BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A complete gun ban in the US

Rebuttals"Starting a complete and total ban on guns will not solve anything. "A complete ban would actually solve things. Here is a graph from the Bureau of Justice statistics: [1]Homicides are mostly committed with handguns, while decreasing, it is still a lot larger than other weapons, while other gun homicides are increasing, with knifes actually being the weapon least used on this graph. "they think it is their right under the amendments and the constitution"First off I would like to quote the segment of constitution relating to weapons: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. I would like to point out that it is not their right to bear firearms. The constitution gives the people the right to bear arms. Arms is defined by the Oxford dictionary as: Weapons and ammunition; armaments. While arms is often referred to as firearms, it actually means weapons in general. So the people have the right to bear weapons, but it will not be against to the constitution to ban guns. "Banning guns would just result into a regression of other weapons. You ban guns, people go to knives. You ban knives they go to their fists. People will always find ways to hurt people and banning a catalyst for the harm will just result into another catalyst forming. "Other weapons are less harmful. While yes people will find ways to harm people, knifes and fists are less dangerous. You have a much higher possibility to survive an attack from a knife, and a fist than a gun. You can outrun the person, or try to fight back. With guns, you can't outrun the bullet. "Guns will still be around via under ground purchase. "In this case, I would like to point out that with restrictions set, guns will also be still able to be obtained by criminals, through that way. However I suggest that by stricter security at ports, and airports to ensure that little to no firearms enter the country unless authorized (ex: For the military, or police officer). This would guns hard, or even impossible to obtain even through underground purchase. People lose family and loved onesI would like to show you another graph from the Bureau of Justice Statistics: [1]You can see from this graph that the most people that die are between ages 17 to 30, with still a significant amount of people under that age and above that die. In fact even infants get killed. This can cause a lot of emotional damage to a person, even driving them to the point of suicide. Suggestion on how to enforce gun banI suggest stricter security at airports and ports, including higher grade weapons for security personnel. More thorough checks of everyone can be implemented. I also suggest that all airlines, not just commercial ones get checked, and pass through normal inspections. I also suggest that the death penalty is put back in all states, and be used in the situation of a gun homicide. [1]:. http://www.bjs.gov...[1]:http://www.bjs.gov...
A complete gun ban in the US

Pro has accepted the BOP. Resolved - A ban on all guns in the USNegative ImpactStarting a complete and total ban on guns will not solve anything. The only effective way to actually implement this idea is by having a buy back accompanying it. A buy back or the removal of guns on a compulsory basis, would incite a great deal of harm in the US. People want to have guns, and they think it is their right under the amendments and the constitution. Forcing a removal of those guns, would have long term negative impacts that could lead to another civil war. Countless people have said they would not give back their guns if a buy back happened, and others said they would fight or defend their right to bear arms. The overall negative impact of trying to force people to give up their guns, or stopping their right to defend themselves is a net detriment in the US0 effectBanning guns would just result into a regression of other weapons. You ban guns, people go to knives. You ban knives they go to their fists. People will always find ways to hurt people and banning a catalyst for the harm will just result into another catalyst forming. More regulation but not a banThe more effective thing would be to issue stronger background checks, limit high capacity magazines, etc. It is something that would have a more positive effect without the fallout of a total ban. More regulation can be a good thing, but a total ban would result in citizens fighting back. Guns reduce CrimeIf you ban gun from civilians, they lose their self defense. Guns will still be around via under ground purchase. A citizen has the right to defend themselves and allowing guns in homes actually reduces robberies and other types of crime because it acts a deterrent. Allowing criminals to have guns, while removing them from civilians would actually increase the crime and murder rate by a significant margin.
This House would use racial profiling as part of airport security checks

In an effort to maintain fairness I will not directly attack my opponents points, but I would like to point out that the sources he provided all support background information, not his actual arguments. He also points out several common arguments against his case, but fails to actually counter them for some reason. Now, on to my case. The main reason for racial profiling in airports (or anywhere) is, of course, to prevent crime committed by those of a specific race supposedly more likely to commit crime. So does racial profiling work? First we need to know who racial profiling is targeted at. In the case of airports it is Arabs and South Asians. [1] For this debate specifically we will look at crime committed in airports, and how much is committed by specific races. Here is an example of where racial profiling in airports turned up nothing. "an astounding seventy-nine percent of the targets investigated were immigrants from Muslim majority countries. Moreover, foreign nationals from Muslim-majority countries were 1,280 times more likely to be targeted than similarly situated individuals from other countries. Incredibly, not even one terrorism-related conviction resulted from the interviews conducted under this program. What did result, however, was an intense chilling effect on the free speech and association rights of the Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities targeted in advance of an already contentious presidential election."[2] This a massive failure. The total number of people interviewed is astounding, over 2000 Muslims in 2004, and yet it showed no results. [3] If they truly were a more likely threat to our society you would expect to see at least one major problem rear its face from these interviews. Another problem is that this takes focus away from suspicious characters who are not Muslim/ from a largely Muslim nation. Recently in a study of gun crime from Pew Asians and Pacific Islanders actually came lower than Whites in gun homicide by 100,000 people. [4] How can it be claimed then that we should focus more on these people than anyone else? I have shown statistical data that supports my claim. My opponent has not. Vote con. 1. http://www.civilrights.org... 2. https://www.aclu.org... (Page 31) 3. http://www.nytimes.com... 4. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...
Abortion

