BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
in a god exists debate, BOP is on pro

No. I am not misinterpreting anything, I am a Christian, I believe in God, and that is what I am arguing. I am just arguing it in a different way from the most Christians you might debate this with. And the way in which i believe in God means that the only evidence I need is, well, the personal religious opinion of me and many others. This is just a different way that I believe in God, and it is not wrong. This actually is a whether God exists or not debate. It is a fact to me and the others that believe this, and our interpretation is its own proof.
in a god exists debate, BOP is on pro

Big misinterpretation. This debate isn't about whether God exists or not, it is that in such a debate the Burden of Proof or BOP should be on Pro, meaning the one who says God exists. The BOP can't be shared or on Con as how can you have proof that something isn't here? For instance, I can say I have proof that you are not in my house by giving your address. But suppose I don't where you live, and I have determine whether you live in my city or not, how can I find proof that you are not in my city? Get the idea?
in a god exists debate, BOP is on pro

God exists. I don't mean that there is bearded invisible giant man in the sky who puts people who don't believe in him in hell. I mean a non-literal God. This isn't an explanation for the creation of the universe, or a reason to resist political change and defy evidence in front of one's face. This is and idea that exists to give life purpose and meaning, to help us live in our pointless little lives. The God that exists isn't the one that the previous people you've debated with believe in. It is a God that was created by man. The belief in God isn't there because it makes sense; it doesn't, but it benefits mankind. If more fundamentalist Christians and atheists were able to break free of their narrow points of view and accept this, the world would be a better place.
The Joker is the Greatest Villain Ever.

I would love to take your debate against Joker being the "Greatest [Comic Book] Villain Ever" I assume that all comic books, movies, graphic novels and tv shows are allowed, really anything that proves our point. Conversely, we can use any of those things to counter our opponents points as well. Also, we can define "Greatest" however we want per each villain and let the voters decide which is "Greater Villian-ry" under whatever definition we want to give it. I would like to posit a couple characters and you can decide which one I get to argue for. First, I would like to try to argue directly against you and say that BATMAN himself is in fact that Greatest Villain Ever created. (To the Joker) "Don't you understand? I don't want to hurt you. I don't want either of us to end up killing the other. But we're both running out of alternatives, and we both know it. Maybe it all hinges on tonight. Maybe this is our last chance to sort this whole bloody mess out. If you don't take it, then we're both locked onto a suicide course. Both of us. To the death. It doesn't have to end like that. I don't know what it was that bent your life out of shape, but who knows? Maybe I've been there too. Maybe I can help. We could work together. I could rehabilitate you. You needn't be out there on the edge anymore. You needn't be alone. We don't have to kill each other. What do you say?" - The Killing Joke If you won't let me do that because you find it too absurd, (which I understand, because the moral implications of that are quite severe) I would then argue that OZYMANDIAS is the Greatest Villain Ever. "I don't mind being the smartest man in the world, I just wish it wasn't this one." - Ozymandias But he's kind of a Anti-Hero/Anti-Villain when you really look at him, as opposed to Joker, who is a true villain (although, if you accept my argument that Batman is the villain, then Joker thereby becomes the Hero) So, lastly, I will suggest that BRAINIAC is the Greatest Villain Ever. "The Fewer Beings that have The Knowledge the more Precious it Becomes" - Superman: Animated Series, 'Stolen Memories' However, Brainiac will be the hardest to argue for, and I think Batman would be the most fun. So take that into consideration and pick an opponent. I look forward to the debate. Good luck!
The Joker is the Greatest Villain Ever.

This debate is about whether or not The Joker is the greatest comic book villain ever......1. Acceptance2. Definitions/Presentation of Main Argument3 & 4. Rebuttals5. Resolution/Closing Argument"You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And I won't kill you, because you're just too much fun. I think you and I are destined to do this forever." - The Joker
Extraterrestrials will attempt to destroy our civilisation for our planet and its resources

The subject of this debate considers whether extraterrestrial civilisation (organisms from another planet around another star) would attempt to destroy our civilisation to colonize our planet. I consider this a thought experiment to mainly explore what the morals/behaviour of an alien race would/could be as well as to take into account factors that space affects and what might be possible in the far future. This debate assumes that the extraterrestrials will be unprovoked by us and will intentionally attack us first. Round 1: Acceptance Rounds 2-4: Arguments & Rebuttals Round 5: Rebuttals and Summary of Main Arguments/Counters (NO Rebuttals - Will result in disqualification) I advise my opponent to consider many aspects of the topic and to think outside the box as not all things on Earth apply to outer space/aliens. Any questions about rules - Please comment beforehand. If you accept before questioning the rules then you will have to just abide by them. Thanks for reading and merry xmas.
Pakistan is a failed state

