BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We as American citizens should have the right to possess firearms

Ladies and gentlemen, to any of those that are reading and watching this debate, I want to say first of all- Thank you for taking part, and I hope you enjoy! Now, back to guns. Let me first say that what you said about when the second amendment was written that it would eventually become outdated is regardless. Don't you think they knew our technology was going to evolve? its like the scientists, politicians, and common folk of today knowing that society is going to improve. We were given the right by the founders of this nation not because they were ignorant to what the future was to hold, but because they knew what was going to happen if the laws were restricted or taken away. Also, let me add that any criminal looking to harm someone would get the weapon- whether it be illegally or legally. A burglar would have an EVEN easier time getting what they need without having an armed citizen. Restricting the gun laws of this country is not only taking away our God- given right, but it renders those who don't deserve it useless and an easy target. If you look at the facts, you would know that most of the public shootings take place where there is a gun restriction or prohibition. Those that are sick-minded kill. It isn't the gun that kills, but the person. that's exactly like saying the fork makes a person fat. in reality, the person has 100% control over the fork, not the other way around. On top of that. you also have to look at it like this... we all know how there is/ was (in some areas) an illegalization of drugs. Unless you live under a complete rock, you'd know that people still use the drug. is it illegal? absolutely, but that doesn't stop the person. they know the consequences (most of the time), but they still take the chance. well, this is going to essentially the same thing with the guns. those that want to use them will obtain them with or without the legalization. the only thing is that if it is illegalized, then those that actually follow the laws are now at risk of danger because there are people who DON'T follow the laws. In my opinion, I think that the government should ENCOURAGE the ownership of a handgun, because it provides self defense. If people had guns, I would almost promise the count for rape, robbery, and homicide would go down tremendously. You see, we don't have a gun problem, we have a sin problem.
We as American citizens should have the right to possess firearms

Thanks for setting up the debate. I personally disagree with the statement that Americans should have the right to bear firearms from the experience of living in Australia and witnessing the success of Australia"s Gun laws in creating a better and less violent society. My argument will be that by violating US Citizen"s 2nd Amendment rights by enacting laws to reduce accessibility to guns, will create a safer society through reducing the incidence of mass shootings. I believe the gun rights issue is one of public safety and that the evolution of firearms technology renders the 2nd amendment anachronistic.
We as American citizens should have the right to possess firearms

Welcome. If you accepted this debate, then you inherit the con side for this debate. Here is how the debate will work: Round one: you accepting the debate and saying something about either yourself or why you personally disagree with the topic. Round two: We both show our opening speeches, no rebuttals Round three: I will rebuttal you and your speech, and you try to defend Round four: you rebuttal what I had stated in round two, and I will try to defend. I look forward to this debate, and I hope you do as well. If you have any questions, either kik me- windu2420, or add it to your round one opening statement (not to confuse with the round two first speech), and I will address it at the beginning of my first speech (before the actual speech). God bless
Transgender people should not be recognized by their self assigned genders. (Version 2)

This is a carry over from an already existing debate that is having some technical issues.Rules: Can not change anything when copying over from previous debate.Have Common Courtesy.Dnt spek lik3 dis k thxThat's about it.Failure to comply may result in me calling you a "Fool". This is the only punishment.There may be unused rounds----------------------------------------------------I will be arguing that Transgender people should not be recognized by their self assigned gender, but instead by their biological gender.Con will argue that Transgender people should be recognized by their self assigned gender (Or something similar).Definitions: Transgender- a person whose gender identity does not correspond to that person’s biological sex assigned at birth.Biological Gender- The human genitalia that defines whether a person is male or female. For the sake of the debate, it will be refered to as a person's sex. Sex Change- the alteration, by surgery and hormone treatments, of a person's physical sex characteristics to approximate those of the opposite sex.-----------------------------------------------------People who consider themselves to be of a different gender than that which was assigned to them at birth should not be recognized as their self identified genders, because it contridicts the laws of nature and biology, it allows for perverts to use bathrooms of the opposite sex without consequence, creates confusion with Identification Cards and the ability of government authorities to identify people, and may exempt male born citizens from the USA Selective Service while forcing female born citizens to enter the USA Selective Service.
Transgender people should not be recognized by their self assigned genders. (Version 2)

