BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Convicted felons should be barred from gun ownership in the United States

::Effectiveness:: My opponent's interpretation of a correlation in the source is unreasonable. The law was passed blatantly to decrease the gun violence rate. If one looks at the graph, one can see that before the time of the passing of the Brady Law, gun violence was a large issue. Some years were better than others, however, violence was still much worse before than it is today, even with the shootings we occasionally hear about from the media. One can make the judgment that the Brady Law quickly dropped the gun violence rate. Guns have always been a tool for criminals to use. It has and always will be something lawbreakers will strive to obtain. Gun sales are, consequently, monitored by the government, because background checks are now mandatory in order to obtain a gun. Even with the black market, it is a bigger challenge to obtain weapons because of the background check system. ::Felony:: Unfortunately, the felony levels of states cannot, indeed, be leveled out in the best way possible. However, the felony levels do provide more of a challenge to continue committing gun crimes and retain certain rights. These are issues which are left to the states. How the states interact with certain laws such as the Brady Act is up to their governments. If one state believes the felony levels should be a certain way, then it is up to the will of the people who elect officials to make the judgment. As I have stated previously, laws are made for the purpose of reducing the level of what is considered a crime, not necessarily abolish it entirely. ::Total Ban:: My opponent's conception of gun types are unreasonable and not very factual. For example, John Allen Muhammad (aka "The DC Sniper") used a rifle to murder a number of people. The killing spree was quite successful with the rifle. It is evidenced that murdering people, with any gun, can be fairly easy. While bank robberies may be more difficult to do with a larger gun, as long as a gun is present, mass murders, home robberies, etc. , are very possible. ==CLOSING STATEMENTS== The issue isn't necessarily about perfect, absolute effectiveness. This is why it is crucial to understand how laws can only reduce crime, and not abolish them entirely. This fact will apply, no matter what the law in question. Regardless of state felony levels or gun type, the gun control law did, indeed, reduce the crime over the past several years. My opponent's examples were unreasonable, and could not get past the fact that gun laws reduce the number of gun-related deaths. If we were to take away gun laws, no matter what the circumstances, gun crimes would be back on the rise.
Convicted felons should be barred from gun ownership in the United States

::Effectiveness:: 1. My opponent's argument simply points out a correlation. a. Viewing his own source, one will see that the decrease in guns started PRIOR to the Brady Law: http://www.americanthinker.com... b. This only shows a correlation anyway, nothing more. Correlation does not equal causation, and there are many other confounding variables that could affect this statistic as well. For example, overall gun ownership has dropped: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. This doesn't mean in any way that the Brady method is the only method to reduce gun violence, or the best method. Not only does the Brady method fail to even keep guns out of the hands of many of the most dangerous criminals (as well as first time criminals) but it also means that gun sales can no longer be monitored by the government because gun sales are now done on the black market. Understanding that, this 'Brady Law' being the best method seems unlikely. ::Felony:: "I will clarify what I was talking about regarding felons. By felon, I was really implying those of which have a history of using guns against people, so I apologize if I used the wrong words." This is not a semantic argument. This is an actual major problem that our criminal justice system has, and one that a few states are starting to phase out. New York, for example, has multiple 'levels' of felony from "A - Violent" and "A - Nonviolent" to "E - Nonviolent." Unfortunately, most states have not followed this example. Voting is one area of life where this is an issue. In many states, if I steal $249, and another man steals $250, I retain my right to vote whereas he loses his permanently. If I steal $250 in one state, and another man steals $250 in another (with a lower threshold for felony) I retain my right to vote whereas he loses his permanently. This is the problem of the use of felony and misdemeanor in law. ::Total Ban:: My opponent is incorrect in assuming that any gun can be used for any purpose. Rifles are rather large[2] and inconvenient to use in most things my opponent talks about. They aren't particularly useful in drive-by shootings, can't be hidden in your pocket to rob a bank or sneak up on someone, and they require both hands which precludes driving, holding loot from a robbery, etc. One will find that it is rather hard to use rifles for anything but hunting. This is evidenced by the fact that over 80% of all gun deaths are from handguns. ::Misdemeanants:: Unfortunately, my opponent can't get out of this argument by changing the resolution, either. Possibly my two strongest arguments (and one of the main reasons I accepted the debate) were based on the fact that my opponent had done the same as our government commonly does and drawn some arbitrary distinction at misdemeanor/felony. [1] http://www.rpslawyers.com... [2] http://hunting-rifles.com...
"Islamophobia"

