BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We need weapons

Well I can't say my opponent fails to make really good points. Then again there's still a few more rounds. Don't think I'm out of. bullets yet. Last bullet for round 4 will probably be absurd. Again I've generalized weapons too much in the first place I best be careful. Counterattack is a good point. As an atheist,im not gonna use the 5th commandment cause that was 2,000 years ago. Now then regarding missiles the UN has made a law on that ans even testing is not permitted because it violates the sanctions. Either the whole UN wages war on one country or few countries,division happens again leading to world war 3. For your great concern with criminals and terrorists again,final bullet goes to round 4. Well I'm giving most of this round to you to say something long and further prove your point and weaken mine.
We need weapons

My opponent says that weapons shouldn't have been made many thousands of years ago and if they hadn't had been made back then, we would have weapons today. This is obviously not true. We would have discovered how to make weapons at some point which we did. And to suddenly stop making weapons would be absolutely ridiculous. Even if way back then all the kingdoms of old mad a pact not to make weapons, that's just like making a law to ban weapons. Criminals wouldn't listen and then criminals would rule the world already. Then my opponent brings up the fact of the Orlando shooting. So you really think that this shooting would not have been as bad if people didn't have weapons. Let me remind you, if no weapons become the law, criminals won't listen to and police won't have weapons. So where does that leave us? The police wouldn't have been able to blast through the wall because that would have been considered a weapon. The police wouldn't have guns so a whole lot of them would have gotten slaughtered. In the end, if we ban weapons based on the fact that we don't need them, more people will be vulnerable to attacks like the Orlando shooting. More people will get hurt and die. I'll try to sum up my opponents next point. He says that the world is worsening and is trying to blame it on weapons. Also he says that criminals just need to be understood. Remember when I said you can't fight fire with a cup of water? Think of it like this. A country is sending missiles towards your country and they've already launched. What are you going to do? Try and take a diplomatic approach to this, which is what my opponent insists. Or will you send you own missiles to intercept the ones heading to you country and save millions of lives. You see what I mean. You can't fight fire with a cup of water. Then my opponent says that criminals are misunderstood. Well that's great, try convincing more than a billion people that they should allow terrorists to be their next door neighbours. Then my opponent uses the example that even though weapons are being used for a good cause, innocent people are still dying. My opponent goes on to say that his country may be going to war with China (good luck, you'll need it if you do) and that his life lies in the hands of world leaders. The problem is right now and current. There is no point in wishing for what could have happened because it didn't. We have weapons and now we have to face the consequences. If things had turned out a different way and countries weren't creating bomb that could destroy whole countries, I would be on your side. But things like those are happening and in a world where a single bomb can destroy a whole city our only hope is to create weapons that can counterattack that.
We need weapons

Well we best keep going on sorry to keep you waiting,if we must,we could end this quick. One major flaw I probably had in this debate is the I fact generalized weapons so much from a simple knife to the great weapons of the skies. Nevertheless,There should be a backup counter. I believe I see your point dating back to the Christian vs Muslim War the Vatican was in great danger,the Pope being a peaceful man,sent ships out to war. Now that you wanna talk about the probabilities of Past,Present and Future let us explore well. The earliest people of Earth,many theories on how they came about but that's not the topic here. If we take a loot at the accounts of the Bible,there was already an early sense of murder. Empires were built,men with spears were born. What if weapons stopped this early? Example:They realized understand,communication and good fellowship is what their people need. That's for you to explore. Now you say I'm implementing banning weapons when that takes years to become a law. I'm saying we don't need weapons. That the cons of having a gun in your hand is heavier than the pros. Let's take a look at some recent events. The Orlando Shooting. He wasn't much of a terrorist. He had a gun and used it because of his beliefs. 50+ people victimized. Unarmed people killed by just one man who had a weapon. North Korea's ballistic missile failed shortly. How much cash is that?! There's so much natural resources on this earth what do we use it for? If I sat in a bench during war I'd wait til I get shot. What's the use of being alive? I'm just looking at the conditions of the world worsening. Sometimes the law is unfair on us,evil is driven by power, prosperity and vengeance. If my whole family died because of the government and we did nothing wrong I'd probably rebel too. I believe some criminals just need the right education and the right mindset so they can live among us once again or are we so judgemental we get scared of a changed man? By now I believe most of us know the deep dark web. If something like that exists then the people under it's influence cannot be saved anymore. The stories are far disturbing than robbing Walmart. Lastly my final defense. I am a Filipino. Our dear president uses weapons to eliminate drugs ans criminals. It's not hypocritical cause I'm not him. As much as everyone in the country appreciates his charisma and keeping his promises. People are still dying. I don't even know if we're about to wage war against China. The future of people my age lies in the hands of the world leaders. I believe and stand that there is a way to live without weapons in the future because I fear worse events.
We need weapons

