BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All firearms should be banned.

I've been in the NRA for about 4 years now, and many times I have been faced with the statement, "Guns should be banned because..." Now, I don't specifically blame Democrats/liberals on the issue supporting gun control, I simply look down on anyone who blatantly screams out "GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED." I've actually taken time to research some facts and statistics, but I'm not too big on those. We can all agree that facts and statistics can and are changed accordingly in favor of whoever is advocating or protesting the weapons. I've heard and seen various numbers or statements, most of which I've been unable to resolve through research. There's just way too much tampering with numbers, because we can agree that neither gun advocates nor anti-gun advocates want to lose their arguments. Though, true numbers exist. The only effective way I've found is comparing the statistics or facts to other statistics and facts from different sources, and if they are consistent, then I consider it evidence that they are true. However, my personally preferred way to disprove theories about why guns should be banned, is making the people who make those theories think outside the box. I look forward to arguing the simple point why firearms should or shouldn't be banned. I stand as being against the banning of firearms. I will allow my opponent to state the initial contentions.
Hiroshima was not nuked

I have never denied that many people died in Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 or at a later date due to radiation. The Shima Hospital, according to my opponent, should only have had to withstand vertical forces yet it was completely destroyed whereas surrounding buildings of the same construction were left standing. I argue that huge quantities of TNT combined with chemicals such as Uranium were stored on the hospital foors and set off, which explains why there is a lack of video footage of the atomic bomb dropping and many other things that just don't make sense. If the 'little boy' bomb was nuclear we should expect someone to be punished for this clear crime against humanity. It was said to have been planned to detonate in the air 500m from the ground for maximum damage to civilians, who were the target. The pilots express no regret after supposedly killing innocent people via dropping a bomb that was known at the time would not end the war sooner or save more civilians. These people would kill innocent Japanese again in mass numbers too, and yet no-one was punbished! The 'little boy' bomb wasn't tested before use, which is odd, but even stranger, the untested bomb which would make history was not filmed by either of the three bombers as it dropped. Nor was the second bomb to fall on Japan filmed dropping despite there being absolutely no resistance in both cases. We are taught to believe that Japanese fighters thought it was better to save fuel and ammo than save a few thousand civilians.Everything about the bombings seem staged. The soviet declaration of war should have made America reconsider dropping a second bomb, the only reason they didn't was because nuclear bombs are just stockpiles of TNT which have to be moved in secret.
Hiroshima was not nuked

Most of your points have been about the ethnicality of dropping a Nuclear Bomb on Hiroshima. But that's not the point of this argument. The point of this argument is debate if Hiroshima WAS or WAS NOT nuked. Let's take a look at your first argument, the Genbaku dome. It stands near Ground Zero, where the nuclear bomb detonated right above it (As you said in your argument). Because the explosion, or "air burst", was right on top of the building, it only had to withstand vertical forces. Which many buildings are designed to do. s://qph.is.quoracdn.net...; alt="" width="347" height="443" />But horizontal forces are another thing, they aren't designed for that, thats why so many other buildings fell.Let's move to your second point, how a few buildings survived the blast. You say that it's because that they are fireproof, but is there another possible reason? Notice that all the buildings standing are relatively "stocky" as you would say it. They may could have been able to survive the air blast that the nuclear bomb hit them with, while the other, weaker buildings did not. Plus, I'm pretty sure alot more buildings in Japan are fireproof...Another thing to add is that "While the Japanese Cabinet did approve of the approach to the Soviets, there was no agreement on surrender terms within the government and there was no official discussion of surrender terms until after the dropping of the second atomic bomb." I believe that the reason the Americans dropped 2 atomic bombs was to show that they had lots of them and could detonate them in rapid succession, thus indimidating the Japanese and making it seem like the US would drop more if they didn't surrender.The final point that you made that I will discuss is about the video of the bomb detonation. To my knowledge, there has been no footage of the bombs detonation. Who filmed the video of the plane anyway? The Japanese?Now, moving on to my points. If the Nuclear bomb was not dropped, why are Japanese citizens developing cancer and tumors from radiation poisoning? An epidemiology study by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation states that from 1950 to 2000, 46% of leukaemia deaths and 11% of solid cancer deaths among the bomb survivors were due to radiation from the bombs. If it was just TNT with chemicals, why is there radiation. Also, there are multiple eyewitness accounts of people who witnessed the drop of the atomic bomb. How do you explain that using your TNT logic? Also, if fire really was the reason for the desolation of Hiroshima... why did none of the eyewitnesses talk about it?Why do
Goku beats Superman!