You obviously do not know much about abortion. Only .003% of abortions happen because of rape and incest. another 3% of abortion happens because the delivery of the baby will affect the woman's health. There is no excuse for over 80% of abortions that happen. You also probably don't know what abortion is. You might know the concept of abortion, which is obvious, but abortions are horrible. The main surgical procedures are the first, where the surgeon goes into the vaginal canal and cut the babies head off, then into another portion and the baby is delivered. Another type is a late-term abortion called partial birth abortions where only the the baby is pulled out feet first except for the head which is still in the mothers vaginal canal.Then a long tube is stabbed into the head of the baby,and a very powerful suction device is used to suck the brain out of the baby's skull, collapsing the skull of the baby and the baby slips out of the womb, with no brain and a collapsed skull. Another type is when a long needle into the uterus without touching the baby. The amniotic fluid, which the baby's life depends upon, is removed and replaced with a strong saline solution, burning the baby inside the womb and then the baby is delivered. How sweet. Not! This is what you stand up for and it is horrific! Many people argue," Harambe the Gorilla from Cincinnati Zoo was doing nothing wrong, and he was shot dead!" You are arguing for the life of a gorilla rather than the life of babies being aborted. This is all I have to say for now.
daleks vs covenant

Thank you for clarifying your position. Since my opponent said the daleks only weapon attacked their neural systems, the answer is simple. It is unlikely that these attacks would penetrate through the covenant ships or their shields. Covenant glassing raids will be done on any worlds they intend on preserving. As seen here http://tardis.wikia.com... if you scroll down you wil see daleks have many weaknesses including high energy blasts. Most covenant weapons are very powerful and I doubt they would fail to obliterate a dalek. Daleks are little trash cans they are no good look at this videoYou can see that several unarmed humans were easily able to just shove it out a window.To conclude by their own nature daleks are very weak. They are easy to kill even for a group of humans and the covenant from halo were able to kill off almost every human so there you have it. Also you cannot take worthless battles like this seriously. Halo is reputable an has a good plot whereas dr who is absolutely the worst show on television via plot and acting. It is also very childish and the few people I know that watch it are my nephews who are 10.
daleks vs covenant

in response to your question about the covenant. the answer is simple i am referring to the covenant of the aliens such as the elites grunts jackals and so on. as to the debate. the daleks have energy weapons that can go thru any amount of armor and stop their enemies neural path thus giving them a heart attack. as to the fact of guns shooting at them. to date the only weapons that have been able to make it past their shields are there own which can only be obtained by killing them. As to other weapons. at there early versions of their existence they had more weakness as of todays versions there are few left. http://tardis.wikia.com... pardon my late response i have been trying to get someone to spell check this with no luck.
Christianity was the main reason for the fall of the Roman Empire

Creating Constantinople was a mistake i agree but if you remember this was done by the first christian emperor of rome Constantine. And i would also include some more points to make you see reason. I know the empire fell long after the birth of Christianity BUT it is also true that if you pay attention to roman history everything started going downhill after the conversion of the empire. Military expenditure and research was reduced if not halted completely instead the empire was more focused on converting the populace and building Giant churches all over the place. The Christians had no loyalty or concern for the empire instead they were loyal to their new God. The decisions and jurisdiction of the empire was concerned about the moral values of being a christian rather than taking practical steps.
Christianity was the main reason for the fall of the Roman Empire

Although i would not negate the other reasons played some role but none of those reasons could have completely erased the empire itself. Constantine brought Christianity a new ,well some call it a religion i would take the liberty to call it a hoax. It created an intolerant division with intent of deleting divisions. After Christianity was adopted it was impossible to integrate foreign tribes as it was previously possible, with their Gods and traditions being added to Roman. The population concentrated more onto the next life, rather than current one, so people didn't really care about preserving the empire as much as they cared for salvation of their souls, transferring their ultimate loyalty from the empire/Rome to God/heaven. A lot of previous wisdom was seen as filthy pagan devil work, which caused a scientific stagnation, which culminated in dark ages.
Atheism is based on "faith"

From Merriam-Webster: Faith: 1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof None of these definitions apply to atheism. Quite the opposite; atheism is the absence of faith. To say "Prove it" when faced with a fantastical claim is not having faith in the claim not being true. It is simply saying, "I am not going to assume this statement is true until it is proven." Atheism is the result of applying this logic to religion.
Being in favor of abortion and against the death penalty is hypocritical and typically liberal.