People always say "you can't fight fire with fire". But then what are you suppose to fight it with? A cup of a water? A cup of water isn't going to do much against a raging fire. This is practically what my opponent implied. Making a weapons ban will not help. What about the police that protect us from "bad guys"? They'll be weapon less against criminals who don't care whether weapons have been banned or not. Terrorists don't care about what's been banned or not. Terrorists aren't going to just say "oh dear weapons aren't legal? Guess we better not buy them." Terrorists still murder even though its illegal. You really think the world war 1 and 2 could have been a fist fight in the front lines? Seriously, the Allies and the Axis would have done anything to win both those wars. And that includes dropping an atomic bomb on two cities filled with civilians. That could have been you or I in Hiroshima or Nagasaki if we had been born a century ago in a different place. This problem is not just simply a good verses evil. Everybody is good sometimes and everybody has been down right cruel at some point. Then my opponent brings up children and their rights. To that I say, do you even know what a concentration camp is? It's a camp where kids and adults were sent to be killed immediately or worked to death. Germany had many and how on earth were the Allies suppose to bust these people out of a security tight prison? Say the Allies didn't have any weapons, that would be pretty much impossible because Germany would certainly have not recognized the weapons ban. Maybe you should go sit in a trench on the front lines of a war for a good couple of years and we'll probably see a change in your ideals. After a good couple of years you'll probably be wishing the war to end in any way possible. Having weapons is better than being enslaved to the enemy am I right? I kind of like my freedom. If everyone just dropped their weapons, the terrorists and criminals would rule the world. Banning weapons doesn't do any good because all you're doing is banning weapons from the hands of those who actually listen to the law. Those who don't listen to the law suddenly have a massive advantage over those who listen to it and that could result in terrorists popping up all over the world uncontested.
We need weapons

Hi I'm a 13 year old I'm new! I'm excited to finally start debating with amazing people. I know I may have lack of experience having attended only 3 formal debates but winning all of them and now that I'm here treat me bad. Intro: I believe we are all just one race,the human race. Why are we still using metal against each other?This problem has been here for THOUSANDS of YEARS causing pain to other humans and bring upon the idea of revenge. An eye for an eye. Without weapons I believe world war one and two would just be a debate or fist fight among soldiers to see who hits the hardest or fastest. The millions of dollars...all spent on a war machine and what's sad is the war machine is fed with bullets and fuel and what about the children?!What about the basic rights of children to eat,live and have a good education. Giving up weapons for children is a huge security risk for a country,I know that but really the only risk is our brain. How we think can affect the whole future of the country as a leader. How we think can kill or save lives. Have we lost our compassion and accumulated a sense of satisfaction looking at a weapon bought from the taxes of the people?Sell the weapons!Feed the poor become a nation and not a war freak. If the Constitution states eating poop is legal because of amazing nutrition benefits(which is probably false)should we just follow it or does the government have actual power to change that or as they say they're 'busy'. What I'm saying is I know security is part of sovereignity.Can't we all let that go to save more lives? We know there are terrorist threats and protecting the country from threats is a top priority but let me ask you why were there terrorists and rebels in the first place?Cause they just want to wave a gun wage war? Understanding is more important than weapons for me. I know this is a childish perspective,I don't know anything about protecting the whole country but hey I know a simple right or wrong question. Anyone,please accept the challenge if you disagree.
NSA's Data Mining (See for details) [Copy 2]

