BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
USA should have more restrictions on guns

Surely we can agree that there are cars on the road today that don't have insurance, updated registration, or even registered at all. These cars are all around us and we don't even notice. Why? Because they aren't doing anything wrong. How ofter do you as a driver stare at the tags of the vehicle in front of you? I don't think I've ever notices the tags even when I'm reading a vanity plate. Although people drive illegally, not so much with speeding but as in unregistered, it's very easy for the police to spot. But then again a car is easy to spot. You can't hide a car in your pocket or under your coat. If you drive with expired tags or an incorrect license plate the police will find out. How can this work for guns? You said that private individuals could take their firearm to some location, assumably a gun store, where a background check can be performed. But again, how would you be able to enforce such a law? And how can you catch those that don't abide? Unlike a car a firearm can be concealed in public. Like I said earlier I don't believe in the 90% claim at all and I'm not alone. Gun Owners of America, another gun rights group, polled their own members after the so called 90% claim was made. Their results showed less than 10% supported Universal Background Checks. http://gunowners.org... <--- Do I take this result as absolute? No I don't and for the same reasons I stated earlier. It's impossible to confirm this is what the nation wants. Without a gun you cannot commit a gun crime. Truer words were never spoken. But what's the solution other than the Universal Background Check (UBC from now on) ? Like I said I cannot be enforced because people will do what they want to do. We can't compare UBC to the gun policies of the UK or Australia because they don't have one. They just have a total ban. Since the UBC won't prevent people from selling guns to each other, how do you keep guns out of the hands of criminals? If you want to compare the process for driving a vehicle to owning a firearm ok; but as stated above, how can it be enforced. Your ideas aren't uncommon, but no one can say how it can be enforced. The Bill of Rights was written not to grant rights, but to prevent the government from taking those rights. Since the 2nd Amendment is indeed to take up arms against DC, why would we give any power over that to DC? Now of course you could argue that DC is no more of a threat to the People than Canada is, but does that really change the position of the 2nd Amendment? It is there to prevent the government from even thinking about becoming tyrannical. When you start to erode some of that power, you strengthen the chances of tyranny. For your next rebuttal I would really like you to explain how the UBC would be enforced.
is there any limitation of mathmetics

Please note that Pro has dropped my emotions argument altogether.2. The MindFirst of all, I don't know where Pro is getting his information.Math in school and IQ tests have no correlation. You can fail math 100 times and still have a high IQ. In fact, it is estimated that Albert Einstein has an IQ of 180. So obviously there is no correlation between failed math and IQ.http://www.einstein-website.de...;In fact, the IQ test is a fairly accurate measurement of the mind. Therefore, Pro has not proved anything. The mind can be measured with math.Pro has also dropped my quantity argument. You can have 2 minds, meaning you can measure minds.3. SpaceSpace can be measured with volume. Say you have an empty room. You can calculate the volume of that room to find how much empty space there is.In fact, you can say empty space weighs 500kg. It is the mass of all the air molecules in that space.Therefore, you can use math to calculate space. Math knows no limits.4. SkyPro drops my entire sky argument.ConclusionTherefore, because of all of Pro's dropped arguments, I have won this debate.
is there any limitation of mathmetics

1] mind: IQ testIQ test will not say anything about a person's potential. einstein failed 9 times in math when he was in school, that does not explain his potential of a world renowned scientist.there are many wise men over there whose potential IQ test cannot ascertain.2] space can be measured by volumevolume belongs to an object. it has no relation with empty space. you cannot say an empty spece weigh 500kg.3] sky is airreally? then what is the blue stuff over our head?. don't sit on your room. go outside and watch the sky.math has a limit.
is there any limitation of mathmetics