First off, I want to start with this premise: Islamophobia, or in other words; the irrational fear of islam/muslims, isn't a thing in my book. My point is that the fear of islam is very rational. There is also the other definition of "Islamophobia" (which completely disregards the word "phobia" for obscure reasons) found on the oxford dictionaries and on the Wikipedia page dedicated to the subject. The second definition is as follows: 'Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.', or 'Islamophobia is defined as "Intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims.' If we were to regard the second definition however, I want to argue that the fear of muslims is entirely justifiable. No, not only it is justifiable, but it is also expected from a psychological AND historical point of view. Sources for the definitions: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate.org is an idiotic website and a waste of time.

First off, I'd like to point out all the requirements debate.org has pointing out that the human populace is required by law to go onto this site and debate/read past debates. To my knowledge, I count none. Perhaps there are some that I am not seeing. Secondly on your point that everyone who uses it is full of baloney. I've just taken a very thorough look at myself and can find no traces of processed meats on my persona. I did however, have roast beef today, so I do have a little of that inside me, however, no bologna. I cannot see you though, so I assume that once you entered this site that your fingers turned into salami's, in which case I'm very sorry. If any other users of this site have had the same symptoms, it is perhaps advisable that you leave immediately before it spreads. On your point that these arguments are also full of bologna, I became very worried and checked my computer. Much to my relief I found it to not be full of bologna. If this where the case however, I do feel that the arguments would be uninteresting and unhelpful. I have stared at chunks of meat for along time, and came up with the same opinion. But to my knowledge, these debates seem to be comprised of computer data programmed to record the opinions and beliefs of it users, which I find very interesting, and so must the other users of this site, seeing as how they willingly joined it. Though I could be wrong. Like I said before, I can't find any laws requiring me to be on this site, but that could just be me.
Yugioh is better then pokemon

Pok"mon has no value in watching it. Even naruto is better then that and Dragonballz but Yugioh can top Pok"mon the best. Image chazard vs. blue eyes dragon. We all know who wins. Yugioh is a game about strategy. There is also a educational value in it too. Even krillin can beat the stuffing out of Pikachu. Yugioh has been by many people and has popular ever since. The shows are great and storylines good. Even misty hates ash now. Pok"mon is old get in with the new. Even beyblade can beat Pok"mon. Too many Pok"mon to keep track of. Pok"mon is going down hill. Pok"mon is too babyish Yugioh is a show for mature and people who enjoy watching it
Yugioh is better then pokemon

I'll respond to your rebuttal using each of your points. 1. Pokemon just started the online network, it still has been a strategic move by move game loved by many. 2. Pokemon isn't the best show but is one of the top animes ever made. 3. Ash is one of the most iconic figures in any type of series in any entertainment medium. 4. The card gameplay actually does make sense, you lay down cards and certain moves has certain hit points, you also have to lay down the number of required element cards to perform the move, you just do not understand the card game. 5. Kids love the games, that's why pokemon games still hold their value and sell by the millions. 6. Fire moves hardly affect water type pokemon, but a hit is a hit. Try Water on fire and the move will be 'super-effective'. 7. Pokemon was better back in the day in my opinion, of course I say this because it was my generation, but it still is very strong, look at Pokemon X and Y for the 3DS, it broke a few records.
Yugioh is better then pokemon

