BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control

I have no idea what I'm doing round wise. I just know about the stuff I'm talking about. As far as what you said, I addressed all of it but your last question, referring to how we could make sure citizens are well regulated. First off, I would lie to clarify one thing- the right to own guns is for the people. The full extent of this right is what allows the people to create a well regulated Militia. A lot of people today seem to think that the second amendment only applies to a well regulated militia, or to the people if they can make a well regulated militia. but if you look at all the quotes from founding fathers regarding this issue (I gave you a hand full), they all specifically give the right to the people, not to a militia. The idea of the second amendment is that the people need to make militias in order to ensure the security of their freedom, and that the way they do this is through guns. It make no sense to say that the Militia is necessary, therefore we will allow the people the ability make one, only if they are already a well regulated militia. Second, the background checks are sketchy as they are (i already addressed this though), but it was no different back before background checks. And its obvious that you can never ensure that all guns are used properly, without banning guns. But the founding fathers knew this and they decided to still give people the right to have personal arms. they saw that the beauty of an armed populace is that it deters criminals. Its the same logic that prevents someone from picking a fight with a football team. The populace, when armed and synchronized is one of the strongest forces ever. No one in their right mind would mess with them, not a government, not a murderer. And those who would mess with it would be met with extraordinary force.
Gun Control

First of all, why did you make a defense to my defense? Anyway, you never gave any opening statements for the debate, so I'll refute round one as it it was an opening statement because of the lack of rounds. (Note: These are copied and pasted from my opening statements.) The Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[1] Notice the bolded words. I won't focus on the fundamentals of a militia, but I'd like to add on the "well-regulated" part. "The phrase 'well-regulated' was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order." [2] With the way guns are handled today, you can't exactly call it well-regulated. Previously, private sellers aren't required to do background checks of any kind on their customers to make sure they are fit to own a gun. [3] It was announced back in 2013 that universal background checks were going to be required. [4] But they still get around it! "The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010, based on red flags raised by the background check system, according to the most recent data available from the Department of Justice. That"s just 1.2 percent of the more than 6 million applications. The most common reasons: nearly half were felony indictment or conviction; 19 percent were fugitives; and 11 percent were those who had violated state laws. The rejection rate has been essentially unchanged over the years."[4] This proves that there are inaccuracies in the background checks. So can you really ensure that every citizen is well regulated and healthy enough to own a gun? Absolutely not! Citations [1]https://www.law.cornell.edu... [2]http://www.constitution.org... [3]http://www.governing.com... [4]http://www.politico.com...
This is a picture of a blue square.

Yes, while there is a blue square, in some circumstances, it's a 403 forbidden page. Also, the picture is contained in a white background, so you could make the argument that it is a white rectangle/square with a blue square in the corner. I must add that my opponent didn't specify which kind of blue it is. Is it baby blue, navy blue, teal, or cobalt blue? There are hundreds of shades of blue. [1] Color - the property possessed by an object of producing different sensations on the eye as a result of the way the object reflects or emits light. [2]So, in a way, the way we see color is subjective. To prove my point even more, here's more evidence: "'I would say recent experiments lead us down a road to the idea that we don't all see the same colors,' Neitz said."Another color vision scientist, Joseph Carroll of the Medical College of Wisconsin, took it one step further: "I think we can say for certain that people don't see the same colors," he told Life's Little Mysteries."One person's red might be another person's blue and vice versa, the scientists said. You might really see blood as the color someone else calls blue, and the sky as someone else's red." [3]Also, may I add, color blindness may affect the way some see that image."Most of us share a common color vision sensory experience. Some people, however, have a color vision deficiency, which means their perception of colors is different from what most of us see. The most severe forms of these deficiencies are referred to as color blindness. People with color blindness aren’t aware of differences among colors that are obvious to the rest of us. People who don’t have the more severe types of color blindness may not even be aware of their condition unless they’re tested in a clinic or laboratory."Inherited color blindness is caused by abnormal photopigments. These color-detecting molecules are located in cone-shaped cells within the retina, called cone cells. In humans, several genes are needed for the body to make photopigments, and defects in these genes can lead to color blindness."There are three main kinds of color blindness, based on photopigment defects in the three different kinds of cones that respond to blue, green, and red light. Red-green color blindness is the most common, followed by blue-yellow color blindness. A complete absence of color vision —total color blindness – is rare." [4]So, to some people, it isn't blue at all. They may not be able to differentiate the difference between blue and other colors or they might see it as red or green. Anyway, I took this way too seriously. Bye peeps.Thank you. Citations[1]http://shadesofblue.facts.co...[2]https://www.google.com...[3]http://www.livescience.com...[4]https://nei.nih.gov...
This is a picture of a blue square.

