BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anti-Gun Control peoples' arguments have little or no basis.

What on earth are these anti-gun control people going on about? You may say that criminals won't follow gun laws, so we shouldn't have them, but that is akin to saying that there should be no laws against arson because arsonists won't follow them. No one can argue that gun violence is heinous, and we can prevent future crimes by making sure legally obtainable guns are kept under better control.
Should children be allowed to play video games on a daily basis

I will rebut them, make my own arguments. Debate about if children are allowed to play video games in a daily basis. I am Con, saying no. BoP is on Pro, or if you call it the burden of proof. Preface/ Arguments1. TimeWhat is the daily average of video games for children? It is 56 minutes. About 1/24 of your whole day. You sleep for 8 hours, 7 hours of school, that is 16 hours. You have another eight hours, and that is for DDO, or computer, and homework. This is day. Nothing special. Because of the games, the day goes quickly.2. DamagePlaying video games damage your eyes [1] [2] [3]. It does tons of damage. You might be blind, then your life gets ad. You can't see the things you used to see. If we do not want these damages, vote for Con. Rebuttals1. Video games are educational. 6% of video games are educational. Also, almost no kids like educational games. You can do them anywhere. There is no need, and it is not effective because almost no one will use these educational video games.2. Okay, I will quote his arguments. "My second reason to believe that children should be allowed to play video games on a daily basis is because of like on summer or Christmas vacation or any break they need something to do besides play outside or read or play board games all the time too much exercise can possibly lead to dehydration. " Okay, the only thing they do is play outside? They can do much other things, and not play video games. Thanks.
Should children be allowed to play video games on a daily basis

My opponent concedes this round." I thank my opponent for that but some children can learn about failure a lot like when you lose a game but practice makes perfect"This was his argument. He says that people can learn a lot and practice makes perfect when you lose in a game. The claim practice makes perfect is not correct. Even if I do a soccer match with Messi, I will never beat him even if I practice.Then he says that he thanks me for that.Vote Neg.
Clasping during Salat on the chest is Sunnah

Bismillah Irahman Iraheem, The Prophet(SAAWS) said "Pray as you've seen me pray." And I am under the opinion that Hanbali Salat is the best and placing the hands on the chest right over left is the best. Even Muwatta Imam Malik, Sahih Bukhari, and Sunan Abu Dawood narrates this about the Prophet(SAAWS).
Clasping during Salat on the chest is Sunnah

Thank you, AbuJarir, for instigating this debate.The opponent does not fulfill the BoP. "Bismillah Irahman Iraheem, The Prophet(SAAWS) said "Pray as you've seen me pray.""Here, my opponent does not elaborate on how The Prophet(SAAWS) prays, let alone that it shows the resolution is true, hence this is meaningless."And I am under the opinion that Hanbali Salat is the best and placing the hands on the chest right over left is the best."This is merely opinion, therefore a bare assertion, thus a logical fallacy [1]."Even Muwatta Imam Malik, Sahih Bukhari, and Sunan Abu Dawood narrates this about the Prophet(SAAWS)."This is an appeal to authority, as my opponent never shows the content of the passage(s), but instead merely states that some people think that the resolution is true.ConclusionMy opponent never demonstrates that the resolution is true, and instead, merely states an opinion and appeals to authority. Furthermore, my opponent never even attempts to show that "clasping" is "Sunnah", let alone being so during Salat. Hence, the resolution is not affirmed, meaning that Con claims victory by default.References[1] http://dictionary.sensagent.com...[2] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
Gay Marriage