Lets move on to round 2. 1.pokemon games are whack dueling network has many players online 2. Pok"mon is not the best show lets just say that. 3. the main character is very stupid. I would rather watch beyblade then that. 4. The cards and gameplay make no sense all you do is put 2 cards down and see which is stronger Yugioh you can use effects and tools and actually battle. 5. New Pok"mon games are just games that want to spend your money later on kids will say they don't like the game and they will throw out 30-40$ of money thrown away. 6. Pok"mon's are also weak talk about a fire type beating aqua when was the last time fire can beat water like how can water not beat fire. 7.POKEMON USE TO BE GOOD TILL IT CAME TO A DOWN FALL. May and dawn ruined it. Ash also ruined most of it
Yugioh is better then pokemon

I do not know much about Yugioh, I did own a few stacks of cards and did watch a few shows but nothing with comparison to Pokemon. I would have to completely disagree with you here. Pokemon is one of the most popular anime shows/games on the planet and they post record sales and views all the time. Sure, when Pokemon first started there was not much strategy but to fight and level up, but with the new editions and EV training, Pokemon has gotten rid of all of that. I mean, Pokemon is easily the best out of the two and by far. Nobody has even heard of Yugioh in years.
Yugioh is better then pokemon

We all know that Yugioh is a very popular series. The card game is mainly favored by most people. Yugioh is the king of duels much more better then animals hitting each other. Yugioh also teaches strategy while Pok"mon just teaches completely nothing. Yugioh is also fun and easy to play and have a more better series. The best part in Zexel the part when astro and Yuma joined forces to make a ultimate duelist. Can Pok"mon do that? No!! because they are stupid little animals who think they are strong. The weakest Pok"mon I would say is slow poke and that sloth Pok"mon. And there are too many Pok"mon to keep track of. Here is my reason. One last thing. Pok"mon ruins childhood memories
Scandinavia is better than the U.S.A

1. What's the point of "free" health care when you're paying the same or even more than you normally would on a medical-need basis in tax? 2. I never addressed the topic of happiness. I was replying to your comment on Scandinavian patriotism. 3-5 :) 6. In the topic of money, out of the then richest people in the world, seven of them happen to be American. No Scandinavian countries are to be found. 7. America has about 1.5 million nonprofit organizations. So basically there is a charitable organization for every 300 people in America. 8-9. Scandinavia is a group of four countries, there is no excuse for America having a bigger population in the 1700s. The Cold War started in the 1940s, we had thousands of achievements and innovations before that. Can you please tell me how Scandinavia was limited of becoming a superpower? 10. American is a term to generalize people who's nationality is American. I'm not too sure what your point is on this one. 11. Actually Iceland is the only country that is closest to a democracy. Denmark, Norway and Sweden are all monarchies. I never claimed America founded democracy. 12. There is one person in every single country who has discriminated against gays at least once. Alabama HB 56 was a law that helped prevent illegal immigration. American freedom isn't for illegal immigrants, it's for the people who legally reside here. Like I said, the law makes it harder for ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to vote, and I certainly don't have a problem with that. -NEW TOPICS- 1. America has the strongest military in the world. The United States Armed Forces has more than two million active and reserve duty personnel. While Norway doesn't even break 70,000. 2. America is the second most popular tourist destination in the world, bringing in more than 62,300,000 foreign tourists a year. No Scandinavian countries makes the top 20 list.
Scandinavia is better than the U.S.A

