BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legitimate reasons to own guns

Legitimate: Being in compliance with the law; lawful; Based on logical reasoning; reasonable (1) In my opinion, there are several legitimate reasons to own a gun. Some of these reasons include hunting, target shooting, home-defense, and as an investment. (2,3) Hunting: Hunting is a legal sport (as long as you comply with state regulations). Hunting can be done for vermin control, sport, subsistence or simply as a hobby. Other weapons can be used for hunting; however the gun is both the most accurate, and the longest range weapon available for hunting. There are also animals that cannot be brought down with a bow-and arrow, such as the polar bear, or bison. Now, because hunting is a legal sport, and a gun is the best weapon for the job, it is therefore a legitimate reason to own a gun. (4) Target Shooting: Target shooting is another legal sport that can be done for fun, or practice for other pastimes such as hunting. Once again, other weapons such as air guns can be used, but not for distances exceeding 100-150 meters. Now, because target shooting is a legal sport, and a gun is the best weapon for the job, it is therefore a legitimate reason to own a gun. (5) Investment: With firearms, collectors are drawn to more than just a piece itself; they are paying for history. Pieces with relevance and context command the most money. Wartime relics are among the most valuable firearms, according to Dennis Lowe, the director of militaria for Heritage Auction Galleries. "I've never seen firearms do anything but increase in value," he says. "Those increases are sometimes not as fast in one period as they are in another, but certainly they never go down. If you began collecting this stuff 30 years ago, unless you had gotten into an IPO of something like Apple (AAPL), you couldn't have put your money in a better place”. Therefore, since investing is legal and guns are a consistently profitable facet of investing, owning a gun as an investment is a legitimate reason to own a gun. (6) Home Defense: While there are several facets of self-defense, home defense is by far the best of those reasons to own a gun. The shotgun is by far the best home defense weapon. Knives and batons require close-quarters combat, endangering the defender, and a bow-and arrow is simply not practical in a hallway. Since home defense against a felon is legal, and a shotgun is the best weapon for the Job, home defense is a legitimate reason to own a gun. (7,8) In accordance with the resolution, I have shown that there are legitimate reasons to own a gun in the United States. Also in accordance with the resolution, con must show that there are absolutely no legitimate reasons to own a gun. Sources: 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. . http://hunting.about.com... 3. . http://www.yaliberty.org... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. . http://www.wallstreetoasis.com... 7. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 8. . http://www.humanevents.com...
Cricket is a better sport than cricket v2.0

I accept my burden. I'll start with my opponent's rebuttals before moving onto his case. 1. Hmm, I can't say that is wrong because what I said is wrong (looking literally). What was meant was that, in cricket, you can hit the ball within a 360 degree radius and have it still count. Fouls may count as one of the first 2 strikes, but you cannot run to 1st base on a foul ball which is what I mean by count. 2. Cricket balls have the advantage in that in a game you generally do not throw a full toss every ball in cricket. Here is an example of Shane Warne's genius (watch the video). His leg spins are amazing. . http://www.youtube.com... Spin a ball, have it bounce, and see it go off in a direction. This is what happens in cricket. It is not necessary for a ball to break farther because that does not matter in a game in most cases. In baseball, according to an enlightening discussion I had with my opponent earlier today, the ability of a baseball to break an inch more than a cricket ball (8 to 7) could decide a game. But, this is not so with cricket. Unless there is equal relevance to both sports, this type of argument cannot be used to decide which sport is better or to declare both sports on equal ground. 3. The scoring systems are different, and that is true, but my argument was that it is more entertaining with higher runs on the board. My opponent has not addressed my argument, but rather said why (though I must say one of them is wrong) there are more runs in cricket and simply claimed that more runs means nothing. 4. People make time to go to a baseball game. People make time to go to a cricket game. Many times, people leave halfway through a cricket game during one of the breaks. Often times people watch a bit at home. In the US, because of time differences, people can pull off an all-nighter to watch a game or something like that. For public appeal, 20-20's have been introduced. Test matches do not happen continuously through 5 days; they are 2 inning games with no limit on number of overs. 5. My opponent is correct about the similarity, so apply my response to his rebuttal to my 1st point. I shall now move on to my opponent's arguments. 1. Cricket is a longer game, there is less time for the nuances present in baseball. And the commentators in cricket are used quite often, and the commentary is pretty good too. And the big point of this rebuttal is that we are comparing sports, and not the in between stuff that are not part of the sport. A. You know, I never thought a stadium full of loud fans created a romantic mood. *Watches video* And I still do not find that romantic. Baseball is a sport, it cannot be romantic. Romantic things may take place at a baseball game, but that does not make baseball romantic. I await my opponent's next intriguing response (you should hear how he talks, unbelievable! ).
Cricket is a better sport than cricket v2.0

