BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

Pro doesn't relate any of her links to her argument. The arguments she has been using have been both weak and ineffective. 1) "it is considered one of the worse for developed countries, and we have a lot of guns." I want to see some linking of your arguments to sources. You obviously didn't read anything I provided for you. With the amount of guns the United States has compared to the amount of firearm homicides (which most developed countries don't report, but are predicted to be higher than the U.S.), we are way ahead of other countries in the world. If the amount of guns each citizen in the U.S. has had to do with the amount of murders, we would be the highest murdering country in the world. 2) "I don't know if gun free zones are effective or not if we have guns" We will always have guns. You will never be able to get rid of them. This is because of this thing called the black market. Gun free zones do absolutely nothing to stop shootings and most shootings happen in gun-free zones, as I said before. Pro thinks that we need self-defense because we have so many guns. That's quite wrong. If the law-abiding citizens have guns, where all guns are legally bought, use properly and safely, they won't be shooting any one. Only defending. Your ending statement is not strong. The evidence proves in The Washington Post that almost ALL shootings happen with illegal guns. You didn't read any of my sources, didn't do proper research, and didn't have a strong argument. I have debunked that more guns mean more homicides, through my last three arguments I have. When you make guns illegal, again, you are only taking them from the law-abiding citizens. The criminals most likely have illegal guns, the criminals won't turn them in, then the criminals shoot unarmed, defenseless men, women, and children. Gun owners with a stable mind are not more likely to become criminals with a gun. That's an absolutely ridiculous statement. I hereby conclude my argument by saying that banning and confiscating firearms will not reduce murders, but in fact raise them.
the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

does con say it's okay that so many people die in order to protect against the government? at any rate, it's still a far fetched theory over a concrete present day reality. the USA might not have the worst homicdie rate, but it is considered one of the worst for developed countires, and we have a lot of guns. i dont know if gun free zones are effective or not if we have guns. if we dont have so many guns though the evidence says we'd have less death. con mentions self defense. the main reason we need self defense is because we have so many guns to begin with. con says most mass shootings were obtained illegally. i dont know if that's correct as many of the people were mentally ill and got their guns legit. but at any rate, con has n't debunked that more guns means more homicides. criminals will still get some guns but given more guns are gone, more killings won't happen. there's not a magic line between criminals and legal people with guns.... legal people become criminals more likely with guns. without so many guns, there'd be less death. bottomline, which has not been debunked.
the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

Pro believes that government takeovers are far fetched. In what way? We have seen it throughout history. Considering the main idea of the 2nd Amendment of the United States is based solely on that reason, the corruption of politics is using the idea that guns cause murder as a way to disarm the public. So they can keep control. Protecting state militia rights won't do anything. Militias are controlled by the government. Pro didn't provide any real evidence that gun laws caused less crime. According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, The United States has the highest gun possession rate in the world, but doesn't have the highest firearm homicide rate. In fact, we are below the world average. (http://crimeresearch.org...) But let's get back to basics. The only person that can stop a criminal with a gun, is a law enforcement officer or armed civilian. Police officers are not always around. But if you are armed and trained with a gun, and you happened to get attacked, the police won't help you. But you can help yourself with the gun. It's that simple. Now tell me, pro. If you were a criminal looking to shoot up a building, would you go in there knowing everyone is armed? Or would you go into a gun-free zone? According to National Review (2012), "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns." (http://www.nationalreview.com...) Would banning guns even do anything, though? If you successfully banned all firearms, all of them had been seized by the government from the law-abiding citizens. What about the illegal firearms? Criminals are not going to turn in their weapons. And there will be no record of them since they were purchased illegally. According to the Washington Post, most weapons in mass shootings have been obtained illegally. https://www.washingtonpost.com... So even gun laws would not stop most shootings.
the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

con's main point is the government might pose a threat some day. well, we can protect state militia rights, if needed. everyone doesn't need a gun. but at any rate, con is worried about far fetched theoretical take overs when there is a murder epidemic happening right now, a present concrete reality. con gave at best anecdotal evidence of georgiea that doesn't negate the tons of links i showed in the comments that show more guns mean more homicide and there is no correlation between the number of guns and the amount of crime. plus he needs a better link or source for his information so it can be more easily inspected.
the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