Thanks for the acceptance of my debate, and voters thanks for reading.Safety versus Certain PrivaciesI acknowledge that with the NSA doing its data mining, Americans and people abroad lose certain freedoms, privileges, or aspects to their lives, take whatever label you wish. Bottom line, people are losing some privacy. But is this a truly bad thing? I mean, what do you do on the internet? What do you do on the internet that is so unique and different, that it embarrasses you or outrages you that someone besides yourself knows you're doing it? In a country of 3 million plus people[1], is it very likely what you do on the internet is unique? Nobody sitting around in the NSA is actually going to care if you watch porn, you won't be judged when they see hundreds of thousands or millions of people doing that every day.Now I do realize that embarrassment is not the only concern when it comes to being watched. There are also basic ideas of what you as a human being 'deserve', and most people think privacy is one of those things. But there is something that human beings clearly deserve more than privacy, and that is life. Frankly, it is selfish to say that you deserve your privacy more than people deserve their lives. It is a necessary sacrifice to make in order to care for one's fellow man, and to protect his life. What's the alternative, you get to browse the internet with your 'deserved' privacy, and citizens of America are now more exposed to the possibility of a loss of life from domestic or foreign attacks? Imagine an event like 9/11 happens, and it could've been stopped if the NSA was in place. Could you honestly tell the families of the victims of such an attack that their loved one's lives are worth your extra privacy? If that's something you could do, you need to adjust your priorities. Thanks for reading.Sources:http://www.census.gov...
NSA's Data Mining (See for details) [Copy 2]

"A person of interest who is carrying this phone could give the phone to a family member/friend/acquaintance/a child it does not matter. The NSA gives the information on the phone to the CIA. From their the phone is bombed by a drone who does not make any effort to know who they are bombing."This quote is the heart of my opponent's argument, and it clearly isn't pertinent to this debate, based off the terms set in my resolution. Drones bombing innocents is not an effective way of stopping attacks, and my resolution calls for an NSA that is effective in stopping attacks. Not only is the example he's using involve killing civilians instead of terrorists, it talks about the terrorists getting away, which can hardly be considered effective."We cannot say the NSA's method solves terrorist problems do not work simply because the NSA is collecting too much information they do not have the time to go through all of the information needed to stop a terrorist attack."Here is another example of a statement made by my opponent that is not pertinent to this debate. He is supposed to assume that the NSA is effective, and saying they gather too much information to stop attacks runs directly counter to this."The government acting on the things we have said be it through the phone, texting, emails, Facebook, other types of social networking is infringing on our First Amendment right.""..or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.."[1] The First Amendment is about giving people the ability to speak their minds and express their religion. Observing someone when they speak their mind is not the same thing as making laws preventing them from speaking their minds. "..unfair, unconstitutional, and not American."Even if the NSA is doing things that are considered by some to not meet these subjective terms, it doesn't matter. As I covered in my first round, certain values cannot take precedence over saving lives. The same applies here. Just because it may not be constitutional doesn't automatically mean it's not right. The use of founding principles or major American values in opposing the resolution is ineffective because there are Core Democratic Values that support my position. Like Life and Common Good[2]. What I'm trying to show here is that 'American values' or founding principals should not have a definitive say in this debate due to their contradictions.Sources: [1] http://constitution.findlaw.com...[2] http://www.bridgmanschools.com...
NSA's Data Mining (See for details) [Copy 2]

According to the resolution which states that NSA's data mining is a useful tool in stopping terrorism. It may be a useful tool in stopping terrorism, but how does it go about doing this? The NSA will track your phone using metadata, a system that looks for key words such a "bomb" "attack" etc. Once one of these words is picked up by the metadata system people working at the NSA go farther into research to see if you are a potential terrorist. This sounds like a full proof plan, but the NSA has absolutely no way to see who is actually using your phone. This is no small problem. A person of interest who is carrying this phone could give the phone to a family member/friend/acquaintance/a child it does not matter. The NSA gives the information on the phone to the CIA. From their the phone is bombed by a drone who does not make any effort to know who they are bombing. These drones known as Sky Reaper bomb cell phones, not terrorists. That means that if a known terrorist gives his or hers phone to an innocent friend, that friend has the possibility to be killed instead of the intended target. Their have been over 250 innocent killed civilians due to the NSA's information. Three of these people were US citizens visiting other countries. A little privacy being sacrificed is in fact to much of a price to pay for safety. The NSA's way of finding information actually hasn't prevented any terrorist attacks. We cannot say the NSA's method solves terrorist problems do not work simply because the NSA is collecting too much information they do not have the time to go through all of the information needed to stop a terrorist attack. We as citizens of the United States do not need the government to be watching us. The government acting on the things we have said be it through the phone, texting, emails, Facebook, other types of social networking is infringing on our First Amendment right. If the government can kill innocent people because of what they said without a fair trial is unfair, unconstitutional, and not American.
Homework