My position is that Pakistan is a failed state according to the following criteria for a failed state (from: http://ffp.statesindex.org...) 1. The loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. 2. Failure include the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions 3. An inability to provide reasonable public services 4. The inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community. I was born and raised in Pakistan. This is a country based upon and filled with lies upon lies. The founder of the country, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was hardly a Muslim and at best he was a shi'a Muslim not sunni. He had two funerals: a sunni funeral to appease the masses, and a private shi'a funeral. He was fighting for the partition of India because he was getting paid by the British to do so. The whole reason the British allowed the partition and left India is because Winston Churhill was convinced that this would be in the best interest of the UK and its allies post WWII. Jinnah used to drink alcohol and eat pork, noth of which are forbidden in Islam. During Zia ul Haq's reign the lies rose to new levels and text books were filled with lies about India. The truth of the matter is that the goons in Pakistan's government were the instigators of all wars and aggression against India and they still are. The government doesn't really control the country. Different parts of the country are controlled by different organizations. There are areas were tribalism and feudalism reigns, there are areas where army chiefs have full control and authority. The police force is a joke. Even Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad (arguably the most affluent cities) are without power for up to 18 hours a day. Inflation is mind-bogglingly high. There is virtually no middle class. Politicians take funds given to the country by the USA and spend it on their relatives' weddings, their own businesses and general thuggery. That's what the leaders of the country are: thugs. Even Imran Khan is a supporter of terrorist factions in the country. I wish I could say that it is only the people in power who are at fault in Pakistan, but the fact of the matter is that the whole country is filled with people who only care about themselves and are too dumb to realize that if they want their lives to be better, they have to make some sacrifices and stand up against injustice and for each other. Yet they show their heedlessness when they spend money on extravagant weddings just to impress people. It is all a big vain fa"ade. Karachi and Quetta are getting destroyed by gang violence. This violence is often instigatged by elected officials who are really just gangsters. I am glad however, that some people like Hassan Nisar, Pervez Hoodhbhoy and Tarek Fatah (I do not like them generally speaking, I just like some of their ideas) are coming out and telling the truth about the reality of Pakistan.
That guns should be banned in America

I want to first point out that in my opponents rebuttal, he has refuted his main central claim: People don"t kill people. He attempts to refute my point about Switzerland"s lack of gun violence due to its lack of diversity of people. He attributes to increased violence due to the population which completely shuts down this point. Never mind the fact that Switzerland still has lower rates of gun violence than Scandinavia (the most homogeneous location in the world with very strict gun control). Also, comparing Australia with the US has many implications due to the differences in geography, demographics, culture, etc. Therefore the best way to gauge Australia"s gun ban efficiency is to simply compare it to itself. The government had spent $500 million in this program. What has changed after the gun ban? A simple look into its history shows that the gun ban is a total failure. Accidental gun deaths after the gun ban rose 300%, assault rate (involving guns) rose 800%, and armed robbery went up 200%. Australia has always been a country with low rates of gun violence regardless of the presence of guns. It is still safe with a low gun death rate but the fact is that it was actually safer in the past before the gun ban. Also Australia categorizes guns into 6 categories. While Australia heavily regulates handguns, it doesn"t ban it from the public. The only weapons that Australia has completely restricted or banned are automatic weapons, flamethrowers, etc. " My opponent goes on to explain why using any other weapon in terms of suicide or homicide is impractical. The main reason why suicide victims use guns are because of its relative painlessness. A cheap glock costs at least $300. Hanging/Jumping/Drowning oneself is cheaper and requires less preparation. In fact majority of suicide cases in the world aren"t from guns. Finally, my opponent mentions the Declaration of independence quote. It is not about establishing a tradition. It is meant to establish and protect US citizens rights and justify the second amendment. As said before, the purpose of the second amendment is not for hunting or self-defense. It is for the resistance of governmental tranny should it ever arise. It is meant to protect the first amendment. If my opponent is willing to argue that the second amendment is based off of tradition then that means that the rest of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are also based off of tradition. If the US government can disregard one of our founding principles as a "bad" tradition, what is to say that they can"t disregard the 1st amendment the same way. The point of the Constitution is that the founding principles of America remain the principles of modern America. The first amendment allows for the existence of cults such as the Jonestown cult which resulted in the death of 909 people. Does this justify the need to completely disregard the evil tradition known as freedom of religion? I wish you good luck and the sources are in the comments
That guns should be banned in America