Thank you for your argument, pro. I would like to again state you're a twat. TWAT: a person regarded as stupid or obnoxious. Now we can go back to rebutting the rebutting of rebutted rebuttals. 1. Logically, I can do whatever the hell I want. In America, there is this wonderful bill called the Constitution. In it, is this document called the Bill of Rights. There are a few amendments, but I'll sum it up: You can do whatever you want, so long as it isn't illegal. By YOUR definition of gender, one I agree on, there is nothing wrong with my mental state of being a girl or boy. Since it's mental, it has nothing to do with biology. You seem to be going away from the topic, that Trans/(Since we threw me in there) Gender-Fluid people shouldn't be recognized by their identities. In your digression on this topic, you proceeded to assume that all transgender people are rapists and pedophiles. This, kind sir, is not the case. Transgender people are no more pedophiles or rapists than the average cis-gender person. When I said nothing is stopping a predator from going into a restroom, I meant it. Say, for example, I'm a pedophile (Which I am not, just for this example). I could walk in to, say, a girl's toilets and hide in the stall, waiting for some little girl to walk by. It isn't too hard. You seem to think that in order for someone to rape another person, they have to Ocean's 11 it and have a long plan. That is not the case. In most cases, rapists act on impulse. Nothing is stopping them from walking by and snatching a little girl or a little boy to rape them. No more sexual crime would occur, because nothing is stopping a predator from hiding in a bathroom. Your entire argument digresses from the topic. You proceed to demonize an entire group of people, while accusing me of having my widdle feewing hurt ("w0w r00d m8, y u gotta b so mean"). Based solely on the topic, who the hell are you to tell people what they can or cannot do? The laws are clear. Being trans is not a crime, but you proceed to paint it like one. You play this age game and know nothing about me. I am currently studying quantum physics on my own, I'm pretty sure I can handle a gender studies class from the 90's. Your entire argument is based around me being an idiot, and playing transgender people off to be criminals. And, going against "Normality" by being black? So by being born black I accept the consequences of being the center of negative attention? This argument is horrible in it's own right. Nobody yells about societal norms to strangers. If someone asks, you answer. If someone uses the improper pronouns, you gently correct them. It's just common courtesy. In case you didn't read my whole argument, "Listen, you twat. You are in no place to tell people what they can or can't do. You aren't the Thought Police. If you want the world to be better, just let people be. Stop demonizing a group of people just because you don't like them". This debate meant a lot to me, since it's on a subject I am passionate about. Thank you, Pro, for the amazing topic. I'm an amazing atheist, peace the f*ck out.
Confederates really won the Civil War

"The term 'States' is addressed as the Confederacy States of America." Yes, but it is also proclaimed that the United States does the same. Proclamations proclaim all that is said, so all states are free of slaves."I had addressed the situation of slavery in my previous argument as a state right." Yes, a state right to the stubborn and lavy slave owners in the South. But what about all those poor slaves they held? It's their rights that matter, and they got those rights...that's why the Union won the war. You're kind of missing your own resolution here. "In which I said the war was not about slavery." You claimed that the South's excuse (States' Rights) was the stronger reason. I was saying why slavery was the real reason. Surrendering can be for many reasons. You're out of supplies, you know you will lose, too many people are dying, etc. The point is that Lee surrendered, and that alone disproves the resolution, which is my job to do. You see, the title and resolution was and has been, "Confederates really won the Civul War". In that case, you were supposed to be arguing that they did win, and I was supposed to be arguing that they didn't. So I ask you, if the Confederates won, how come there are no slaves in America? How come this country is called the UNITED states of America? And, Lee's surrender alone proves that the Confederates lost. I have one final statement, this one goes to the voters:VOTE CON!!
Confederates really won the Civil War