For the Record, your Oxford link didn't work. When in the course of human events, government outgrows its obligated duty to the people of its country, something must be done. When government starts running the citizen's lives, there is a major issue and it is time for a new government. According to John Locke, when government becomes too strong and is a daily interference in the people's lives, you have a right to overthrow the government. Now, how are you going to overthrow the government? With words? No. With marches? No. You must fight. With guns. Without guns, the government would run over the citizens of the United States like a tank runs over the Taliban. The Main reason of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people of the U.S. from the government. Without it, we would not be the same country we are today. The United States was founded on a few principles that made us different from the rest of the world. The idea that the people ran the government. Not the other way around. And I sure as hell would rather live in a dangerous, free-world, than I would live in peaceful slavery. But now, guns in fact DO make towns and countries safer. For example, in Kennesaw, Georgia (1982), there was a law passed requiring the heads of households to hold at least one gun with ammunition. While the rest of the country thought there would be shootings everywhere in the city, crime rate actually plunged 89% according to rense.com. Plus, think about it. If you were planning on shooting someone, would you try to attack someone with or without a gun? I would not like to fight someone
the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense. more guns means more overall homicide http://www.debate.org...;would you be open to this if it could reduce murders by say, eighty percent?i reluctantly would probably support bans and confiscation on a nationwide scale. this view doesn't make me popular and i dont like taking people's guns away. and i am open to evidence to contradict my main premises and cause me more caution in my view. i am just openly considering the idea, which is what i think should be expected from everyone. as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense. i would expect if we banned and confiscated weopons that gun murders would go down as that's what the evidence indicates. i'm sure with the open borders etc that there would still be some murder, and defenseless people, just not as much. the main reason people need a gun for self defense is because there's so many guns to begin with. ive never seen someone acknowledge "yes we get more murder with gun rights, but that's the way it is for self defense". but it seems that's what the situation is. getting rid of guns should be taken seriously, i just dont know the exact numbers for what would happen. i know australia banned and confiscated a bunch of more serious guns and they knocked their rate in half. and they went from one mass shooting per year to none, that's not a statistical anomaly. that's not bad, if it was more serious confiscating, i could see it knocking say eighty percent of the murders. is that worth it while leaving people defenseless? i suppose it's not unreasonable to think otherwise than what im pushing, but yhou should at least acknowledge the deaths you're allowing for and openly consider both sides.
The United states should permit drilling in ANWR

How to weigh the arguments in this round:1)Environment This is the most important issue in this round because it has the largest impact. Pro has conceded that drilling in ANWR puts every ecosystem in the U.S., from Yellowstone to Everglade, at risk due to overturning the Precautionary Principle. Widespread destruction of delicate ecosystems would be devastating to the US given the cumulative nature of environmental damage, so we must hold the Precautionary Principle foremost in our minds. Additionally, Pro risks damage to the arctic through pollution causing acid rain, routine oil spill, etc.- these are impacts that are part of normal drilling so are 100% certain. There is also the risk of major oil spills like the Deepwater Horizon or Valdez- catastrophes that could render ANWR as barren as the ruined Niger Delta.2)RelationsPro essentially ignored this issue, meaning I win with 100% certainty that as soon as drilling is authorized the US violates treaties (I specifically listed 4), undermining our ability to fight terrorism and war on drugs and signaling to unstable countries that rule of law may be ignored. The economic impact of the war on drugs and terrorism dwarfs whatever benefit we would get from ANWR, plus both issues threaten US security. This is the most certain and soonest occurring impact of drilling in ANWR so it is the second most important. Even if you ignore the environment issue, the International Relations issue alone is reason enough to block drilling.3)Econ and DependenceThe magnitude of these impacts is so slight that they barely merit considering. I have repeatedly shown that the economic development is negligible and most of it will go to Asia, not the US. I have shown that oil companies will manufacture and refine overseas, not the U.S. ANWR will only decrease oil dependence from 54% to 51%, still leaving us “at the mercy” of foreign oil. Id like to remind the judges how Pro has used outdated sources throughout the debate, so Con’s claims should be preferred. The result is that benefits from driling are marginal at best. Additionally, I have shown that the economic impacts of ANWR wont be felt for 10 years, during which time we could find safer oil sources or improve our ability to get oil from existing sources.4)Land RightsPro tries to frame this as a personal liberty argument but the fact is it’s a states vs. federal rights issue and that groups with claims to the land have differing opinions. The right of the federal government to supersede states has precedent going back to the Civil War. If Pro really felt this was a major issue he would have developed this argument more, but instead he consistently focused on the issues of the economy and the environment- leaving this issue as a sidenote. Judges should ignore this issue.I would like the conduct point since Pro misrepresented evidence twice, sucking up my argument space while I correct him. First time is a freebie but two infractions should be reflected on the ballot.
The United states should permit drilling in ANWR