The resolution is that this is is a picture of a blue square: http://www.iconsdb.com... "Blue" means the primary color blue: "of a color intermediate between green and violet, as of the sky or sea on a sunny day." "Square" means "a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles." In order to verify that I am right, simply click on the link above and view the picture. As you can see, it is a picture of a blue square. Therefore, we should affirm the resolution. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
Taiwan should NOT give in to the unconstitutional demands of President Ma.

First of all, you state that "President Ma is simply trying to trade with China to improve the economy." The reason and result of his action would be "for businesses to set up offices and branches in the other territory and for large stakes in businesses to be sold to the other party"s investors." (ECFA 3-31-14) What is the meaning of this quote and law that Ma was trying to pass? President Ma wanted to pass this pact that would allow China to "set up offices and branches... and for large stakes in businesses to be sold to the other party's investors." This would be a total invasion of Taiwan. The People's Republic of China (China) would be given the permission to bring their large-scale corporations into Taiwan. After a few years of this intrusion, is there going to be a country called Taiwan? No. China would opt the Taiwanese economy bit by bit until Taiwan is completely dependent on China. Would Taiwan be Taiwan anymore? The Chinese would soon bring their families and buy homes as they have done in the United States, and crowd into the country until their landowners despise of them. My opponent's second rebuttal was that "unite the China was Dr. Sun's wish". This is historically inaccurate. The whole point of creating the new country Taiwan was to secede from China. "Dr." Sun or more accurately, Sun Yat-Sen, created Taiwan because he wanted to propagate a new democratic China. This "China" ultimately became Taiwan. Therefore, your contention is fallacious. My opponent's last rebuttal was that "Those students who were protesting was ignorant and unwilling to improve the country." Again, this reasoning utilizes fallacy and has no real source or evidence. The whole REASON of protesting was to improve their country. These students did not want President Ma to meaninglessly open their country to invasion from China. They are the true patriots of Taiwan, not some wealth hungry man like President Ma. Remember, President Ma is part of the Kuomintang party, a party that seeks to UNIFY Taiwan with China. I await my opponent's next argument. I would also like to add that my opponent displays fallacious reasoning and incorrect grammar usage. Source(s): http://www.taipeitimes.com... http://www.britannica.com... a brain
Taiwan should NOT give in to the unconstitutional demands of President Ma.

Hello Spectators and Opponent, I am arguing for the pro side of Taiwan's dilemma. As many of you may know, more than one hundred thousand students are currently protesting in Taiwan. What for? For their rights of liberty. Freedom. Democracy. There are two major political parties in Taiwan, the Kuomingtang and the Mingzingtang. The first one, is supported by the powerful, big-name corporations in Taiwan. Who also urge unification with China. Well, what for? This party is the true TRAITORS of Taiwan. The reasons for their loyalty is based solely on their need for greater wealth and power. As George Washington, the first President of the United States once said, "No punishment, is too great for the man who can build his greatness upon his country's ruin." What does this quote mean? Washington meant that the ones who would ruin their country just for their gain of money or power showed just how unpatriotic they were to the place where they were born and raised. This applies to the Kuomingtang party, who elected their figurehead of a president, President Ma. If such a president is controlled by a president, a president who was willing to open Taiwan to immigration from China, which would ultimately allow Taiwan to become taken over again, how is this CONSTITUTIONAL. In addition, what type of DEMOCRACY is this when the PEOPLE do were not even TOLD or even had a VOICE in this situation. Now many of you are thinking, well why shouldn't we ask for change? The protesters HAVE asked for change. But for 24 days now, President Ma has been hiding in his little home, not even peeking his head out (except for a few times to deliver speeches that have no benefit). Therefore, Taiwan should NEVER give in to President Ma's unconstitutional requests of union with China.
The Earth is not Flat

