BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"assault weapons" should NOT b banned

Ok, here are my arguments as to why "assault weapons" should not be banned. These are the big three arguments; FBI recorded data shows that about 3.7% of firearm homicides were committed by rifles in GENERAL. As we know, not all rifles are "assault weapons" so even though 3.7% is low, chances are the number of gun homicides committed by "assault weapons" is even lower. Possibly even 2%. Now a common argument that maybe you will make is "well, then a ban on these guns will prevent that 2% of deaths." That is completely false. If the number of homicides committed by 'assault weapons" is that low already, don't you think those homicides could have just been committed by a different kind of gun? The worst mass shooting in the entire WORLD was NOT committed by a rifle classified as an "assault weapon" The Oslo shooting committed by Anders Brevik resulted in 71 deaths. This is the highest record ever. Again, the weapon used was NOT an "assault weapon." In the past ten years, less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings. The way I found the data was by taking these 2 links below. I went through every mass shooting from 2004 to 2014 in the United States, researched each one on which firearm was used for the shootings, and found a total of about 60 deaths involving "assault weapons." These are all the mass shootings committed by "assault weapons" and the number of deaths in the United States since 2004: Newtown, CT, Adam Lanza: 26 Aurora, CO, James Holmes-12 Omaha, NE Robert Hawkins-8 Crandon, WI, Tyler Peterson-6 Carson City, NV, Eduardo Sencion- 4 Now typical arguments for a ban on "assault weapons" would be "you don't need them" or "you can just use a handgun or a regular rifle for sport or self defense. So, would it be fair to say you don't need a sports car or a giant pick up truck to drive around? What I want to understand is why there needs to be a blanket ban on something because others say you don't need a particular object. People don't always have to show a NEED for something. People want to defend themselves and sport shoot with these sporting rifles. It shouldn't be other peoples concern. AR 15 rifles are one of the most popular firearms on the market. People like the look of the rifles and want to buy them. I find it absurd you believe rifles like that should be banned when less than 3.7% of gun homicides are committed by "assault weapons" the worst mass shooting in the WORLD was not committed by one, and less than 60 people were killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings. To conclude. Just because a gun is black and scary, doesn't mean it is more dangerous. The term "assault weapon" was a made up word by the media to scare people into thinking AR 15s are more dangerous, when in fact they perform exactly the same as any other semi auto rifle. The word is a scare tactic to make people think these sporting rifles are evil. http://gizmodo.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...(Americas) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.fbi.gov... Con, please make your arguments.
"assault weapons" should NOT b banned

I was reading that you said you wanted to ban "assault weapons" so I would like to challenge you to a debate proving a ban on "assault weapons" is absolutely pointless. The definition of an 'assault weapon" is a firearm with a detachable magazine that has at least ONE of the following features: pistol grip, flash hider, adjustable buttstock, and a bayonet lug. May I remind the opponent that there has been only about 2 instances where someone murdered someone with a bayonet in the past 5 years, and there is no instance or proof where a flash suppressor made it harder to fight a criminal.
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

"is it right to smash your computer with a hammer to turn it on" Only an idiot would do this. You might smash it with a hammer if it's broken, but not to activate it. Plus, this has nothing to do with "morality = right + intent" "in which case do you decide that it's moral to feed your child a poisonous mushroom" Once again, if the parent is a total moron, they would do this. "is granny evil" maybe not in the burning apartment sense, but maybe a serial killer? Anyways, where's the right or intent in this case? Could you maybe give an example of a moral action? How would we know if something someone's doing is right? Also, in a mathematical sense "morality = right + intent", you're saying "morality = right". Since 'right = morality', let's let both of those be 'x'. You're saying "x = x + 4" (where "4" is intent), this isn't mathematically possible (but beside the point). I await your response, vi_spex.
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

morality=right+intentreason=logic+experience of it=right+wronglogic=cause+effectis it right to smash your computer with a hammer to turn it on?morality=rightin which case do you decide that it is moral to feed your kid a deadly poisonous mushroom?is granny in the wheelchair evil because she couldnt get her cat out the burning apartment so it burned alive, or do you feel sry for granny for losing her cat in such a terrible accident?
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