In my opinion, cricket is better than baseball as far as sports go. Here is why: 1) Cricket bats are more fun to play with than baseball bats. The flat surface allows for more variety in shot selection. With baseball bats, all anyone can do is hit it straight on, and that is not fun. 2) Bowling is better than pitching. Though there are plenty of different pitches (i. e. curveball, sinker, etc), there is not much else you can do to the baseball. But, in cricket, you can spin the ball any which way, make it bounce in different places, aim at the batsman's crotch if he happens to get annoying without having to suffer a penalty (well, you have to make the ball bounce first, otherwise it is illegal). There is more to do in cricket than there is in baseball. 3) More runs in cricket. Instead of having scores such as 4-2, cricket has scores such as 285-267. Just from looking at the numbers, I find cricket more interesting. One BATSMAN can score 4 runs in one BALL, but in baseball, one TEAM scores about that much in one GAME, and that makes baseball seem pathetic. 4) Longer games = more entertainment. Cricket games last either half a day, a day, or 5 days. Baseball games last 4 hours or so. Cricket lasts longer, so there is more time to play and enjoy the game. But, in baseball, you have approximately 3 balls; the amount of time is minuscule. 5) Coming back to the better shot selection, you can hit the ball in every direction in cricket. In baseball, the direction the ball can go in and count is 1/4 of that of cricket. In cricket you can hit the ball through your legs if you want and score runs, but that cannot be done in baseball. In cricket you can hit the ball wherever you choose. From the 5 reasons above, I say cricket is a better sport that baseball.
Resolved: Budget Cuts to Art classes are justified

My opponent has forfeited this round and has after that conceded the debate altogether.That means this debate is over. My opponent is hopefully well.But what remains is that he provided only one rushed round with more of a rebuttal than an original argument, and after this forfeit now quit.I thank my coach whiteflame, our organizer and host bluesteel and all the judges who have volunteered.As with all the debates of the *Official* Beginner's Tournament, only votes by these pre-selected judges will count for the tournament. All other users are welcome to vote in the comments, but please abstain from voting.See you all in the finals!
Resolved: Budget Cuts to Art classes are justified

The resolution comes down to two central questions: What are the conditions under which we call something """justified”, and do the budget cuts to art classes fulfill those conditions? Let's start out with a few definitions: justified 1 based on sound reasoning or information 2 being what is called for by accepted standards of right and wrong [1] While budget cuts are unforunate, budget cuts still happen. When budget cuts happen, art classes are often one of the first classes to suffer budget cuts. In this debate, I will be arguing that budget cuts to art classes are justified in particular, not budget cuts in general are justified. In order for budget cuts on art classes to be justified under the first definition, they have to be based on sound reasoning or information. The most common reason why art classes suffer budget cuts is so that core classes such as English, math, and science do not suffer the budget cuts. To quote my opponent's source: " Art education increases performance in reading, writing and math. Thus enhancing all those subjects that are most often deemed "more important" " [2] This quote supports that art education is an enhancement to English, writing, and math. If budget cuts were directed to these subjects instead of art, then art classes would serve less purpose of receiving funding. Thus this supports that budget cuts to art classes is justified over budget cuts to core classes (english, math, and science.) Furthermore, art related occupations are quite low paying (http://www.forbes.com...) According to forbes.com, art related majors provide 5 out of 10 of the lowest paying majors, while math and science jobs are among the highest paying jobs (http://www.bls.gov...) Also, one can get art education outside of the classroom, thus the school does not have to use its budget to pay for art classes. (Note: Due to time running out I will have to cut this round short, thank you for your time.)
there is necessary to amendment in law in india according current scenario