Great, thanks for making the debate Con. The Rights of The People It is legal for people to marry in America if you're straight. However, gay people aren't allowed to get married in various parts of America. No rational is actually given for this, but I'm sure my opponent shall put some up. There are no arguments that don't require support from religion, and still prove that gay marriage should not be legal. if their is no good reason to steal rights from people, then the rights should immediatly be returned. One of the biggest problems is that it's not as if no one can marry- Straight people allowed to marry each other. This is clearly defining gays as second class citizens, as you're depriving them as rights while handing them out to others. The definition of a second class citizen is not given the same rights or treatment as the rest of the people in a society (Found from Merriam Webster dicionary:http://www.learnersdictionary.com... )Clearly, by banning gay marriage you are defing the gays as second class citizens. The US Declaration of Independence clearly states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" It is therefore a fundamental right to marry, and against the "American way" to reduce citizens rights. Back to Con.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Hello monk: With my analogy of a math problem, even if it did become apart of society, 99.9% of the kids will be brought up with a mom and a dad, not 2 of the same sex. It is just the maturity of the kids. I can a test to that. Last year we would laugh at anything that was "immature", this year I have seen that kids are more mature about it, but there are some exceptions. Kids just won't be able to handle it. When I'm with my friends at their house or with them, and both parents are with us, the mom is more strict, but will let things go. The dad doesn't let things go as easy as the mom. I know, it could be vice-versa or gay parents could be better, but this is most likely to happen of the ,majority of married couples. You say that our presidents of the early 19th century supported slavery, well the is just assumption. In the Constitution to be it states that slave impressment of Africans was to end in 10 years after the Constitution was signed. When I say "They were for the bible and it isn't allowed in the bible." I mean that, that's what our founding fathers believed. Gay marriage is just wrong, schools could never change books posters, etc."politically correct". It would cost billions of tax payers dollars if it became legal Lastly, I think gay marriage, shouldn't be a federal law, it should be up to the states to decided if it's allowed. This debate is finished up, so if you would like to continue submit a challenge and I'll think about it. Merry Christmas!!!!
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Let's see... Where to begin? Your first argument is ridiculous. You want to ban something based on the grounds that it won't make for good math problems? You claim that kids won't be able to handle it, well if it became a part of normal society, that wouldn't be a problem. Second, who are you to judge who is fit to be a parent? I mean, if you go by what you just said, wouldn't you also have to ban single parents from raising their kids? And you are making a huge generalization when you say that men have to be the tough guys, and the moms have to be sensitive. Would you want to ban a relationship where the dad stays at home and "helps with homework" while the mom teaches us to "exercise." How can you justify judging someone's parenting capabilities by their sex? Like I said before, the founding fathers would also have hated interracial marriage. Although the did found this great nation of ours, remember they all supported (and not to mention almost all of the presidents until the 20th century) the enslavement of an entire race of people. So when it comes to gay marriage, or other issues in today's society that weren't around then (abortion, stem-cell research) the founding fathers are not a valid source of information. Thirdly. The "It's In the Bible" defense is also not valid. As with my example of the founding fathers, the people who wrote the Bible lived over 2000 years ago. They lived in a much different time, so their thoughts/laws are not applicable. Also, the Bible is not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The Bible has no legal authority, so to simply say, "It was in the Bible," is an irrelevant statement. Let's say the dominant religion in this country was Islam (but keep in mind all legal documents and everything else in American history is the same). The Qur'an states the it is a sin to consume alcohol. Assuming you drink, would you be happy with a national prohibition of alcohol, just because it "isn't allowed in the Qur'an?" There is a such thing as separation of Church and state, a principle that your founding fathers held firmly. The right to be wed is one that all people should have. I think if we lived in homosexual world that you would be outraged if heterosexuals were denied that right. They are people too and deserve the same respect that we (I would hope) give people of all races and religions. If you would like to continue debating after your next argument, I'm game for a "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Part II" debate. Let me know if you're interested.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Hello monk, I was very busy, so i couldn't argue last round, so here's my first debate. I don't not agree with gay marriage in any way, or civil unions. If we were to allow gay marriage, all the schools would have to change their text books to make it politically correct. They would have to be using examples like number of gay marriage in 10 years as an example (that would be used in math). From experience, kids wouldn't be mature about that until 14 or 15 years old, so teachers would just skip it. Kids wouldn't get the proper parenting. I mean no offence to these people, but kids that they adopt won't be brought up properly. Growing up, dad always teaches us to work hard, stay in school, get outside and exercise. We went to our moms for softer things like homework help, or help with social problems at school (by social problems I mean fights with friends etc.) With gay marriage, we would be taking 1 or even both of the "good parents" away from the kid. I know they could be a great parents, but in a man-to-man marriage, there is no feminizes and vice versa. You wanted a legit reason that gay marriage should not be allowed, well here it is. If you asked the people who set up this government they would think it is disgusting and should be a banded. When you make your response, I don't want to here about "freedom of speech", because our founding fathers wouldn't consider that freedom of speech. They were for the bible and it isn't allowed in the bible. Merry Christmas!!!!!
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Gays have just as much of a right to become married in a formal ceremony. Although you may not agree with it, it doesn't make it wrong. Interracial marriage was once seen as unclean and immoral, and in places, illegal. This country should be moving away from the days when whole groups of people were denied their basic human rights. There is no downside to gay marriage, other than it might make you uncomfortable or grossed out. But that is irrelevant. I challenge you to give me a legitimate reason that gays don't deserve to get married. And the definition of marriage as "between a man and woman" doesn't count.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