logic = morality // logic = cause and effect "the action of clicking the lighter... is logical to make a flame with it.. " Nice, Bob has a lighter. Wouldn't it be logical for Bob to BURN DOWN THE BUILDING?!?!?!?! A logical action, as you say, adds some form of morality into said action. But it is against the law to commit arson! So what is right? What is moral? You can't have right without reason, yet you need reason to make right! Pro didn't agree nor disagree with my "saving granny's cat" example, nor gave a valid point as to exactly what intent makes right. I'll repeat my Round 1 example: "morality = right. Let's let 'x' be "morality". "x = x + 4 (4 is intent)" What I am saying here is that it doesn't matter what 'x' is. Since "morality = right", we can make it "x = x" Adding 4 to x does not make x! This appears to be what vi_spex is trying to say, but who knows? vi_spex, you are also avoiding my questions. If you are answering them, I cannot see your point you are trying to make, if any! You fail to acknowledge my arguments, allowing me to refute your irrelevant/weak claims! I'd say I have this in the bag. vi_spex, next time we debate, make sure your points are clearly presented (I mean spell it out for your opponent, as it may have made sense for you, it seemed irrelevant to me). You bring up the lighter, but didn't we already discuss that Bob is an arsonist? Cause and effect: Bob has lighter -> Bob lights up apartment -> People scream and run in panic -> Bob is happy You talked a decent game, yet, all arguments have their flaws somewhere. Even if the 9,738 word argument looks intimidating. To be honest, I was intimidated at first, but I knew I could refute your stance, and I did. Good game. May the voters choose the victor. (PS I have not conceded in that last paragraph. Just pointing out any argument can be refuted, it just takes the knowledge and courage to do so, which I had)
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

"the example of it being fun for bob is like, it would be illogical for a guy trying to commit suicide to jump from a tiny hill" I dunno... Bob likes arson. How is this illogical? "jumping from the edge of mountain isnt necessarily immoral or illogical either" Suicide is immoral. Logically, too much anger, sadness, and despair could lead one to commit suicide, but it would be against our purpose of existence. We shouldn't just give up our life like this! We all have so much to live for! "any true example of morality is sufficient to define morality" Then what IS morality? Aside from the "apples are healthy" example... What is moral for us to do? You seem to be avoiding this question. What exactly determines how we should act? What makes an action "moral"? You say "because it's logical", but Bob's arson is perfectly logical for him (because he's happy committing arson), yet this is immoral. If someone was trapped in a burning building (such as granny's cat) would you save it, despite that fact that it may be too late? There's still the chance you can get the cat to the Hospital, and save it. Is it logical to run into a building that's burning to save granny's cat, despite you're risking your own life? Not really, you could get yourself killed, but you're risking your life to save the cat. According to your logic, you probably wouldn't do this, as it is illogical to save a cat in exchange for your own life. If you disagree with my example of saving the cat, then answer this question: WHAT MAKES AN ACTION MORAL? I await your final response...
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

its not morally right to light fire to a building, but the example of it being fun for bob is like, it would be illogical for a guy trying to commit suicide to jump from a tiny hill jumping from the edge of mountain isnt necessarily immoral or illogical eitherillogical isnt necesssarily evil, becuase it takes intent to be evilany true example of morality is sufficient to define morality
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

"logic = cause + effect" So I'm assuming this isn't a mathematical equation, but rather "cause/effect is logical' "illogical = evil" So if Bob lights a building on fire because he finds it fun, isn't this logical? Bob lights a building on fire because he enjoys the panicking of the civilians. Since "evil = illogical", and "logic = moral", Bob is doing the moral thing, since it's logical. (Hey, this actually sounds a bit like John Stuart Mill's philosophy; saying along the lines of "it's good because it makes him happy") (although Rule Ultiniarism would get in the way of this) Some evils can be logical. (Example: Someone [Pinky and the Brain] wants world domination) Pinky and the Brain's motive is logical, as who wouldn't want to reign supreme over the lands? But back to the point, what about Intent? How can we know if a certain action is moral? You use simple examples to my counters. Morality can change depending on situation. Good intent may lead to negative ends. If this is the case, how are we to know exactly what is moral when? (PS maybe the parent is feeding the child battery acid because she's evil like that.)
morality=right+intent(morality IS right AND intent)

"1+1=2" what exactly is the point of this kindergarten equation? "right is not undefined" what do you mean by this? If this is a counter to "morality=right" "x = x + 4", I was using "x" as an example. I never said morality/right is undefined. Also, is the equation "morality = logic + right + intent" or something? Whatever. I'm not sure if you answered my question of "How do we know if something someone's doing is right?" How do we tell a bad action from a good action? Immanuel Kant (a philosopher) might answer "As long as it is a Categorical Imperative" in which how do we know if something's a Categorical Imperative (something we must follow at all costs). Immanuel Kant: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Argument in Round 1