Homework creates a bridge between school and home. Parents rarely get to spend much time with you while you're at school. Homework allows them to keep up with what you're doing in your classes on a daily basis. But you don't have homework purely for your parents' benefit. It's good for you, too! Homework can help you become a better student in several different ways. First of all, homework given in advance of a particular subject can help you make the most of your classroom discussion time. For example, before beginning a discussion of a complex period in history, it can be very helpful to read background information as homework the night before. Homework also gives you valuable practice with what you've learned in the classroom. Often, the brief period of time you have during class to learn something new is simply not enough. Repeating classroom concepts at home helps to cement in your mind the things you learned. For example, you've probably experienced the value of homework when it comes to mathematics. A new concept explained in class might seem foreign at first. With repetition via homework, however, you reinforce what you learned in class and it sticks with you. Without homework, a lot of classroom time would be wasted with repetition that could more easily be done outside the classroom. In these ways, homework expands upon what is done during the day in the classroom. Your overall educational experience is better, because homework helps you to gain and retain more knowledge than would be possible with only classroom work. As you learn more, you know more and you achieve more"and you have homework to thank! Homework teaches lessons beyond just what's taught in the classroom, too. Bringing homework home, completing it correctly, and turning it in promptly teaches a host of other important life skills, from time management and responsibility to organization and prioritization. Despite these benefits found by researchers, the topics of who should receive homework and how much homework are hotly debated among educators and researchers. In one study, researchers found that academic gains from homework increased as grade level increased, suggesting homework is more beneficial for older students. Some researchers have found that too much homework can lower or cancel its benefits and become counterproductive, because students become burned out.
Homework

I think that the kids that does not pay attention in class should have a lot of homework no matter what because they do not want to do the work in class so they need to do the work at home. But for the people that does focus in class should not because they focused in class and they know what to do and they learned in that class period. And if teachers give a lot of homework out then I am pretty sure they would at least give you some time to work on some so you don;t have to do a lot at home because i'm pretty sure that is how all teachers go. Thank You For Your Time
The city of Chicago being visible from the opposite shore, proves the earth is not a sphere.

One of Edlvsjd core arguments made in support of Flat earth (and against a spherical earth) is that the City of Chicago is visible from the opposite shore of Lake Michigan, something he states is not possible on a spherical earth, and effectively demonstrates that the earth is flat. This debate is Edlvsjd's opportunity to argue that this is the case. Rules: - As Edlvsjd is going to be supporting his claim, his FIRST round should be used for opening arguments; Edlvsjd should write "Last round left empty as per rules". - While the burden of proof is on Edlvsjd to support his claim, there is a burden on me to refute his claims. - Unrelated arguments are not allowed unless the relevance of the argument is explained.
i dont know means, i know its false

Not exactly, he/she asks because it's the polite thing to do. They simply look at the menu or the bar selection and then approach or are approached my the waiter. Looking at the menu=knowing what you will order. Knowing what you will order=true knowledge. True knowledge=the drink that you select. Pro again brings up the prospect of death, but I could counter that example by arguing that death is the one thing that we know that will happen in life--and, more importantly, it happens in the future! If don't know what will happen in the future, how do we know that death will occur? Because we can, to a great extent, determine what will happen in the future. Death is both a part of our future and a truth. A truth=not false. Not false=our future. Actually, for all Pro knows a stone just may have dropped on my head; which thus suggests that the moon is indeed made of cheese. [1.] http://www.reasons.org...As for the possibility of being stabbed, the doors to my house are locked. And for all Pro knows I may be prepared for the case of a random man coming to stab me.
i dont know means, i know its false

you are just repeating yourself.. the one in the bar dosnt know if the water has wine that why he asks.. also couls is false they could also die and never visit them.. if dosnt exist in reality.. if the moon is made of cheese a stone will drop on your head as you read this last word possibilities are false, its possible a man is drawing closer minute by mintues to stab you with a knife, the question is, after he enter your door, will he kill you fast, or slow? you can state the moon is made of cheese