's character has it programmed to do so if he loses. 2)Coincidental glitch. As number two would only invalidate my opponent's argument, I will attack the only possible way he can win. If Chuck Norris makes this blue screen appear, either way, it does not matte. It does not make him the, 'Ultimate Character,' as he has still drawn with Weegee. The only thing that changes is that he is now a sore loser. So, my opponent loses. Anyways, my opponent didn't properly define Ultimate, while I did, and so I will now choose which Ultimate is being used for the debate. Ultimate[2] - 1. Being last in a series, process, or progression: As I already argued that Chuck Norris is not the last character and therefore not the ultimate character, and my opponent didn't address the majority of my arguments, I win. On all accounts, in every single standpoint and perspective, I have won this debate. As such, the resolution is negated.