Thanks to Con for a good debate. I think or debate covered a lot ground that people interested in the subject will find useful.1. The United States Needs the Money and the JobsI asked Con if it was even plausible to suppose that having an additional $2.8 trillion in our own money would not be enormously beneficial compared to sending it overseas. He couldn't bring himself to claim that $2.8 trillion was insignificant. The rebuttal was that some of our $2.8 billion would be used to buy goods from Asia. That doesn't dispute the significance of having the $2.8 trillion to buy whatever we want to buy, compared to draining the economy to buy oil. Saudi Arabia must be in even worse shape, since they need to buy nearly everything from foreign supplies. It's a whole lot better to have $2.8 trillion extra to spend.2. Alaskans have a right to revenue from their resourcesI gave evidence that Alaskans were extremely sensitive to environmental issues, and that there was no good reason for not allowing them to make the development decisions. Juveniles are subject to many restrictions on the grounds that older people know better. That's the only grounds for restricting rights. In the case of ANWR drilling, Washington does not know better. The Inupiat who live there strongly favor drilling, by more than eight to one. There is every reason to suppose that they are sensitive to environmental damage and understand the tradeoffs.All of Cons arguments failed, so he suggests just not considering the issue. 3. Development will aid international relationsI claim it is better to be less dependent on Middle Eastern oil rather than more dependent because we could better tolerate a partial slow down or stoppage. I argued that the US could be energy independent if it chose to be, and Con did not dispute that. The US has vast undeveloped reserves now unreasonably blocked. Removing any one of the arbitrary blocks won't solve the problem entirely, but a step by step return to sanity would. ANWR is a very good first step.4. There is little environmental riskCon claims that any tiny perturbation in the Arctic environment will precipitate disaster, yet Prudhoe Bay development didn't bring disaster, caribou herds increased five times. Alaska's 42 active volcanoes spew immensely more air pollution without disaster. Yearly natural marine oil seepage is many thousands of times the Valdez spill residue. I cited the Coast Guard report on new measures to prevent spills. The risks are much less.The analogy to getting out of bed is apt. We know the rewards are great. There is a long list of potential risks, but we know they are insignificant in comparison to the benefits. ANWR drilling is a postage stamp area relative to a football field. Con cites a supposed principle that reasoned tradeoffs must always yield to irrational precedent. If that exists, it should be overturned now.Let's get on with it.The resolution is affirmed.
The United states should permit drilling in ANWR