The right to get married to a significant other is one that is inherent and one that all Americans should have. I'm sure that if any other demographic was alienated as gays are today, people would not be as obstinate in their opinions. For example, women were denied the right to vote until the early 20th century. Why? Simply because they weren't seen as equal. This is exactly what is happening to gays today. They aren't allowed to be married simply because most people don't agree with what they're doing. Honestly, it's not asking for much. All that gay marriage entails is giving gay couples the same benefits as others and also having the state recognize their matrimony.
The theory of Evolution is well supported by science

I will take the BoP but if my opponent has arguments of his own, then I will gladly address them. My first argument will be copy pasted from my previous debate on this subject (which my opponent forfeited), so don't be surprised if you see it somewhere else on this site. Just so we're clear: I will not be proving that the theory of evolution is ABSOLUTELY true, but simply that it is (very) well supported by science. I hope for a stimulating debate!
The theory of Evolution is well supported by science

Pro has made some irrefutable points. I do apologize for the bias website, that was unintentional and didn't outright appear christian until Pro pointed out the issues. I must apologize again for conceding so early, however my opponent is obviously well informed on Evolution and can support it very well. Attempting to rebut any further would only boil down to nitpicking which would serve my case no better. Had fun.
The theory of Evolution is well supported by science

I accept the challenge.I'm not a young Earth creationist, I am actually an evolutionist. As such, I will have no constructs to deliverDuring my research to prove Evolution in a previous debate, I found Evolution to be quite hard to support using only Internet resources. There was evidence supporting it yes, however it was questionable and couldn't objectively point directly to Evolution being true.My opponent takes BoP and therefore must prove beyond a resonable doubt ( 95% sure) that The theory of Evolution is a well supported scientific theory.Definitions shall be as follows.The theory of Evolution: A process in which a common ancestor of all organsims genetically changes by means of Natural Selection, genetic drift, and descent with modification to seperate into the various species alive today.Science: The study of the physical world: the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experimentI look forward to a fun and informative debate. I think we will both benefit from seeing an evolutionist argue the other side!
Teenage drivers should be able to drive at 16.The age should not be raised to 18.

-Ok, first of all my opponent dropped my argument on 16 year olds using their cars for dangerous things so judges please see into that. -On to your argument on making the driving test tougher, there is a small majority of kids who can drive really really well, and this directly links to your 3 point on parents not being able to drive their kids, if the majority of kids who are not really good can't pass their test, then the parents must drive them unless they choose to walk or ride a bus. -On to parking lots, if we change the age limit to 18, sure there might be senior cars in the parking lot, but there won't be any Junior or Sophomore cars so we are drastically reducing the amount of cars, also add the Seniors who have their 18th birthday after graduation. -On to her 4th point, my opponent basically states that if we raise the age to 18 year olds, then 18 year old will have more accidents not 16 year olds, well this is kind of obvious because if 16 year olds cant drive then they can't get into accidents, unless there in the car with someone else who is driving, also 18 year olds tend to be more careful and aware of their surroundings, due to recent studies done by the Insurance Institutes for Highway Safety www.iihs.org/brochures/pdf/beginning_drivers.pdf the number of accidents a teenager has decreases over the years of their life so basically a 16 year old will tend to have more accidents than a 18 year old, so if we increase the age limit to 18 then we are creating a safer environment for the public, also I would like to bring attention to my opponents statement this statement was not under the debates resolution, and she basically dropped it herself, so this statement should be disregarded. -First of all I would like to say that my opponent did not state a site, or information source for her last point, I would now like to address her argument. We are not punishing kids by raising the age limit, even if the 16 year old is a good driver, they might not understand the privilege they have gotten, or possibly even get into an accident with those "bad drivers" that you mention. If we increase the age limit to 18 we are helping those kids by keeping them safe, if they are 18, then they will understand responsibilities like driving a car better, and the consequences of drinking and driving, texting while driving etc., and therefore make the driving environment safer for everyone. -please refer to my link studies it will help explain a lot. -In conclusion, there is no other choice then that of the Neg
Teenage drivers should be able to drive at 16.The age should not be raised to 18.