Where is your proof that Superman is as weak as a baby? He survived going 8 million times of light speed, and hit earth with the force enough to alter its path against the sun. He is not weak. I am not saying Goku is weak. He beat Frieza and Vegeta, but Superman is just out of everyone's league altogether. Goku is all about pushing past the limits. But when you face Goku's strongest potential (which is probably not achieved yet, as he will probably go past super saiyan super god super saiyan) against Superman's strongest potential, when you face them at their strongest, which is what Goku will want, Superman will win, piece of cake.
Goku beats Superman!

One day, 25.05 light years away from earth, Superman was exploring the star Vega. Of course, while he was gone, trouble came to Metropolis. Superman's photographer buddy Jimmy activated his watch, which emits a sound at a frequency only Superman can hear. Superman heard the signal in the vacuum of space and arrived 10 minutes later. In order for this to happen, he had to have been going AT LEAST 800,000,000,000,000 mph. Goku's max speed was achieved when he flew across the Snake Way, at mach 30, which is 23,018.1 mph. See? Superman wins - piece of cake. Also, in one crisis, Superman lifted a book of infinite pages. In another, he lifted Specter of the ground, Specter is made up of the void, which is to say, infinity. He has unlimited strength. At max, Goku cannot lift more than 40 tons. 40 tons is a lot, but is literally nothing compared to infinity. Superman wins - piece of cake. All in all, it boils down to why they exist. Goku is a representative of pushing past limits, some of which are considered impossible for him. He is inspiring because he represents overcoming adversity, he represents physical struggle. Superman however, represents the moral struggle. His limitless power is countered by his moral struggle. He is about doing the right thing, as he does not struggle with being physically impoverished. This debate is a debate between the ability to overcome limits against being limitless. Goku is the only one with limits to give in the first place. Superman wins - maybe not a piece of cake, but still wins. One last statement of a Superman's endurance. Once he received the power of 50 supernovas against him. This explosion was the force of 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Tsar Bombas (the most powerful nuclear weapon ever built). This explosion made him crash into earth, causing a nuclear winter, because he was so strong. He got up. Without a scratch. Superman wins. Piece of Cake.
Kung Fu Panda is best DreamWorks movie

First of all, Hello ! ! ( Hope To Have A Good Debate ) I am totally opposing your point my worthy contender . DreamWorks have created many movies . .. Some of it which you may not know also . .. It includes the greatest animation's movie ever . .. . (Shrek, Madagascar) including Kung Fu Panda . But positioning it as the best DreamWorks movie isn't fair enough. For clarification ( The following executives are on the DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc. 's board of directors: Jeffrey Katzenberg, co-founder, chief executive officer and director. Mellody Hobson, chairman of the board of directors. Lewis Coleman, vice chairman. ) The DreamWorks team once mentioned Shrek as one the best DreamWorks Movie but later on the other day proclaimed everyone that in all the movies . .. The crew changes . . So it's not fair enough to vote one single movie "BEST". As far this debate is concerned . .. If you are speaking your own desire that " Kung Fu Panda is the best DreamWorks movie " then I may correct you my worthy competitor that in the "Terms and Conditions" of the Debate. Org it's mentioned that we need to prove something to make it an successful debate because as far as I know we cannot write our own wishes in a debate competition. Well now coming on the "Economics" side . .. "Kung Fu Panda 2" is the best financial film of Dream Works crossing 637.7 million worldwide . But as mentioned in the topic that it's not the 2nd part and also before the release of the 2nd part it was made cleared by DreamWorks that the producer is changed in the movie so it won't have any connectivity from the 1st part.
Kung Fu Panda is best DreamWorks movie

Kung Fu Panda is the best DreamWorks movie because it is one of the best "never judge a book by its cover movie". Say the title, and admit that it sounds serious. No. It sounds stupid. But watvhing the movie, it was better than some people thought it would be. The animation is amazing, the jokes are modern, but it is the good modern jokes, great acting, and overall good characters. This movie has some great action because it takes all advantages that it is animated, and a comedy, to give some fast action scenes. Also for a comedy, there is surprisingly good drama Kung Fu Panda is the best DreamWorks movies. These characters are memorable. I could remember almost every character. What makes this better than other DreamWorks movie say like Shrek is because while Shrek is a good movie, it has more story than jokes. Also, Shrek is kind of boring with Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy mostly talking, and some jokes don't make sense. This is why I think Kung fu Panda is the best DreamWorks movie.
HorseBck Riding IS a Sport!