Hello again, I will begin my final statement by clarifying that my argument of "4.61 times as many people getting shot" meant 4.61 times as many people getting shot and killed PER HUNDRED PEOPLE, which factors in population. I will also point out, that suicide cases, which the opposition has mentioned, are both excluded in my numbers, and have also dropped dramatically in Australia: by approximately 37.5% IN THE FIRST 2 YEARS*! My opponent has tried to tell me that MAINLY semiautomatic weapons are banned from the public, and that 99% of homicides are committed by hand guns. I am clearly told by my source that in Australia, HANDGUNS ARE BANNED FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC**! My opponent also gave the famous example of Chicago. This however is an anomaly, and is not valid. We can also see that when it comes to murder cases EXCLUDING guns, Chicago still comes above New York. Chicago is also home to a variety of cultures and classes, so we must keep that in mind when regarding murder numbers. Another example given by my opponent, was Switzerland. In this nation, people are 65% of German ethnicity***, unlike America, which is known to be much more multicultural (at least for the time being). There is nothing inherently wrong with this, but more cultural prejudice in the form of violence is to be expected. I see that my opponent has argued strongly on my point of: less guns = less deaths. However, in the year 2500 BCE, I am willing to bet that technology was not as developed as it is today. Therefore, in place of guns people used swords. In today's day and age, the banning of guns will NOT cause people to use swords and the like, because with modern technology (police on phones, security cameras, etc.) it would be a lot harder to get away with a crime like this. Therefore, someone with any sense at all, would not try and slay an enemy with a sword, or suffocate them with their fists. The opposition has also said that lack of guns in wartime is unacceptable, and to this, surprisingly, I agree, but the United States of America is currently not at a state of war, as far as I am aware. This argument is thus neutralised. My opponent's last argument, is that guns are necessary to perform military coups. The literally quote from the Declaration of Independence that the people should abolish the government if it becomes destructive. I believe that what they are trying to argue, is that in the American Constitution, people are given the right to bear arms (the Second Amendment). This argument would be an argument based off tradition, or more specifically, keeping traditional gun laws. While some forms of tradition should be embraced, others should not. For example, the bible supports slavery, which is obviously wrong! Thank you *http://www.aic.gov.au... **https://ssaa.org.au... ***http://www.indexmundi.com...
That guns should be banned in America

My opponent mentions the gun homicide rates of Australia and the USA and makes ad-hoc argument. It"s important to note that the USA"s population is much higher than Australia"s population. Also, the widely cited US statistic about firearm deaths aren"t just homicides; they include accidents and suicide cases as well. In fact 65% of all "gun related deaths" are suicide. You can"t compare these 2 statistics. It is also important to note that 92% of gun homicide cases happened in "gun free zones". 99% of all gun homicide cases are committed by handguns. Australia mainly bans semi automatic weapons from the public. At best, if these gun restrictions are applied to the USA, it would prevent 1% of gun homicides. Chicago has one of the toughest gun restrictions in the US. It also has a death toll greater than the war in Afghanistan. Gun control laws don't work. A study by Quinnipiac University determined that stricter gun control laws have not correlated with a reduction in crime. A Harvard University study debunked the myth that the rate of intentional deaths is higher in the U.S. than in countries with restrictive gun control laws. Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the entire world despite having lower rates of gun related homicides cases than countries that heavily regulates guns. "Without guns, PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO KILL PEOPLE! This is fact. No buts. No ifs." My opponent unfortunately does not understand how long human history is. The first recorded WAR was in 2500 BCE. The first gun was created in 1364 AD . Unless my opponent is willing to argue that all the wars taken place in this 3864 year timelapse resulted in zero deaths, then this point is null. You can kill people through blunt trauma, blood loss, or suffocation (guns aren"t needed). The reason as to why the government should not ban guns is simple. The second amendment is not for hunting or even for self defense. It is for the possible event of tyranny or injustices that a government wishes to inflict upon its citizens. That is why the Jews were completely unable to resist the Nazi regime in any way. The French resistance was only able to hamper Nazi plans due to their supply of guns. Without the gun, the Americans would never have been able to declare independence from the tyrannical British crown in 1776. It has been proven that many governments have committed atrocities against a powerless group of people(Germany or Italy). One of the first decisions that Hitler made was to ban the ownership of a gun. The gun is important for this reason and I quote from our Declaration of Independence: "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form" Gun rights are necessary for the defense and preservation of a nation"s democracy and justice. My sources are in the comments.
That guns should be banned in America