Now, Pro seems to have changed the resolution on me.Let me remind all that the resolution is "is there any limitation on mathematics", limations meaning uselessness.Therefore, Pro must argue that there are limits on math, that math is useless in some cases, we are not arguing the resolution "can math only be used on quantifiable things?"I argue that you can use math in all circumstances, there is no one circumstance where math cannot be used. And Pro has not responded to my challenge, he has not found me one circumstance where math cannot be used.So let's set this debate back on track. EmotionFirst, 2kg + 4mg does not equal anywhere near 50kg, so no it would not give 50kg of anger. And furthermore, it does not matter if emotion can or cannot be quantified.To support this argument, Pro must argue that math is useless in calculating emotion, as I remind you again: the resolution is "is there any limitation on mathematics.", meaning there is a limit to math, math cannot be used to calculate everything.I have proven before that math can be used to calculate emotion, and pro has not contested that. Also, yes, actually in response to that point. You can have multiple emotions at once. I can feel disappointed and angry at the same time. I can feel 2 emotions at once. Furthermore, some emotions are a mix of other emotions. For example, the emotion estatic, is a mixture of the emotions excited and happy. Therefore, Pro has lost on this pointMindAgain with the quantifiable stuff. To support this argument, Pro must prove that math cannot be used to calculate minds.Well, indeed it can.The measure of intelligence, or the power of the mind, is done through math, through an IQ test. Your scores are then added up with math, to determine your IQ, your mind.Also, you can have 2 minds working on the same task. If you work with a partner on a project, you have 2 minds working on the project. If someone else helps you, you add 1 mind, with math, to your previous number. You now have 3 minds working on the project.Therefore, you can use math to calculate minds.SpaceSpace is empty space. Well, you can use math to calculate that too.Say you have an empty container. How do you calculate the space of that container? Using volume. Since the container is empty, the volume is 0cm cubed. When it is full, it might be 500cm cubed full of water. You can determine volume by multiplying the area of the base by the height.Therefore, you can calculate space.SkyI don't know what's over your head, but over my head is a ceiling, haha.Actually, sky is volume of air. The sky consists of various sections, like the atmosphere. You can measure the volume and density of air, the amount of gases, etc. in the atmosphere. http://en.wikipedia.org...Therefore, you can calculate the sky.Also, there is 1 sky on earth. It is quantifiable.Therefore you can calculate sky.ConclusionPro has changed the resolution to: "Can math be used to calculate quantifaible things?" Nonetheless, I quickly, like a snake, adapted to this change and proved that indeed math can be used to calculate those things.Pro has lost this debate.Obvious win is obvious.
is there any limitation of mathmetics

1] Let's look at emotion.You can use math to calculate emotion. For example, I say something incredibly mean to you 100 times, on separate occasions. I record your emotions, how many times you got mad. Let's say that you got mad 90% of those times.Therefore, on the next time I say the same mean thing to you, I know there is a 90% chance that you will get mad. Math can be used to calculate emotion.dear con i am saying can emotion be quantified? i didn't say that times of occurance of emotion, i said EMOTION Iitself. can you say 2 kg of love is mixed with 4mg of hate to give 50 kg of anger?2] I don't understand what you mean by mind, but I'm sure you can use your mind to do math calculations. I can do 1+1 in my head, I'm using my mind to do math.no sir i said can MIND itself be quantified ? i didn't say what we can do with our mind.3] Space. You can use math to calculate space. For example, the distance in light years from one planet to another. That is math.again,the same thing. space is not distance between stars. space is the EMPTY SPACE.4] Sky. You can calcuate the volume of air in one section of the sky, make an estimate on the size of the sky by the size of the Earth, and multiply those together.again con, sky is the blue object over our head. it is not volume of air. can sky be quantified?i don't think so.
is there any limitation of mathmetics

What Pro is saying is not true. Pro assumes that Math can only be used in the field where things can be quantified, however, I will prove that math can be used in these situations as well. If I can do that, than I have won this debate.I agree that math can be used in the field where things can be quantified. However, I disagree when Pro says "only".Let's look at emotion.You can use math to calculate emotion. For example, I say something incredibly mean to you 100 times, on separate occasions. I record your emotions, how many times you got mad. Let's say that you got mad 90% of those times. Therefore, on the next time I say the same mean thing to you, I know there is a 90% chance that you will get mad. Math can be used to calculate emotion.I don't understand what you mean by mind, but I'm sure you can use your mind to do math calculations. I can do 1+1 in my head, I'm using my mind to do math.Space. You can use math to calculate space. For example, the distance in light years from one planet to another. That is math.Sky. You can calcuate the volume of air in one section of the sky, make an estimate on the size of the sky by the size of the Earth, and multiply those together.Anything can be calculated with math. You can use math for everything. I challenge Pro to come up with a situation where you cannot use math to find, and then prove that.Therefore I have won this debate.
It is better if we have one day for only halaqa time.