With all due respect, how you "feel" has no bearing on this debate. It is obvious you feel that I am wrong since that is your stance on this issue. Facts are what matters in debate. I have given three different definitions of sport, and they all had the word physical in it. The affirmative debater failed to answer my argument that horseback riding is not physical. She said "horse riding is a physical activity". That's great if you "feel" that way, but facts ALWAYS trump feelings. The definitions I have provided prove that horseback riding is not a sport. The affirmative debater also said that horseback riding contains a set of rules. How? Riding around in a pasture requires rules? I have already proved that statement to be false. In the last round, I talked about equine activities in the Olympics. Horseback riding is just one of the components of the sport, just like batting is only one part of baseball. I will now move to the last statement that was made by the affirmative debater. "Rodeos and horse polo and vaulting are more a sport but never the less horse back riding is a sport. " This quote incontrovertibly proves my point. There are not degrees of sports. An activity is either a sport or it's not. Horseback riding is just a part of these sports, and is NOT a sport in and of itself. With this short rebuttal, I have covered all the points the affirmative debater tried to make in her minuscule rebuttal.
HorseBck Riding IS a Sport!

Alot of people say that all you do when you are riding is just sit on the horse and do nothing. Well i think otherwise. YOu have to remember alot of things to be safe and staying on is not just a piece of pie. You have to steer 2,000 lbs. where you want it to go. You have to use your strength. If horse back riding is not a sport like others say, why is it in the summer olympics?
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East

1. This is specific to Yemen. Wom[x]n face lack of education (but yes, wom[x]n's rights), which is necessary for democracy. So the plan is for the US to create schools in Yemen to educate wom[x]n, which promotes democracy, since schools are a fundamental part of democracy. Then, education leads to less poverty, better economy, and more political involvement, along with other things.
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East

There's honestly only one reason you vote aff today. I specifically said in my case, if the neg doesn't address gendered concerns, they function in a patriarchal norm. Reject the imminent silence on gendered violence and force them to justify the power relations they perpetuate. Defer AFF if they can't justify the subject of their discourse. I do not believe my opponent has a good position to support since he functions in a patriarchal norm. I did not assume that he is in a patriarchal norm. My opponent conceded my role of the ballot and that specific line. Therefore, he does operate in a patriarchal norm. My opponent conceded the role of the ballot, the highest level of framework. I'm the only one that addresses gendered concerns. All I ask was for the neg to engage in feminist discourse, and he didn't. I apologize for this boring debate, but because my opponent functions in a gendered norm, you have to vote aff.
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East

I want to address one thing in this last rebuttal. First off, my opponent has conceded everything but his position. This means that he believes that I have a good position that he supports. The only reason that he hasn't conceded the round outright is due to his belief that I am suppressing woman by reaffirming patriarchal norms. I would like to state that I am not reaffirming patriarchal norms. That is an assumption that my opponent has put onto me. Seeing as that discussion is entirely irrelevant to today's debate, I will dismiss it. These are the reasons that I win: 1) My opponent has conceded everything to me. 2) My opponent didn't defend his own case. 3) My case is topical to the whole middle east. 4) My case has a solution to a large variety of problems, not just that found in "wom[x]n's" rights. 5) My opponent literally conceded everything to me. (Yes, I'm repeating that)
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East

The order will be my opponent's case, then my own. I concede my opponent's value, subsidiarity. I concede my opponent's criterion. I concede the thesis. I concede the contentions. Let's go to my case. I specifically said, "If the neg doesn"t address gendered concerns, they function in a patriarchal norm. Reject their imminent silence on gendered violence and force them to justify the power relations they perpetuate. Defer Aff if they can"t justify the subject of their discourse." You automatically vote aff. Not once did my opponent talk about the wom[x]n in his case, nor his rebuttal against my own. My opponent functions in a patriarchal norm. You should already vote aff at this point. My ROTB also goes untouched. The ROTB functions at a higher level than value/criterion. My opponent doesn't address patriarchy. I'm the only one talking about gendered concerns. Because my opponent doesn't talk about the patriarchy, you should automatically affirm.
Resolved: The United States ought to promote democracy in the Middle East

1) I'm going to develop a little more on Subsidiarity. The idea is an offshoot of pragmatism. It is achieving morals practically through a specific criteria. As for my criterion, it is an offshoot of subsidiarity when discussing government and economics, which ultimately ties into the promotion of distributism. 2) The issues that I have outlined in my first contention are just that. They are a variety of issues that have been caused by capitalism. My goal in promoting distributism is to fix these issues. One example that I would like to focus on is that of Yemen. A narcotic, qat, that is in widespread use, has been grown commercially. Qat has maintained a significant grasp on the Yemense populous, specifically the men, since the introduction of machinery due to capitalism.. This has effected the country by having a large number of unproductive men. All of this leads to women, who can't obtain jobs that pay well due to the society, as the only working parents of traditionally large families. If distributism were implemented, then we would see the results of capitalism shrink back. This leads to a more stable society.
Eating meat is healthy.