1. Yes, they have high taxes, but one, they are able to pay for them because their economy is good, and two, they get something good out of it. 2. America may be patriotic, but patriotism and happiness is not the same thing. And maybe they don;t have any studies in Scandinavia because nobody really cared to do a study their. 3. You do win on this one, America is better in entertainment 4. You win that one 5. You win that one. 6. Yes a lot of Americans are rich, but I may point out that we have the greatest wealth in equality in the world. 15% are unemployed, 40% identify as being in the lower-middle class, and 30% need welfare to survive. Unlike in Scandinavia. I would also like to add that America is the richest country on earth, but we don't feel like it because all that is going to the top 1% 7. The US government may be generous, but their people are not. https://en.wikipedia.org... Also, the government in Scandinavia is also good,for example, Norway gave Brazil a trillion dollars. And I am pretty sure if Scandinavian government had trillions of dollars, they would give a lot to charity. 8. It has don these things because one, they have more people, and two, some were influenced by the cold war to work harder to do these things, while Scandinavia was not apart of the cold war. Also, the Panama canal was because of geography, and I do not know if you know this, Scandinavia and Panama are 6,000 miles away from each other. 9. The reason the US is so big is because they were in the western world, they were able to grow fast, and over 100 years, they had a hundred years to become a super power, and they continued to grow. Unlike Scandinavia, it was limited, so it was not able to become a super power. But you are Wright on the fact that the world is better because of the US Nigeria, Pakistan, and Columbia are not the countries in Scandinavia, Let me tell you this, Scandinavia is Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Do you got that, okay, lets move on. 10. These medical professionals are great, but the question is not Americans, it is all of America. That includes its citizens, its government, its geography, and its politics. 11. I may want to point out Scandinavia has democracy to. America is the only country with democracy, and though this was not in Scandinavia, Ancient Greece invented democracy. 12. Scandinavia has all of that and more. In Scandinavia, gays are not discriminated against at all, in Alabama, they have one of the most anti-immigration laws in the world which caused tons of immigrants to escape as if it were the holocaust, and their are laws that make it harder for people to vote. Though America has a lot of freedoms, Scandinavia has more. Read this http://redalertpolitics.com... And Scandinavian countries have more economic freedom https://en.wikipedia.org...
Scandinavia is better than the U.S.A

Here is my 3 reasons why I believe why Scandinavia is better than the US. 1. My first reason is the government in Scandinavia is people friendly. How are they friendly, well, they have more freedom, they have universal health care, mothers get a paid break from work if they get pregnant so they can bond with their babies, it is a good place to retire, and their is free tution their for public colleges. And not only their politics and government is not the only good thing, their nature is beautiful, their people are nice, and more, read this link. http://www.buzzfeed.com... 2. My second reason is that the people their are happy, here are some links to show how the people their love their country. http://www.businessinsider.com... http://www.livescience.com... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.businessinsider.com... As you can see, Scandinavian countries are always in the top 10, and in these, some show the US not even being in the top 10. 3. My third reason is the US is bad at a lot of things, here are some of things the US is bad at. http://endoftheamericandream.com... So in conclusion, my three reasons for why Scandinavia is better than the US is because Scandinavia treats its people good, the people have ranked Scandinavia happy, and the US is worse at a lot of things.
Scandinavia is better than the U.S.A

1. They get a lot of assistance from the government BECAUSE they pay a lot of taxes. Remember, nothing in this world is truly free. According to a Forbes article, America had a lower poverty rate than Sweden. And trust me, Forbes is a lot more reliable than your link (which doesn't even work). http://www.forbes.com... 2. You definitely can. We could probably fit every person in America in the Hawaiian islands if we built huge apartment buildings. 3.Percentage does not matter, numbers matter. Using your example. I have 1,000,000 soldiers, I lose 2% of my men, I have still have 980,000 of my men. If you had ten men, and you lost 2% of your men you have 8 men left. 4. Just look at THESE pictures. http://www.travelphotoadventures.com... http://dailyhdr.com... http://frontpagemag.com... http://www.boalingua.ch... 5. The "Queen" does not have any power, she is just a figurehead. 6. I'm happy about my country. In fact, I love my country. God Bless the USA <3 (great song by the way, you should look it up if you haven't already.) 7. :) 8. You guys do have a higher life expectancy, but those years must be so boring. It might be the best place for mothers because there is nothing going on, so nothing can hurt the baby. Why didn't you defend the topics of our military being superior to yours? If you want you can leave it in the comment section. VOTE CON! GOD BLESS AMERICA
Scandinavia is better than the U.S.A