Being in favor of abortion and against the death penalty, is not only morally wrong, it doesn't make sense. Kill babies that haven't had a chance at life save the adults that had a chance at life and chose to use it to murder people. I went through profiles of people I disagreed 50% or more on and most of them were liberal, in favor of abortion and against the death penalty. I personally think that is sick. How can you want to snuff out an innocent life, yet want to let an evil person, that has proved to society that they are willing to kill others, live out his life? Liberalism at its finest. Only in favor of killing those that can't defend themselves and opposed to killing people that would murder others. I am against abortion except in extreme cases like rape, if the birth would be danger to the mother, or the child would end up with severe disabilities. But I don't think it should be legal otherwise to be used as a form of birth control. I am in favor of the death penalty. First off it makes prison's safer for the guards and inmates, and it is a great way to make people think twice before doing something stupid. That is if it is used properly and often. That is my stance on those two subjects.
The Government has the right to take down Megaupload

Okay, Since CON forfeitied, I will just post a short claim.The government had the right to take down megaupload because it was violating piracy and copyright laws in the US. Because this law was broken, the government had the right to shut down megaupload. It is just like when someone murders someone else. A law was broken, so the police have the right to arrest the perpetrator.
Cryonics makes sense.

In this debate I will be arguing that cryonics is reasonable and scientifically based. My opponent should argue that cryonics is, in whatever way, bad (unscientific, a scam, unlikely to work, etc). I am personally a proponent of cryonics so I do look forward to this debate.Definitions:-Cryonics: "Cryonics is an effort to save lives by using temperatures so cold that a person beyond help by today's medicine can be preserved for decades or centuries until a future medical technology can restore that person to full health."Source: http://alcor.org...;-Information-Theoretic Death: "A person is dead according to the information-theoretic criterion if the structures that encode memory and personality have been so disrupted that it is no longer possible in principle to recover them"Source: http://www.merkle.com...;Rules:-Be civil and polite.-Do NOT confuse cryonics and cryogenics. You may refer to cryogenics, but please do not call cryonics "cryogenics" or vice-versa. They are different.-Bonus points to any argument or rebuttal presented in limerick.Structure:-Round 1: Acceptance ONLY. No arguments.-Round 2: Opening arguments. No rebuttals.-Round 3: Rebuttals. No new arguments.-Round 4: Final rebuttals and closing arguments. Free-for-all.Finally, to confirm you've read and understand the rules and structure of this debate, please respond with, "I accept, with no exceptions."
God Is A Human Invention

It is clear that religion is a human invention but most believers consider that their deities truly exist. I contend that the only thing that exists is their belief, not their deities: 1. Belief is the only 'proof' believers have. 2. All 'arguments' are question-begging - circular in that they presuppose the existence of the deities. 3. Belief can only reside in the brain, there is nothing else. 4. Deities therefore must exist in the brain too. Much like 'America' doesn't really exist except as social conventions and political agreements, so it is with God.
God Is A Human Invention

The Comsological Argument (CA) is invalid for my very claims: ------Depends on Belief------ - CA doesn't work because it could apply equally to the FSM. Therefore it is requires an initial belief in God for it to be effective. - If you replace either the conclusion (god) with something else (FSM) it ceases to work. - If you replace the arguer, a Christian, with an Atheist, it ceases to work. Therefore the argument requires a belief in a deity and is only convincing for such. ------Question Begging------ - It is a circular argument because it is merely descriptive. You already have a definition of God, and all that is being done is that you're turning it around into an argument. - Since I've shown above that this argument is specifically for both God and believers in God, then it is circular in that aspect too. ------Only Resides In the Brain------ - Even if your argument is true, there is no connection to reality at all. - Because it is merely a definition turned around into a syllogism, it could still be true whether God existed or not. Therefore, it is no proof at all of a physical existence but at best, the possibility of a God. God could equally not exist and this be true (which it isn't). You may claim that the argument is logically sound but all that does is to prove that it's a human invention, not that there's a God. (Don't worry about the time, I'm in no rush!)
God Is A Human Invention