Immorality of eating meat is incoherent to this debate, as we are arguing the health of eating meat. I will need to see sources for your census to believe its legitimacy. My opponent's fallacy that eating less meat will cure world hunger. This does not apply to the health of eating meat, nor can it be considered remotely true. I decided to use the mayoclinic as a source to (below) Here is what they said about meat: "Meat and poultry can be valuable sources of protein and other important nutrients" [1] Con has not refuted the arguments of the health benefits that meat possess, which I have shown in Round 1. The nutrients and vitamins (Vitamin B12, B3 (Niacin), B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and more) in meat show the benefits to ones health. I have refuted any possible correlation with heart disease, and will refute any arguments regarding mortality, if proper sources are given to prove those statistics. http://www.mayoclinic.org...
Eating meat is healthy.

Neither of us has shown any source material. Also, I would like to point out your obvious use of search engines and the copy/paste tools. Nevertheless, I will show sourcing here. My primary source is The Moral Life, by Louis J. Pojman. He explains the immorality and unhealthiness of eating specifically meats. Prevention.com also states that red AND white meats are unhealthy and not pertaining in eating meats can help improve and lessen your risk of heart disease. mayoclinic.org has much to say about the subject as well. According to census statistics, vegetarians and pescatarians live nearly 15 percent longer than meat eaters. Cows and other livestock also consume over 60 percent of our nations corn. If the United States stopped mass-producing cows and such through hormones and force-breeding, we could one day end world hunger. Thank you for your time, though. :)
Eating meat is healthy.

Thank you Con for making this debate.Please provide sources for your opening Round. I cannot confirm if those are factual without proof.Arguments "A 100 gram portion (3.5 ounces) of raw ground beef contains large amounts of Vitamin B12, B3 (Niacin), B6, Iron, Zinc, Selenium and plenty of other vitamins and minerals ""Studies now show that saturated fat in the diet doesn’t raise the “bad” cholesterol in the blood and is not in any way associated with heart disease"[1]Eating meat has been shown not to be a necessity to maintain human life, as vegans show this on their daily life routine by avoiding meats. However, the premise: "Eating meat is healthy" is clearly shown in this article. The nutrition gained from meats, especially lean meats, are beneficial to the body. Bodily functions can work at an optimum level making for healthy digestion, liver and immune function, and heart health.[1] http://authoritynutrition.com...
Eating meat is healthy.

Meat is unhealthy in most every way imaginable. Compare people who don't eat meat's physical and emotional health to people who do. People who consume meat regularly tend to weigh more than people who don't. Red and white meats have been proven to contribute to heart disease, colon cancer, stomach cancer, heart attacks, diabetes, and stroke. This isn't just about personal gain, either. Anyone with an inkling of compassion can say animal abuse is wrong. Yet many of those same people consume meats, FROM ANIMALS. Why is eating a pig killed for consumption any different than killing a dog and eating it? Some people say domestication, but pigs are domesticated successfully in many scenarios. Pigs have also been just as smart if not smarter than dogs. Take the time to think before you argue. Thank you.
people suck

Yes I know I could get an easy win by just saying "I'm technically Pro to the resolution therefore my opponent concedes to my case" But I won't do that. I'm arguing against his statements, so this round don't vote for Pro or Con vote for Epicism or zoundmind lol. First a definition, People: human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings. http://dictionary.reference.com... "I have viewed people as long as I can remember,they are good @ telling others how to live there lives even by force sometimes. People should live there own lives,the hypocritical way I say!" 1. By saying "people" your saying all of the human race sucks, this clearly isn't true. 2. To say people suck as the resolution means you apply "people suck" as a fact, but then you say "sometimes" which means not always, this conflicts the resolution which states "people suck" which means supposedly we always suck, the resolution should be "People sometimes suck". 3. To say we should be hypocritical your saying we should make fake virtues, moral or religious beliefs, and principles but you fail to state how in anyway we would benefit from "playing pretend" I like to call it. 4. Your opinion is not fact. Not everyone feels as you do. "I Can Prove that people suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I applaud that you can do so, yet you never did. There was never any proof shown and seeing how this is a one round gig you have no way of proving to us within the debate that "people suck"... Next time either prove it in the first post or make more rounds. On to my arguments; 1. All of the human race doesn't suck, I know a good amount of very principled generous people much of them on this site as we speak. 2. I offer a site; http://cancerdad.blogspot.com... And another; http://boxingoctopus.wordpress.com... And yet more; http://pinkasparag.us... I thank my opponent for opening this debate, I only hope It helps him structure his next debate better. Theoretically zoundmind is Pro to the resolution but I'm technically Pro so don't be confused, vote Pro. Or if it makes more sense, vote for Epicism. (He meant Pro but probably hit Con as in Con towards people) Thank You!