These will only be points and the evaluations and detailed descriptions to expand my argument shall be presented in later rounds, and I request my opponent to do so as well. First point:There is video evidence, or recorded cases of a globe earth, either taken from spacecraft or satellites. I am aware that flat earthers dismiss this video evidence but frankly, I do not know why they think this, or what evidence they have to support why they are faked. It is not just NASA, the Indian space program, the Russian, the Israeli, the Chinese, the Nigerian, the Iranian, the Japanese space programs have all sent spacecraft outside of the atmosphere. Perhaps flat earthers may suggest that all of these recorded cases are faked, but I don't see how or why all of these countries would want to waste money into creating a conspiracy to keep people believing in a globe earth for some unknown reason. Surely it would be more rational to think that if ALL these governments were to fake anything, it would not be what shape the earth is, and perhaps some issues directly related to the situation of the country itself - such as the communist ideals in China, the aggression between the Russians and the Islamic State, or even the situation of India's poverty. All these cases, in short, would make more sense to fake than a 'flat earth', since if all these countries are faking a flat earth, it would be nonsensical in the sense of usefulness and a waste of time. Second point:Most flat earthers show videos of either the horizon from the ground, or from an air plane. The horizon in all of these cases look flat, and most suggest that this is proof that the earth is flat. They, however, fail to acknowledge their own angle of view, not realising that if they see the horizon as flat, it is actually evidence that the eye, with an approximately 60 degrees angle of view, cannot see the curvature of the earth. Third point:There are many questions that flat earthers have not answered, such as how the p-wave and the s-wave shadow zone would form on a flat earth if the shadows depend on the refractive index of the crust, mantle and core on a globe earth, and since my opponent does not adhere to a specific model, how the sun would work on a flat earth, or more specifically, how raleigh scattering and other phenomena dependent on the sun would work on a flat earth, if we have used a globe earth to explain them thus far. I would like my opponent to explain questions such as this. Also, to my opponent, since gravity will be an impossibility on a flat earth, what replaces the theory of gravity to exlpain the effects caused by gravity? These are questions that I would like answered please. Fourth point:I will keep this short, I have seen that many flat earthers suggest that, while objects do disappear beyond the horizon, suggesting that the earth is a globe, if you zoom back in, you can actually see the object again, suggesting the earth is flat. I shall ask my opponent what his explanations are for this? Do you think that perhaps the light cannot reach our eyes? I would like an explanation, thanks.
The Earth is not Flat

I simply contest that the earth is flat, or not spherical, and that it is not moving. Some of the flat earth community I agree with, some I don't. There are several claims that are ridiculous, and are likely being pushed by shills here to discredit this awakening. This has caused some of the tenants of the model to be misconstrued. I hope my opponent is open minded enough to consider this as a possibility, It's sad to see so many young, brilliant, closed minds.
The Earth is not Flat

The model I accept is the standard Globe Earth model - The Earth revolves around the Sun and is a large star currently midway through it's life and approximately 150 million km from the Earth. Gravity is the downward force we feel originating from the Earth's mass. I follow all the explanations given from the heliocentric, globe earth model and universe. Since my opponent is in the stance of CON, he shall present his ideologies. Does my opponent accept elements from the most accepted flat earth model by flat earthers such as the sun and moon which is 3000 miles away and is going around above the sky, and if not, may you please present your explanations for these things within the first round? There shall be no rebuttals in the first round. I hope you enjoy this debate.
Kleptin Tourney: This House Would Legally Recognize Homosexual Marriages

1+. Equality My opponent's definition of "marriage" is not the only correct definiion. Why, there is a definition directly under hers that supports my position instead: "a similar institution involving partners of the same gender. " Therefore, by definition, two gays of the same gender would be able to be married to each other. Additionally, it could be said that a lack of legalization of homosexual marriage is sexist: A man may marry a woman, but a woman may not marry a woman. A woman may marry a man, but a man cannot marry a man. This is rather blatant discrimination and inequality. However, even if the equality is not protected under the fourteenth amendment, it is a lie that such an argument was my "lone contention"; indeed, I had one sentence after it: "Even if one does not think that the Fourteenth Amendment is applicable to marriage, equality under the law is still one of the forefronts of American principles, especially in the civil rights era, and cannot be disregarded for any reason. " This statement was rather ignored. Now, I'll make some more contentions as to why homosexual marriages should be legalized: 2+. STDs A legally recognized marriage would help create a sense of commitment among homosexual partners. This would naturally make them less inclined to cheat on their partners, or visit prostituties. Both of these activities contribute to the spread of STDs, which makes the world generally less safe to live in, and makes health care prices go up for everybody. 3+. Why not? Now, my opponent has no arguments whatsoever for her case, offering only a single counterargument, so I have nothing more to refute. Now, my opponent gives no reasons why homosexual marriages SHOULDN'T be legalized.
Kleptin Tourney: This House Would Legally Recognize Homosexual Marriages