Hello! I accept the challenge put forward by RandomTruth. My opponent's argument is as follows:1. Belief is the only 'proof' believers have.2. All 'arguments' are question-begging - circular in that they presuppose the existence of the deities.3. Belief can only reside in the brain, there is nothing else.4. Deities therefore must exist in the brain too.In order to win this debate, I merely need to disprove one of the points made by my opponent - the rest of the link chain falls. I'll focus on number two. I will present ONE argument for a god or gods, negating both points one and two, and by extension, three and four. I feel three is rather unclear, so if my opponent could clarify next round, that'd be fantastic. Argument for a god: Cosmological argument.This is fairly simple and straightforward. I deeply apologize as I am extremely pressed for time and will be able to make a much more sufficient round next time. For now: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist. Therefore, the Universe had a cause. This first cause can easily be interpreted as a god or gods. thus, it is not entirely unreasonable to believe in a god or gods - there is more proof than simple belief. This argument does not beg the question and is logically sound, unless my opponent proves otherwise.
War: South Korea (Pro) vs. North Korea (Con)

Since my opponent has forfeited twice... he is inactive in his government and I guess is making a VERY long decision. I will take advantage of this.Because my opponent is inactive, I will argue once more, if he forfeits, that means he automatically surrenders, and I will win the war.As you can see, each tunnel has more men from South Korea filling each tunnel, pushing North Korean forces back steadily, and they now have taken a lot of territory considering my opponent has STILL not done any government action. Here is a map to show:http://www.debate.org...Because we have more overall manpower, the forces are falling back, and trying to escape. There is a real problem with this, which I will not allow. Our 500 aircraft will be stationary, ready to bomb the forces falling back. Here is a map: http://www.debate.org...As you can see, we plan to trap the forces. Also, I will have 100 navy ships preparing an invasion on the capital. If my opponent forfeits, he will see his capital burn around him, and he will lose.Good luck.
War: South Korea (Pro) vs. North Korea (Con)

Thank you, North Korea. Try to do one thing at a time... we have 5 rounds. You are trying to end the war in the first round already! By the way, you don't tell me that I defend or attack, it is up to me. Also, don't consider that I will just do something, because most of your invasion is assuming I will do something, and half of it, I won't.I have another source for my information, so we have two different sources. I believe mine is more reliable however, considering it is all about global firepower.The numbers (from:http://www.globalfirepower.com...):Soldiers: North: 690,000 | South: 640,000Yes, you have more soldiers.Lets look at fit for service, however.North: 10,066,000 | South: 21,033,000I have more fit for service overall, so you would have more trained, but I would have more bodies to throw at you.Aircraft strength:North: 943 | South: 1,393I have overall more aircraft numbers.AFV strength:North: 2,500 | South: 2,800Overall more AFVs.Towed artillery strength:North: 3,000 | South: 5,400The only thing you have an advantage in is tanks and navy.Overall trained troops:North: About 6 million | South: About 3 millionBut, take heed that I have over 10 million more fit for service.I will start recruiting immediately, adding about 20 million more to my totals. I am guessing you will too, so you will have about 16 million.Overall total personel (trained and fit for service):North: 16 million | South: 22 millionMap of the border: I am guessing your 6 million troops are going to go through the tunnels. Lets take it one at a time, we have 5 rounds, don't do everything at once.. let me defend. You can't just deploy 6 million troops and say I will take 2 weeks defending them.The first part of your invasion is the 6 million troops invading, so I will take a defensive stance. Because there are 4 tunnels, I believe you will have 1.5 million troops at each tunnel. I will place 2.5 million at each tunnel to defend. Overall, I will push your assault back, considering I have more troops in each tunnel. I will not be occupied the whole time. It will be a steady march forwards. I have set up a map of my troops, and what they look like. Take a look (rough map, not enough space to put everything) Morale:First off, not all North Koreans are brainwashed. And they aren't happy, you know what North Korea's average income a month is per citizen? 25-30 USD dollars. (http://www.nknews.org...) That's terrible. Morale will be really low.Economies:North Korea's GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org...): $12.4 Billion | South Korea's GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org...): $1.7 TrillionOverall, South Korea makes a BOAT load of money compared to North Korea, so I can spend a lot on troops, resources, and other military related stuff.Our war continues, you are up.
Strict Parents create more troubled Adults.

This will be my first starting debate! Be as hard on me as you can! My argument is that Parents that give more restrictions to their children, in turn, create more self-destructive, or troubled Adults. Troubled Adults- Adults that are in trouble often with the law, have difficulty in social settings or relationships, and/or are too hard on themselves in terms of self-esteem. I will be arguing against this statment. Pro is to argue the affirmative.