This debate has been in the challenge period for a while now and no one has taken it, so I will accept the challenge of the Con. As it stands Con does not pose a full argument, or even a legitimate premise of discussion as they do not have a clear claim, there is no warrant, there is no data and there is no impact. This method of advocacy is known as the Toulmin method[1] was proposed by British Philosopher Stephen Toulmin in his book 'The Uses of Argument[2]; it has since been accepted at large by the debate community as the most effective method of advocacy as it lies out the logical and empirical structure of the argument for the most effective discussion. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... As the Contender in this debate it is not my responsibility to prove the resolution false, but to disprove the Con; I am unable to do this so long as Con fails to provide a legitimate argument. So as it stands the vote must go to the Pro for upholding their burden by omission of the Con.
Composition Contest

I accept. The music I write will be a computer-recorded rendition of an original midi sequence, which technically speaking is not entirely midi sequencing, but since the fact is that my opponent is uploading to youtube, he must be doing the exact same thing. Therefore please interpret that rule a little loosely. Just so you know I don't mind ridiclious themes personally. They're the most fun. I'll keep it simple for my first theme - write me a song about nostalgia. For those who might not know, nostalgia means "a sentimental longing for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations" (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Composition Contest

Larztheloser has agreed to a musical composition contest. In the first round, larz should give me a theme to work off of. We'll then give each other our themes in each round. Compositions must abide by the themes, to help assure that each one is made from scratch. Our entries should be no less than 1:30, and should be embedded to the page from YouTube. Any style is permitted, but only midi sequencing should be used (out of fairness, since that's all I can use). No ridiculous themes. I know that's kind of subjective, but you should know them when you see them (i.e. your theme is feces). Voters should rate whoever they consider to be the winner on a scale of 1-7. Alright, good luck.
Oklahoma University Football is in the top 3 best football programs of all time

Here is it only number 4 http://www.askmen.com...http://uk.askmen.com...and http://iqfb.com... This one only number 8 http://bleacherreport.com...This one number 11 (number not stated, you have to count down the names on the list) http://www.nfl.com...This one number 7 http://www.sportsnola.com...Not stated in top five of this one: http://proplayerinsiders.com...Your turn pro.
Digital India a Boon or a Bane

Mathew, what will you do if the gadget that u r using to store some important information snaps down? The information will be lost, it will cause great damage and loss of time. Also the technologies used in our mobile phones or laptops release such harmful rays that cause cancer and skin diseases. Now a days people depend so much on the internet for stuff that they end up not using their brainsost of the time and therefore cannot even remember simple mathematics. It makes people lazy and loose their precious time in social networking sites that they don't even go out to play or do any physical exercise. This laziness in people causes obesity. Children, now a days, get so involved in the internet that they don't get the chance to sit down with their elders, share their experiences and learn to do the things the right way. Also as the government has started the project of digital India, it has not kept in mind that illiteracy of India. Can you even believe it, 30% of the indian population is illiterate and so poor that they can't even afford the technology. Slow internet speed also delays our tasks while we depend on the internet at almost everything now a days. On the basis of these arguements Mathew I still believe that Internet has made our lives worse in so many ways
Digital India a Boon or a Bane

mt dear friend,the digital India campaign is beneficial and a necessity as it provides job opportunities for many. isn't time India caught up with west in the technological age. there is no point in saying that social media intrudes upon people.this argument you have raised is because of the misunderstanding of the reason for the existence of social media.social media sites have brought people closer than ever, therefore i do believe digital India campaign which aims at digitalising both the rural and urban areas is a positive sign in this age. i do understand there are two sides of a coin. but digital India is not a luxury rather a necessity.
Digital India a Boon or a Bane

India has started to become so pre-occupied by the technology that it has forgotten the importance of people. Everyone in this country is busy in their own gadgets. May it be playing games or doing homework. People have started to do the day to day tasks on the internet as shopping, buying tickets or chatting this has restricted the interaction of people. Social Networking sites have intruded into the lives of people which has made the interaction of people as person reduced in a great ratio. These sites are also a cause of increase of the crime rate in India. I strongly believe that being digital to this extremity has had a very powerful impact on how we live in a bad way...
why we should have Genital integrity

Pro states that circumcision is absurd, but not substantiate on this stance. Con argues that circumcision is not as Pro states "absurd". Our foreskin is a part of our skin, that does not however mean it is a necessary part of the human body. With regards to males, circumcision allows for generally cleaner genitals, by reducing the moisture created by having the male penis enclosed by the foreskin. This allows for bacteria to breed, as such Con argues that circumcision is justified.
Denying school vouchers maintains the need for social programs.