Many thanks to my opponent for sending me this challenge, and thanks to all who have stopped by to read this debate. Without further adieu... 1. Re: Equality Pro states that equality under the law is guaranteed by the 14th amendment which is true. Marriage is defined as the social institution under which a man and a woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. [1]. There is nothing in the law that that prohibits an individual - gay, straight or somewhere in between - from becoming married. Individual states do have provisions on what requirements they have for marriage, i.e. age, mutual consent, proof that both parties are not close blood relatives, etc. [2]. However, there is no clause in any federal or state law that prohibits a marriage... again, a commitment between a man and a woman (by definition)... based sexuality or sexual preference. Homosexuals are still afforded the right to marriage: a commitment between a man and a woman. Therefore, equality under the 14th amendment is adhered to and Pro's lone contention crumbles. Thank you and good luck. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.usmarriagelaws.com...
Kleptin Tourney: This House Would Legally Recognize Homosexual Marriages

This is a special debate for Kleptin's special debate tourney: . http://www.debate.org... The debate this is based off of is: . http://www.debate.org... Voting rules: "The categories give you 7 points to play with. The contender will always be the one trying to defeat his or her old arguments. "Use the 7 points to show how well the contender managed to respond to his/her old arguments. A link to the contender's old debate should be available. "If the contender made some roundabout attempt to avoid arguing against his/her old argument, then be the judge. If you felt it was clever and applicable, award full points. If you found it desperate and unconvincing, give points to the opponent. " Finally, only people participating in this tournament may vote. Now, on to my contention (others may come later): 1. Equality Equality under the law is guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall. .. deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. " . http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com... However, how can we have equal protection of the law if homosexual couples do not get the numerous priviledges, protections, and benefits that heterosexual couples receive, such as: . http://www.nolo.com... The fact that heterosexual couples get a martial communications privelege, while homosexual couples do not, clearly violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Even if one does not think that the Fourteenth Amendment is applicable to marriage, equality under the law is still one of the forefronts of American principles, especially in the civil rights era, and cannot be disregarded for any reason. Good luck, theLwerd.
Sonic OC Rap Battle

Warning? I go right in from the start. Why back off when i'm fighting its like art. Me and Robotnik wont separate for awhile I'm the best he can get cause I fight in style. Come at me with the knife at your side aiming for my chamber and you will find yourself wondering why you are vapor. Do you really believe your defense is that great? Time to show a wolf what it means to fumigate. My gear has led me to many victories in the past and lets be honest all you will ever be is an outcast. Least I have a family you are just a sad orphan Here let me help you see them again here is a coffin. I can't wait to bury you six feet underground Cause i'm confident I can wipe you up and down this battleground. To bad nobody will show up to your burial. You don't have anyone to come in general. I don't think you realize this isn't a battle I'm hunting you like a cattle. I think my victory is already assured I also think we have endured. Dealing with you is more annoying than I can ever imagine just destroying. I will end you with this next verse and finally end this whole converse. Nobody told you Cain but you are weak One aimed blast at your right arm and it will look bleak. Cain you can never hope to even touch me. But I will let you go if you at least plea. You can't hide from me when you lose I want to see your shame. All of your powers just seem like a child's game. Every opponent I face ends up wanting to sue. With real fire like that I think i'm through.
Sonic OC Rap Battle

You think that the thing between You and Robotnik will last forever You think that thing you got with him Makes you very clever Well just know this You won't always be together Believe me when I say that He'll always find someone he sees as better You think because you got some gear Makes you some kind of star If you keep thinking that way Then you won't make it very far Magma's nothing, a knife to that chamber Well that wasn't really hard I'll grapple hook that jet pack And crash you faster than a race car You think your that smart When your more insane than the Mad Hatter But when you feel blood fill your lungs Your dreams will finally shatter You think because you have magma That you can fry me like batter If I can survive black holes Then nothing beats the power of antimatter They call me the Harbringer Of Doom for a reason I can kill you hundreds of ways No matter the day or season Snapped neck, stabbed gut Any way to kill you I'm breezing It won't be too long Before your no longer breathing Tonfas won't save you From me getting a headshot So accurate with my sniper Might as well have aimbot You won't know what's coming Til you see that red dot And when your brains fly They'll fry on your own magma, red hot Trust me kid You should save your own hide And get the f*ck out of here Before I kick your behind I can survive things No other mortal can strive Magma wouldn't save you From a black hole's eye To think you'd be able to beat me That dream is very absurd That's almost as unlikely As someone eating a turd A quick couple of slices And you'll be diced like cheese curds Your last warning: step off now Before its you who gets burned