ANWR is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. According to the Department of Energy:The 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) lies in the northeastcorner of Alaska. The Coastal Plain area, comprising 1.5 million acres on thenorthern edge of ANWR, is bordered on the north by the Beaufort Sea, on the eastby the U.S. Canadian border, and on the west by the Canning River. The CoastalPlain of ANWR is being considered for oil and gas development since it potentiallyholds billions of barrels of recoverable oil and trillions of cubic feet of recoverablegas. Of the 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain, less than 2000 acreswould be affected by development. [1]Offshore development is outside the scope of this debate.For this debate "drilling in ANWR" means commercial drilling and recovery of oil, and construction of a pipeline to facilitate transportation of the recovered fuels. "Permit" means to remove any executive orders prohibiting such drilling, and to pass legislation that provides for leasing the limited areas as described in existing proposals to commercial interests for development. Also, to permit drilling legal steps will be taken to prevent lawsuits that unduly tie up development, and government will refrain from enacting excessive taxes or placing other burdens that would make development uneconomic or delayed. Nothing in the resolution prevents reasonable requirements and inspections with respect environmental safeguards such as are now mandated for drilling on the North Slope.Drilling in ANWR is a perennial issue. The House Committee on Natural Resources held hearings on the issue concluding on November 18, 2011. The transcripts of the hearings provide background information on this debate. [2]The first round of this debate is for definitions and acceptance. Rounds 2, 3, and 4 are 8000 characters each and are for arguments and rebuttals. Round 5 is limited to 3000 characters and no new arguments may be made in that round.Unless explicitly defined otherwise, words are taken in the ordinary dictionary definition appropriate to the context. Word meanings and interpretations of the resolution are to be consistent the intent of the debate.[1] Department of Energy Fact Sheet http://www.netl.doe.gov...[2] http://naturalresources.house.gov...
Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Humans) Evolved From Earlier Hominids.

Thanks for beginning this debate. I hope there will be some sort of understanding by the end of it. You bring up the idea of vestigial organs and present several as evidence for evolution. I will attempt to show here that the arguments are false. Cutis Anserina [1] Cutis, commonly called goosebumps, are actually not useless. On a human"s skin is a small layer of hair that traps air, the muscles that contract when these are raised also help secrete oil onto the skin. The hairs stop clogging in muscle glands. The hairs also keep perspiration in an even layer instead of dripping off. This shows that there is use for cutis anserina. As I have shown, humans have use for this phenomena. Furthermore, there is no evidence that we have lost any fur at all. Vomeronasal organ This organ is hardly useless. As [2] shows, humans still very much use pheromones in life. "There is fairly clear evidence for chemical communication among humans. The most notable example is a trend towards synchronization of menstrual cycles in women who live together." Plantaris Muscle There is much evidence that this muscle is not useless. [3] Injury of this muscle causes what is known as "tennis leg." There is even more evidence that this muscle is not locomotive in nature, but rather sensory. This is because of the (See [4] for anatomical study) proprioceptive receptor end organs Wisdom teeth Problems with wisdom teeth are actually only present in places with low fibre diets. In high fibre diets region like Africa, no problems are met with. [5] It is actually due to the disuse of the teeth in soft diet cultures. Coccyx This is actually a very useful piece of bone. Without it, your anus would have no shape because this is the connection point for those muscles! Try taking away your coccyx and tell me how you feel. Appendix The appendix has many useful abilities. "The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system." [6] "The appendix contains a high concentration of lymphoid follicles. These are highly specialized structures which are a part of the immune system. The clue to the appendix"s function is found in its strategic position right where the small bowel meets the large bowel or colon. The colon is loaded with bacteria which are useful there, but which must be kept away from other areas such as the small bowel and the bloodstream. Through the cells in these lymphoid follicles, and the antibodies they make (see box below), the appendix is "involved in the control of which essential bacteria come to reside in the caecum and colon in neonatal life"." Now back to you, and thank you for the debate once again. 1. http://creation.com... 2. http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org...; And see http://www.ingentaconnect.com... 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 4. http://jbjs.org... 5. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... 6. http://creation.com...
Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Humans) Evolved From Earlier Hominids.

I have made this debate impossible to accept, so if anyone wants to debate me, just post a comment in the comments section regarding your acceptance.My resolution: Humans most likely evolved from earlier hominids. Rules-Please no trolling or semantics.Definitions- humans- primates of the family Hominidae, and the only living species of the genus Homo.evolved- to produce by natural evolutionary processes.from- used as a function word to indicate a starting point of a physical movement or a starting point in measuring or reckoning or in a statement of limits.earlier- happening or done before the usual or expected time. hominids- any of a family (Hominidae) of erect bipedal primate mammals that includes recent humans together with extinct ancestral and related forms and in some recent classifications the gorilla, chimpanzee, and orangutan. Round Structure-1. Acceptance2. Main Arguments3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals to Rebuttals5. Conclusion/Resolution Reached