Abu Zaid (viz. Amr b. Akhtab) reported: Allah's Messenger (A018;) led us in the dawn prayer and then mounted the pulpit and addressed us until it was (time for the) noon prayer. He then came down the pulpit and observed prayer and then again mounted the pulpit and again addressed us until it was time for the 'Asr prayer. He then again came down and observed the prayer and again mounted the pulpit and addressed us until the sun was set and he informed (about) everything (pertaining to turmoil) that lay hidden in the past and what lies in (the womb) of) the future and the most learned amongst us is one who remembers them well. Sahih Muslim 2892
It is better if we have one day for only halaqa time.

WARNING I know it"s long but it"ll be worth the reading of it. Also, we would like to know your thoughts. Thank you! I believe that we should have a day at TAMKEEN for doing only a halaqa. I believe that we should do this at least once and in that day we should answer the Open Your Heart Questions. I have many reasons to support my argument. (Note: I can expand on my reasons but this is just the basic of it. ) Reason 1: if we do one whole day of answering Open Your Heart Questions then this way we have a bigger chance of getting through them and answering people"s questions that they wanted to know the answers to. Not only that, but people will actually be interested in what we are talking about so there wouldn"t be a need to complain about how "boring or uninteresting" the halaqa was because at that point, you"re the one telling us what we"re going to discuss in the halaqa. Reason 2: this will show us who the true TAMKEENERS are. Some people come only for the activity or only to chat with their friends. But is that was TAMKEEN is really for? What we should all be here for is the learning of our deen and the education that we are receiving to better ourselves. Rebuttle 1: you may say that "oh it"s going to be a long time of sitting and focusing and doing all of that which will make our bodies sore etc..." but keep your excuses to yourselves because, you"re not going to be sitting all the time. Don"t we have to get up for prayer? Uhh yes you do. So it"ll be five minutes or prayer which will get you moving but we don"t want people to exercise while prayer so we will do stretches before we pray. Also, every hour or two, we will do something to get people moving around and then we will come back to focus. (This "something" will either be decided by Sheikh Mohamed Ali, or the parent volunteers I"m hesitant on that thought) Rebuttle 2: others may think, "Who said I even wanted to discuss the Open Your Heart Questions?" What I"m going to say to that is you"re the one who asked questions so... we"re assumint you want to talk about them. However, for those who didn"t ask anything on the Open Your Heart, then again you can"t have an excuse, cause in this you will decide what you would rather talk about. This was only my opinion.
This house would ban genetically modified foods

I"ll present some reasons why genetically modified foods can be helpful to both the environment and people.First, genetically modified foods have increased pest and disease resistance. Plants can suffer from infections caused by fungi, bacteria, viruses, nematodes, and other pathogens. Farmers typically use lots of chemical pesticides to eliminate these diseases. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with pesticides because of potential health risks, and the excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can poison the water supply and cause harm to the environment. More resistant GM foods can significantly reduce the use of these harmful chemicals. Another example is that for some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means such as tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed. Furthermore, genetic modifying can help decrease the malnutrition in third world countries. Malnutrition is common in countries where peoples rely on a single crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in third world countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an unusually high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A). Fianally, genetically modified foods are easier to grow, so they increase food supply. GM crops can produce harvests that last longer than traditionally grown crops, reducing the wastage of out of date food. Longer lasting products make long-distance shipping much easier. Moreover, the yields could be multiplied many times over than what is currently being produced, and in a shorter amount of time. Crops can also be modified to withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater, which will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable places. They often require less chemicals, time and tools to grow. That makes them cheaper to produce and therefore the companies will sell them cheaper and the people will benefit from that.Nowadays when there are so many people starving it is important that we figure out ways to produce food more efficiently.
This house would ban genetically modified foods