"...from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued. And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons." When continuing to read the Emancipation Proclamation, the term 'States' is addressed as the Confederacy States of America. The proclamation only addresses the cities and states above, consequentially all Southern parts.Also, upon the challenger's quote, it is recognized by the Executive Government of the United States, not the United States as a whole. "...Southern slave owners held that such a restriction on slavery would violate the principle of states' rights." I had addressed the situation of slavery in my previous argument as a state right. "So your claim of the war not being about slavery is just outright wrong."Also, I ask the challenger to please quote any previous statements in which I said that the war was not about slavery. I merely said that it was not what started the war. "In what way was the abolishment of slavery unfair?"The challenger has read my statement wrong. I wrote: "Due to state's rights, the Civil War Amendments were not enforced until mid-20th century. There were still many laws (mainly Jim Crow laws) enacted through the states to promote segregation and there were little to no consequences to the lawmakers. Was there unfair treatment much better than the abolishment of slavery?"I do recognize my spelling error of 'there' not 'their'. But the paragraph is intended to show the treatment of segregation laws, Ku Klux Klan, etc. compared to slavery in the hundred years after. In no such way have I intended to say that abolishment of slavery is unfair. "Caualties do not matter in deciding who wins a war. The South surrendered, and that right there proves that they lost."It makes a significant difference when you see the reason behind why they surrendered, as shown in the link below:http://www.americaslibrary.gov... As Robert E. Lee himself put, he did not want anymore bloodshed. The Union had recieved more bloodshed, and yet Lee was the one to first surrender.
Confederates really won the Civil War

"During the civil war, not before." I know. I never said it was signed before the war."this was written for the ten succeeded states, not the Union." False. From ( http://www.archives.gov... ) The opening paragraph states as follows: "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States (1), shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons(2), and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."1. Yes, this part declares that all slaves in the rebellious states (the south) are to be freed.2. This part of the declaration, however, recognizes that all slaves are free. You see, it says the UNITED states will also recognize the proclamation. During the civil war, America split into the USA and the CSA, the USA being the North. Thus, with this proclamation, the Northern and Southern states alike are now free of slaves. And from ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), "The main explanation is slavery, especially Southern anger at the attempts by Northern antislavery political forces to block the expansion of slavery into the western territories. Southern slave owners held that such a restriction on slavery would would violate the principle of states' rights." From this statement, we can see that the Confederates (Southerners) fueled their excuse of bad states' rights by the real problem of slavery. So your claim of the war not being about slavery is just outright wrong. _____________________________________________________________"Was there unfair treatment much better than the abolishment of slavery?" In what way was the abolishment of slavery unfair? "The Union suffered the most casualties." Caualties do not matter in deciding who wins a war. The South surrendered, and that right there proves that they lost. About casualties not mattering (I'm gonna go a little off topic here) look at WWII. The Soviets suffered the most casualties in the war (about 30 million), yet we couldn't have won the war without them.
Confederates really won the Civil War

The Emancipation Proclamation was signed on September 22nd, 1862, during the Civil War, not before. Also, if the challenger were to read the proclamation, this was written for the ten succeeded states, not the Union. If the challenger would look at the link below, and excerpts of the book I previously mentioned, the challenger would see that the Civil War began based off the fight for state rights and a weak federal government. http://www.civilwar.org... Also, may I argue that slavery was considered a state right that the Confederacy wanted? Therefore, state rights really was the reason behind the Civil War. Due to state's rights, the Civil War Amendments were not enforced until mid-20th century. There were still many laws (mainly Jim Crow laws) enacted through the states to promote segregation and there were little to no consequences to the lawmakers. Was there unfair treatment much better than the abolishment of slavery? If the challenger would look at statistics shown on how many soldiers were killed in the Civil War, the Union suffered the most casualties (373,000 vs 260,000). This is nearly a 3:2 ratio, very significant. On a side note, also within the Civil War was the civil war of class. The South was victorious in which poor or middle-class were now able to hold office and the farmers who rebelled now earned a decent payment for their crops. The North, an industrious nation, would still have severe class separation, even today. Looking overall at the United States today, we could see that the Democrats (who are for state rights) have a slight advantage over Republicans (who are for federal rights). Since the Civil War, we have focused more on state rights: abortion, terrorism, electoral college, etc.
Confederates really won the Civil War