I am referring to the God in which fundamentalist Christians believe, although personality-wise, this is not necessarily the God all Christians believe in. My main argument shall be of example. Many fundamentalist Christians believe the New York/ New Jersey area a sinful place. According to fundamentalist Christians, the entire world was once considered a sinful place. God's reaction was to flood the entire world, killing everyone. It only makes sense that he attack again, but in an isolated area of sin. As a hint of why the storm happened, he destroyed the most sinful place on television: the Jersey Shore house. I rest my case and look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. (Please keep in mind that we are both arguing as if we are fundamentalist Christians.)
Should abortion be legal

Let me first state that I agree that people should have control of their own bodies. Ok so your first point that unborn children don't have special rights to use a woman's body is disturbing to me. No child was asked to be brought into this world and to deny they safty in the own mothers wombs seems like the greatest violation of rights out there. But enough personal opinions and more arguments. If we follow your premise that all humans also have a right to use their own bodies how they please, why doesn't this apply to the unborn? Are big humans rights more valuable to little humans rights? What criteria must a human meet before they get rights just as the mother has? You say, "The fact that a fetus may no longer sustain life once removed from a females body is because the fetus is unable to sustain life on its own and is no different than taking someone who is dieing off life support" but then why don't we do this with other born humans. If you put your 2 month old on your back porch in the cold they would no longer be able to sustain life. They are almost equally as dependent on the mother as the unborn. Is level of dependency what gives a human personhood? If we separate personhood from human beings based on age, level of dependency, size, or utility then we have set criteria that denies many born humans the right of personhood, making them too despoible. I think if we come to see ( as modern science has) that the unborn are infact unique human life then to deny one set of humans rights of personhood lets them become disposable. We don't do that for big humans so we shouldn't for little ones.
Should abortion be legal

Humans beings do have the right to life but they also have the right to there own bodies and to have a say what happens to their bodies. People have the right to refuse medical care and they have a right not to have there body harvested for the medical needs for others like blood, organs, and bone marrow. Even in death what happens to ones body is the right of each individual. For someone to hold a person body hostage to drain them of resource and comfort against their will even someone who's life may depend on that body is not right. A women's body is her own and babies do not get special rights to use a females body to live if that women does not wish it. The fact that a fetus may no longer sustain life once removed from a females body is because the fetus is unable to sustain life on its own and is no different than taking someone who is dieing off life support. Fetus may be lives and they may even be lives worth protecting but they do not get special rights to use another persons body against there will. We don't allow it in medical practices even when lives are on the line and we shouldn't do it with pregnancies either.
Should abortion be legal

Since i'm not going to re state everything I did earlier I will only focus on the point i haven't addressed yet. You bring up the violinist argument, basically that you don't need to give your body to save someone against your will. Let me state why pregnancy is different from that. First, even if you are the cause of someone needing your organs whatever act you committed is not naturally oriented to having a person dependent on you. On the other hand sex has a natural order that puts someone's life in your hands. It should follow then that you are now responsible for that life. Second, there is a difference between letting someone die and purposefully killing them. As I said earlier that the unborn are healthy and in no way need to die unless you deliberately rip them apart limb by limb and kill them. Someone dying who needs your organ isn't killed by you if you say no, they just die because of natural causes. There is nothing natural about abortion, you don't see abortions happening in the animal kingdom. It's not like a woman gives birth and then they just say, "oh sorry buddy, we are just going to leave you here and see if you can make it on your own". No, infact abortion is tearing this child apart piece by piece, It's horrible. Third, the woman's uterus and body is MADE to support the life of the unborn. To compare an unborn child to a parasite is like saying our bodies are made to carry parasites, which obviously is not true. On the other hand a woman's body isn't made to donate organs, it can but it isn't a proper function. Lastly I'd like to quote Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta " if we can accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?" thanks for the debate
Should abortion be legal