Okay! :D . If you make the driving tougher only the kids who are able to drive very well will past and we wont have this whole problem about how teenagers are bad. . To your next point, the kids use their car for dangerous things such as street racing. I do agree with you on that topic. . To the school parking lots, there are seniors who will then start to drive and most seniors are 18 they would use the parking lot. Also, we cant have parents taking them to school. First off they have to get to work, they have a personal life so they cant keep on taking there kid to where ever they need to go. . Young drivers do have more accidents, but that is because they are not very experienced, not simply because they are under 18. If we raise the driving age, it will be 18-19 year old new drivers having more accidents instead of 16-17 year olds. After all, men are 77% more likely than women to kill someone while at the wheel, so if we went just by statistics we would ban all male drivers, but that's not the point. .Studies of young drivers show that risky behaviour affects them in their twenties as well as 16-17 year olds. Should we ban all young drivers from driving before they turn 18? No, because most young drivers do drive safely already. The few who don't are the ones who are likely to break the law and drive underage without a license anyway. So raising the age will punish everyone apart from the troublemakers. For most young people learning to drive is an important part of learning responsibility and taking up adult values. If we keep delaying when kids become adult, then young people will never learn responsibility. I look forward to what you have to say!
Teenage drivers should be able to drive at 16.The age should not be raised to 18.

Thank you way better, -ok to clarify, you begin as a Freshmen when your 14, and usually start out your sophmore year at 15, possibly 16 very unlikely, then you move on to junior at 16, then senior at 17 and then nearing the end of your High School career you turn 18, so basically when your 18 you don't have that much time left in High School. -Moving on to your next point making driving tests tougher, this will have barely any effect on anything, driving test are to insure the driver is ready to drive, you make the driving test tougher then the chances of someone passing it will decrease, so your basically saying we can help make the roads safer by making everyone fail their exams. -Kids who start driving at 16 tend to use their car for dangerous, or maybe un-productive things such as illegal street racing in which most of the time they were influenced to do so by their High School friends, and possible while under the influence of an illegal substance. -Also, If we change the limit to 18 then school parking lots wont be as crowded, and not so many cars will be on the streets, allowing students safer passage from outside the campus into it or visa-verse. -To answer your last argument on the teens dependency on parents, It would better if parents drove them to their jobs or their schools, why? because their parents are morally obligated to keep their kids safe, so their driving will be a lot more careful, aware, and safe, ensuring the teens safety, and others around him/her. I look forward to your next argument :-)
Teenage drivers should be able to drive at 16.The age should not be raised to 18.

Okay. When I said others I meant other 16 year old. Why we should keep it 16 is because teenagers are starting get jobs and they can't depend on there family members to drive them there and back. Also you said there more mature when there older, this is just my thought and it might not be correct to you but I believe when you get more responsibility you tend to get more mature so if they start driving at 16 they will be more mature. If people are so concerned about there safety on the roads they can make the driving test tougher. I also seen to not understand what you said when you said "If drivers are 18 they won't be able to drive during their High School Carrer, so if they get drunk at some party, they can't drive and cause a potential safety hazard to others," please explain that to me in the next round. Teenagers cant depend on other people to take them somewhere so if they start to drive I think they can become more mature. If you think I'm still not on topic about this debate please tell me!
Teenage drivers should be able to drive at 16.The age should not be raised to 18.

Okay, first off we are debating on the resolution: "Teenage drivers should be able to drive at 16.The age should not be raised to 18" , you talk about how they are being punished by others, we need to be debating on why we should keep the limit at 16, not why they shouldn't be punished. - please clarify in the next round what you mean by "others", I would like to add on something to help build up my side of the debate, If we raise the age limit to 18 then we are insuring safety to the general public, If drivers are 18 they won't be able to drive during their High School Carrer, so if they get drunk at some party, they can't drive and cause a potential safety hazard to others, also as we move on in age we tend to mature, if we switch the limit to 18 then the person will be more mature and more responsible with their driving privileges, decreasing their chance or reckless driving, driving while drunk, etc.
Teenage drivers should be able to drive at 16.The age should not be raised to 18.

Okay! :D Thanks! First off teenagers (16 years old) should not be punish because of others. Not all teenagers are bad drivers, only some are and its not fair for the others who are very good drivers to get punish because of a few bad drivers. Also insurance and state punishes them, the insurance rate will go up if you have bad grades and the rates will go up if you get into a car accident. The state punishes them by giving them tickets or suspending their license.