My opponent claims that the civil war was about state's rights. This is false. The Confederates fought tooth and nail for slavery, their excuse was state's rights. The civil war obviously was started over slavery, why else would Lincoln sign the emancipation proclamation and be assassinated for doing so? Therefore, since the Confederates did not REALLY fight for state's rights, I ask you, how was their any victory on their part?
Bible Cain was emotionally neglected as a child

Although I myself am an agnostic, my limited experience with religion has led me to observe that every individual may be considered the "child of God". As such, will it be possible to accurately debate if Cain as a "child of God" was neglected by his parent figure? Suppose we instead, define Cain as the "child of his earthly parents". This debate will then become more acceptable, because religion strongly promotes the infallibility of "God". There is insufficient evidence that Cain was emotionally neglected by his "earthly parents". However, assuming that all religious texts (although re-written and re-interpreted over time) can serve as compulsive evidence, please feel free to make quotations and I will address every one of them.
The Demoman in team fortress 2 should have more primaries.

I feel that the current demoman in tf2 is under powered, having only 2 primaries, the stock grenade launcher, and the loch-and-load. This puts users at a great disadvantage, having to resort to melee class, like the overpowered demoknight class. As an avid tf2 player, I like the demoman as an unique class, and should be buffed in the terms of primary grenade launchers.
Creationism vs. Atheism

Philosophers across religions and across time have attempted to answer or prove the existence of a Creator. Our own existence testifies to the necessity of a Creator since our world is not infinite and has an end; and, that which has an end effect must have a beginning as only something that never begins does not end... which in turns necessitates a beginning that precedes all beginnings and a Creator to set in motion our limited/finite world and existence. Since our world is not infinite and has an end; and, that which has an end effect must have a beginning as only something that never begins does not end. Meaning to say, that which has an "end", either literally a termination point to existence (animals, humans, etc), or as "end effect"(rock, atom, molecule), or "quantifiable effect"(energy, radiation, etc), must have a "beginning cause" that brought about the "end effect". For if we are to argue that the world or end-effect is eternal/uncaused and has no cause or no beginning, then there would be no end point at which to observe or experience the world/effect; nor would there be any observable points off differentiation in existence. Which means since the whole of this world is in actuality finite and differentiable, the whole of the world has an origin, and since it is impossible to derive something from "absolutely nothing" the essential framework of our finite existence must exists through the enabling of something that is essentially eternal and unlimited (AKA G-d). Ultimately this must be true for otherwise there cannot be any basis for our own finite existence. And since, as we may observe, there is a real cause > effect / finite / composite relationship that manifests our universe that then there is no need for an origin point, as this chain of causes may go back ad infinitum. However, this would be an impossibility of infinite regress fallacy, which is essentially arguing for the derivation of something from nothing. In summation: it is not say that everything is caused, but that every end is caused. This leads to the clear conclusion that there must be some point where a chain of cause > effect ends, and since this chain cannot be derived from nothing, there must be something that is necessarily infinite as the source of that which is finite.
This debate is arbitrary and pointless.

I shall negate the resolution, "This debate is arbitrary and pointless. " Clarifications: this debate - refers to the debate that James. ticknor and I are currently associated with. It is debate number 10567 on this website. arbitrary - subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion. pointless - without force, meaning, or relevance; insignificant. My opponent quotes: "Before you guys jump my case for another stupid title, this one (in order not to trip myself here) MAY have a signifigant meaning to it. " My opponent has contradicted himself. He affirms a resolution that states, "This debate is arbitrary and pointless. " The statement implies that this debate is, as a matter of fact, both arbitrary and pointless. It also implies that this debate is pointless, and that's all there is to it. No doubt or question about it, my opponent's definitive statement is meant to be implied to be truthful in all of its applied cases. In my opponent's quote, he states that "this one . .. MAY have a signifi[c]ant meaning to it. " He has contradicted himself. The topic of the debate implies a truth that must be applied to all circumstances, and his statement states that there may be significance of this debate. Thus, the debate is not necessarily pointless. My opponent has contradicted himself and has negated the resolution in his own words. The resolution is negated. "It's a riddle, more or less. Try and figure it out. I'll post it if you're right! " This really does not matter. My opponent has not really provided any argumentation or evidence to support his side. With a lack of arguments from my opponent, I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.