This whole attitude that we can separate sex from procreation is nonsense to me, the thought that we must end one life to keep the comfort of another is sad. Except in the case of rape a women has engaged in an act that by its nature has the possibility of creating life. To act like the unborn child is some alien that has taken over a woman's body is a mistake. Also just because we don't know if people want to live doesn't give us a reason to kill them. We don't kill those with autism because they can't communicate whether they want to live or not. Also as a society we see the horrible effects of suicide but by your logic it's fine because they don't want to live. Why have crisis workers then. Further you say the unborn's ability to reason makes them worthless and because they aren't conscious we can just kill them. But again that logic doesn't work to born people, we don't throw away human life outside the womb when they are infants and incapable to reason their own existence. Or someone when they sleep and they will never know they died. You say that the unborn can't live because of a change of location. Well if we took you to the moon and changed your location you would also die so why is it different? Taking someone out of an environment where they need to live is always immoral and always killing. The only difference between us and the unborn are our: Size, Level of development, Environment (where we live), and Level of dependency. basically our arguments go as such: you say the unborn don't have a right to their own mothers bodies. I say that the unborn are humans (based on science) and you can't kill humans because they are a burden to you. It is absurd to think that carrying a child is some act of goodwill towards this thing inside a mother, and that abortion is just denying some charity. I'll finish with this, If the unborn is a human then it there is no reason that justifies killing them. The unborn are healthy and not in imminent danger of death. The only way to kill them is to purposefully deny them what they need to live. Since doing that with born people is wrong it is also wrong to do with unborn people.
Should abortion be legal

A child does not have a right to their mother"s womb or any other part of their body. A woman is not an incubator or something to be used she has a say in what happens to her own body. And you are right the baby did not ask to be born and you have absolutely no way of knowing if that child even wants to be born. There are many people in the world who wish they had not been born but were forced into the world so here they must live. And if their mother does not want the pregnancy obviously she did not mean for the child to be created either. The child may have the definition of living but their ability to understand and reason is not to a point that they would even understood that they ever lived. The right of a human to use their body as they please does apply to the baby. The baby can do whatever it wants with its body but it cannot stay in a body that does not want it there. If a person is unable to breath well enough to sustain their own life and allowing them to pass on is different than not giving them food and water when they are not able to feed themselves. The first is unable to stain life due to functions of their body and the second is just simply not helping a person when there are weak. Big difference. A baby is not able to sustain its own life outside the womb. It cannot use a women"s body as a life support machine against her will any more than we would force a kidney out of someone to save another"s life if they do not wish to donate it. With your leaving a child on the back porch analogy the baby is able to sustain their own life. They can breathe and digest nutrients. The don"t require using another person"s body to live. They do need help to live in being protected and feed but that is two different things. If a parent did not want that child she only gives it to someone who would take care of it. To help protect their right to live as a person. At a fetus age there is nothing to do once removed from the uterus to help keep it alive. Neglect is different than simply changing a person"s geography. Both are people the mother has a right to her body and a baby has the right to live if it can on its own without violating a women"s right to her body.
Gum Chewing in school

1) "Even after brushing=bad breath" This is not true at all! If people are brushing their teeth, they loose the bad breath. Kids also normally eat breakfast in the morning as well. This also gets rid of bad breath. Bad breath is really not that big of a deal. Kids can breath out of their nose, and only kids that are very close to them will smell the bad breath. My school doesn't allow gum, and their has NEVER been a problem with bad breath! 2) "It is a proven fact that it helps and i have never heard of smacking, and a lot of people at my school chew gum" It is NOT proven! The research started in 2002 and they have not done enough studies to prove that it helps your brain at all! Really, its much better to just know your stuff and not have to be extremely worried about whether the gum is actually going to help you or not. 3) "Enough people do that it spreads, I know from my school that there is only 1 or 2 incidents people have left gum about. " I really wish you would have been a little more clear about what you are talking about, but I will work with what I have. Okay, so that's what you know, but why don't you try talking to the janitor? They will assure you that gum is EVERYWHERE! It is disgusting how there is gum under everything. Also, try putting your hand under your chair at school and you'll see what I mean. 4) "If teachers can't hear they are not smacking, its as simple as that a classroom isnt that big that you can't hear from the front. " Actually, when a teacher is talking at the front of the room, it can be very difficult to hear smacking. Many times a student will turn his/her head and smack in the face of the person next to them, just to annoy them. This will direct the sounds elsewhere, and it will not reach the teacher. 5) "GUM=Focus, good breath, respect, and responcibility" Gum does NOT make people more responsible. Seriously, when has a study been done to prove this is true? Never. This is something my opponent made up. 6) My opponent still has not answered my question of why spend extra money on gum so you can chew it in school. I would like an answer to this please. Remember gum in school is distracting, annoying, messy, and costs extra money.
Gum Chewing in school

Even after brushing=bad breath It is a proven fact that it helps and i have never heard of smacking, and a lot of people at my school chew gum Enough people do that it spreads, I know from my school that there is only 1 or 2 incidents people have left gum about. If teachers can't hear they are not smacking, its as simple as that a classroom isnt that big that you can't hear from the front. GUM=Focus, good breath, respect, and responcibility