Hello, I will be affirming the topic that guns should be banned in America. I would like an opponent who truly believes in the second amendment. First round is to argue (and for my opponent, to respond to my arguments), second round is to respond to the opponent's arguments (no new content please). Where do I begin? Guns: I think it is safe to define a gun as a device that can kill a living human with minimal possible difficulty. My model for this ban, would be, to phase in my policy over three years, allowing the government to "buy-back" all guns from citizens (like what was done in Australia*). The people excluded from this ban would be only the police force (except for small jobs i.e. traffic controllers, parking checkers etc.) and heavily checked, and approved hunters/farmers. To begin my case I would like to share some statistics. In Australia (a country with current gun bans) 1 in every 111,327** people died in 2015 due to firearms. On the contrary, in America, 1 in 24,153*** people died in 2015 due to firearm misusage. That is 4.61 times as many people getting shot and killed by another person who was freely permitted to go and purchase a machine of death. There is no exaggeration in that statement whatsoever. How can numbers like those be justified? I believe that there is absolutely no argument for saying that guns in the hands of ordinary citizens save lives. They are obviously used, one way or another, to kill other innocent human beings. By negating this topic, my opponent is supporting the deaths of those THOUSANDS of innocent human beings whose families will never see them again. A common phrase used to try and justify gun ownership, is "Guns don't kill people; people kill people", but I personally think that this is ridiculous. Even if this were case, without guns, PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO KILL PEOPLE! This is fact. No buts. No ifs. We have seen by the results that Australia has produced, that banning guns is completely moral. I am completely aware that there are people in society who care more about their gun, than they do about their neighbours' lives but, mainly, their only argument for keeping their gun is that they enjoy hunting in their holidays. This, however, is an invalid argument as, under my policy, these people may still be permitted to hunt, as long as they comply with the regulations, get a license, and use their gun legally, which I believe most will. In summary, I see no point for the person down the road to have a gun, if a policeman or policewoman can do the exact same job (of keeping society protected), arguably more effectively. Thank you. *http://metro.co.uk... **http://www.gunpolicy.org... ***http://www.bbc.com...
Suicide should be a crime

(We're doing this debate again because I really wanted to debate this and couldn't complete the previous debate.) I thank Romanii for the agreeing to debate this resolution. I'm pretty sure this will be an interesting debate, especially because I don't really have any strong opinion on the topic- although I do believe this is one of the fundamental topics- views on which have an impact on individual opinions on a lot of topics involving the interactions of state and rights. First round for acceptance, no new arguments in the last round. Over to Con :-)
Abortion

I stated that the life of the baby ultimately depends on the mother's health. Therefore, it is in the mother's hands, I'm not saying that a mother should have an abortion without analyzing all points of the situation but it is wildly irresponsible to continue to have a child if it puts the mother's life in jeopardy. My opponent states that human rights should be protected - which is another reason to abort the baby if it does in fact effect the mother's health. He also states that "it should never be the case that a person has a right to make a decision with no reference to the rights and wishes of others." Let me pose a typical situation to you - a woman gets raped and of course her rapist does not wear protection and she becomes pregnant - her rapist made a decision without referencing her wishes. Similarly, when incest occurs in a family and two relatives create a child, most of the time, the child is born with serious health conditions in defects, would it not be best to terminate this pregnancy?
Abortion

"I will be arguing that abortion should be allowed to be practiced I assume, the resolution is not clear. Since my opponent only proposed one point to start with I too will propose one point to start with. There is nothing called pro-choice and pro life. Both ideologies meet at one common point i.e. Pro-Life - Life of the baby and Life of the mother. Life of the baby ultimately depends on mother's health and its best to allow the mother to choose for her when she wants a baby." So, what my opponent is saying is that the innocent baby's life should be in the hands of his/her mother. I completely disagree. Its the mother's fault for not using protection. The baby shouldn't have to pay for his/her mother's mistake by being aborted. human-rights should be respected, but it should never be the case that a person has a right to make a decision with no reference to the rights and wishes of others. In this case, one might wonder about the rights of the father to have a say in the fate of the foetus. More importantly, though, pro-choice groups actively ignore the most important right – the child’s right to life. What is more important than life? All other rights, including the mother’s right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies. Unborn children cannot articulate their right to life; their lives are vulnerable and as such must be protected. Where a restriction in someone’s freedom is the price to pay for protecting an innocent life, then so be it. I await for my oppoent's response. I thank you for challenging me and wish you good luck.
Abortion

I will be arguing that abortion should be allowed to be practiced I assume, the resolution is not clear. Since my opponent only proposed one point to start with I too will propose one point to start with. There is nothing called pro-choice and pro life. Both ideologies meet at one common point i.e. Pro-Life - Life of the baby and Life of the mother. Life of the baby ultimately depends on mother's health and its best to allow the mother to choose for her when she wants a baby.