School choice is the first step in drastically lowering and eventually ending social reliance on federally funded programs. By allowing all children, regardless of social standing, to obtain the best education available, we enable them to end the cycle of poverty by way of ending the cycle of ignorance. Offering our poor, handicapped, and non-conventional learners the opportunity explore and obtain educational opportunities that will allow them to advance through life in an upwardly mobile manor is the best social assistance that we as a people can offer. Just because a family cannot afford to live in the best neighborhood doesn't not/should not mean that money should be diverted from those neighborhoods to be distributed in lower income communities. Allowing families choice will do much more create a balance in inequalities in education. Competition between schools and systems will also provide a better system as seen though the capitalistic system of America. Competition fosters the best in our abilities and enables us to weed out and terminate institutions that are not providing at an acceptable level. This too balances the quality of education between the rich and poor. Finally, giving teachers the choice to work in a private sector school without union representation forced upon them or the choice to maintain status quo within a governmental school, will provide two completely different sets of thought in education - the traditional or contemporary. This too gives teachers the chance to compete for higher wages, better benefits and the ability to teach in manor's that would not be possible within public schools. Overall, if one is to support social programs it is foolish and self defeating to deny the overall benefits of school choice via vouchers.
"Speaking of Tongues" in church is not biblical in the way people might think it is.

I will be arguing that the speaking of tongues (meaning the kind displayed by Pentecostals and Evangelicals) is not in the very least biblical. Con will argue that it speaking in tongues is indeed biblical. Round 1 is acceptance, Round 2 is starting arguments, Round 3 is rebuttals, and Round 4 is rebuttals and conclusions. Please keep this debate reserved for someone who actually believes that speaking of tongues is biblical. Thanks.
"Speaking of Tongues" in church is not biblical in the way people might think it is.

Once again, before I start, I will clarify that the "speaking of tongues" I'm referring to is the kind displayed by charismatic churches. Therefore, I hope that the Con understands this completely.So it's true, Scripture does speak of speaking in tongues, but I will show that this is not in the way many think it is in.Pentecostals and charismatics in Christianity today claim that the jibber-jabber tongues they speak in is justified in the Bible, but this "speaking of tongues" just isn't!Hebrews 1:1-2 says that God speaks to us today through Jesus Christ, i.e., the Word of God (John 1:1-3,14; Revelation 19:13). Jesus is the living Word. The Bible is the written Word. John 1:14 teaches that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us as the Son of God.Speaking-in-tongues as done today in Pentecostal circles is similarly practiced in African pagan religions and voodoo. The gift of tongues in the Bible simply involved lost sinners hearing the gospel translated into their own language by a miracle of God. That's all it was. When Peter spoke at Pentecost, every man HEARD in his own native tongue. Peter only preached in one language, but the people HEARD in their own language.So actually they were hearing-in-tongues at Pentecost. Sixteen known, earthly languages are listed in Acts 2:9-11. This is vastly different from the crazy mumbo-jumbo uttered in Charismatic and Assemblies of God groups today.
Does God Exist

Ok so first you say the bible is proof. No you have to prove the bible was written by god which you don't prove so that is invalid unless you prove it. That's like me saying the book about the three little pigs proves the three little pigs are real it's ridiculous I have to prove the three little pigs where real outside of the book. The same goes with the bible. Then you say Jesus christ appeared and that's proof. Again you need to prove that because you didn't give any. All you did was make a declarative statement which counts for nothing. That's like me saying We've seen the tooth fairy just because I said it doesn't make it true it has to be proven same goes for jesus. Even if a guy named jesus existed in that time and got killed by the romans there was no proof he was god's son. In fact there where people in jesus's time and his location that kept track of everyone claiming the be god or god's prophet and none of them mentioned him. Please try again and present evidence this time.
Does God Exist

Ok so I'm assuming you're saying that I can't disprove the bible? I can't tell your grammar is horrible. If that's the case two things 1. Burden of proof isn't on me to prove god exists and the bible is right. You're making the positive claim so you have to prove it. 2. We can prove parts of the bible are false I'll copy and paste a comment in are comment section We have disproven parts of the bible. Creation of the earth (we know how planets are created, bible claims earth came first, then stars when in fact stars come before planets) Adam and Eve (through genes) Noah's Ark (see the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate) Flooding of the World (see the Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate) If we can continue to disprove the bible, I think we can say that the Christian God isn't real. However no one can prove that there is no God overall.