1. Well they may be paying a high tax, but they get a lot of assistance from the government and they are not poor from the taxes. Only 1% of Swedes are poor compare to Americas 14% . http://www.thelocal.se..., it is alsow low in Norway, . http://www.norwaypost.no..., and it is also low in Denmark . http://www.oecd.org.... As for Iceland, I could not find anything about Iceland because apparently nobody cares about Iceland. 2. Do you think a country will be able to fit 320 million people with a land size of only 885,885 square kilometers. To put that in perspective, that is about the size of Pakistan. 3. But Scandinavia gave higher percentage of their gdp. Percentage matters. For example, let's say their was a country who had an army of 10, and a country who had an army of 1000, the first army lost 8 people, and the second lost 23. Who is more affected? The first army, because they lost 80% of an army, Percentage matters, not numbers. At least in this situation. 4. Just look at these pictures. . http://www.visitsweden.com... . http://travel.nationalgeographic.com... 5. 2 words, Queen Elizabeth. 6. Patriotism is not important, it is if you are happy in your country, it is not important. Also, are you saying that you give up the debate on happiness, because you can not make anymore arguments. 7. I give up the debate on tourism, you win on that. 8. Can you defend the new topics I brought to your attention, about the Scandinavia being the best place for mothers, and life expectancy.
Scandinavia is better than the U.S.A

1. The Norwegian's pay an astronomical amount for taxes. It is at 39 percent. http://www.tradingeconomics.com... 2. I never said they were happy. I'm saying we are much more patriotic than any Scandinavian countries. http://www.borgenmagazine.com... 6. None of your countries are the richest countries the world. Qatar is. Norway is the closest at #6. Like YOU mentioned before America has one of the biggest populations in the world, so therefore we're first in a lot of things. 7.Your article mentions how America gives the most money to charity. I don't really care about percentages, there are two countries bigger than us in population. So it still matters. 8. Exactly, Scandinavia is a lot more limited than America. That is another benefit of ours. 10. Natural geography? It isn't even a competition, America has much better environmental feats. We have the Grand Canyon, Niagra Falls, Mt. McKinley, which happens to be the third largest mountain in the world. 11. Canada does not have a queen. 13. It doesn't matter if you have a smaller population, the point is it wouldn't be a competition if we went to war. Even if we went on a percentage basis, the patriotism argument comes to play. America is THE MOST patriotic country in the world. We would fight the hardest to protect our country and it's freedom. 14. http://geography.about.com... Although the link is from 2011, Wikipedia has the same positions, but the numbers are increased. All I have time for.
Prochoice is proabortion.

Here are some basic reasons why I support the legalisation of abortion while not supporting the practice in any way: I want to avoid back ally abortions which are considerably more likely to cause serious harm or death to the mother. I don't feel comfortable with the checks the government would have to carry out to make sure that there were no abortions going on. I don't think that I should legislate my personal morality. I don't want others to force their morality onto me and so I feel I shouldn't force my morality onto them. I would prefer to win the battle of ideas, not the battle of government force as this is both more moral (according to me) and would lead to a much longer enduring outcome. Post Script: I should add that it is somewhat strange to see a so called libertarian proposing fascist regulations on what women can or cannot do with their own bodies.
you (the person arguing) shouldn't hate me

I absolutely should hate you. I don't know Justin Bieber either but that doesn't mean I can't hate him. There are two simple reasons why I should hate you, even if I don't. 1. You told me what to do. Nobody tells me what to do. I'm not your little b1tch that you can boss around. I'll hate you just to spite you. 2. You had sex with my mother, and possibly my father. I have it on good authority that somebody matching your description participated in a three-way with my parents. Really not cool.