Definition: Genetically modified foods (or GM foods) are foods produced from organisms that have had specific changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering.Negative impacts on GM foods:Safe for Consumption?The use of genetically modified plants and animals has already become commonplace in today’s society without many people being aware of it. The lack of consumer consent in the choice to eat genetically modified foods creates an ethical dilemma. As much as “70 percent” of food prepackaged in a normal grocery store contain genetically modified foods. Are they all safe? StarLink corn modified corn that was found in stores, which were never intended for human consumption. It was designed specifically for pig feed. Flavr Savr tomato genetically modified tomato that rot longer. but less resistant to pests and easily caught diseases, which made the crops even more costly to grow and thus higher price for consumers. Pharmaceuticals as pollen spreads, genes from pharmaceutical plants have made it into the food supply. these drugged foods are more commonly being fed to animals that are raised to be slaughtered and consumed by humans. Allergens BT toxin, designed to kill pests that eat crops, caused allergies and other responses. Safety for environment Increase use of pesticidesand herbicides the world’s largest supplier of genetically modified seed for crops is Monsanto, which happens to be one of the larger producers of pesticides and herbicides. roundup Ready Soy fields require an average 3x as much Roundup. Cross pollination pollen from modified plants can spreads and will infect other plants, creating "superweeds" with insecticidal properties or herbicide-resistance. insects becoming resistant to the BT gene inserted into corn and cotton in order to kill off pests. in Canada, an organic crop field was contaminated by Monsato's genetically modified rapeseed. monsato's rapeseed farm the organic farmer Financial Impacts: $200 million was invested in creating Flavr Savr, and almost non of the investmet was able to be reclaimed. GM crops have cost the United States an estimated $12 billion in farm subsidies, lost sales and product recalls due to transgenic contamination Massive failures in Bt Cotton up to 100% in India. Testing, testing..Very little testing has been done on GM foods. genetic engineering is a new field, and long term results are unclear funding only given to tests which show positive results Source : http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu...
Designer Dogs

Well, I viewed your sources a little better than I think you did. The website and the video told me absolutely nothing about how breeding dogs will give me the exact traits I want. However, now I know where to go if I can't figure out the ancestry of my mixed breed dog. And again, we have no idea what the traits of our dog will be when we combine the, as you again stated in saying, "How do you know we will get some mutated weird dog by having a hybrid? Really you don't." A1: You ask for a reason to not use hybrid dogs. Well here's a good one: Consider the number of homeless pets being euthanized daily or otherwise aimlessly wandering the streets? Does that make you want to keep creating more and more "breeds" of dog? I don't think this is logical at all. Also, there are a lot more than 2 species of dog. A2: The opposite of laughable, I think using 1855 Scotland was quite a strong argument. In fact, I could've used Hungary in the 1450's and the breeding of the Kuvasz. You claim that Scotland didn't have the knowledge of DNA testing or genetics. So then my question to you is how did the Golden Retriever ever come about? And how then was it able to achieve the purposes they needed if the Scottish had no knowledge of genetics? You ask how we could possibly not provide perfect results. The answer is because we don't need them. If we had the need for a dog to pull carts, or herd our sheep, I'm sure there would be someone willing to take the years of time it takes to create a dog to do this and breed true. But there is no need anymore. The reason is because of how technologically advanced we are these days, and the fact that there are enough purebred dogs out there already to do those jobs. Just because we understand how genes are passed to other dogs doesn't mean we can create the exact breed of dog we want in one generation. And about the Charlie Sheen comment: I don't exactly understand how using a "ridiculous comment" would help to strengthen your argument. A3: You say you're confused to see how second generation designer dogs possess negatives genes. This doesn't neccesarily mean that every second generation dog will be deathly ill, but that that the recessive genes we were able to hide in the first generation will be present in the second. You fail to see this because you haven't "done your homework on genetics." Take a look at this link. http://webspace.cal.net... If purebreds will always be around, then why do we need more and more dogs around to "offer more possibilities?" Really the only possibilities that are offered to us are the establishment of more animal shelters and a lot more stray dogs.