BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We Should Not Ban Assault Weapons or High Capacity Magazines (2)

Pro has failed to demonstrate a clear warrant for the usefulness of ordinary people being able ot have assault weapons or high capacity magazines. I have argued, from a utilitarian perspective, that, as any proposition in society about what course to take is mildly uncertain and carries risk, we should minimize the risk, and have presented arguments as to why the risk does not equal the payoff, and how the payoff can be acheived with minimal risk.As we are arguing from a utilitarian perspective, a libertarian rights-based argument is invalid.I believe I have successfully made my case.
We Should Not Ban Assault Weapons or High Capacity Magazines (2)

1. Liberty I would say that it is justifiable when it promotes utility, and indeed it is ethically mandated in such an occurance. Rather than liberty being good because it’s liberty, liberty is good because it tends to promote utility. I have no problem, however, with curtailing liberty if it improves people’s lives. Rather than absolutes, I view any and all rights as generalized rules of thumb that we should carefully examine any breaks in before revoking. And I don’t actually hold property rights to be one of them, because of the sheer number of extremely common circumstances in which it is justifiable to revoke particular property rights (for instance, taxation, seizure of contraband, etc.). So, then, the question becomes, “Is permitting the ownership of high capacity magazines or assault weapons causing more harm than good?” 2. Assault Weapons This has nothing to do with my argument. I am all for carefully determining what factors make weapons deadlier and better suited to killing large numbers of people. I’m not arguing at the AR-15 is better or worse than the Ruger Mini 14. I don’t know that much about specific models of gun, and I don’t care, because different models, as my opponent pointed out, can be really quite similar. I care about what effects specific types of guns have on various crime rates and people’s lives. To do that I don’t need to be an encyclopedia of gun models. 3. High Capacity Magazines I would like a source for the claim that it takes two seconds to reload a magazine if you practice for fifteen minutes. In any event, while I don’t doubt that it isn’t necessarily common, it has happened before (the Tucson shooter was taken down while reloading), and even if someone doesn’t tackle the shooter, reloading still provides a time to seek cover further away from the shooter. It may be that there are instances where someone has such poor aim that they need over ten shots. But not all people who attack are attempting to kill—they may be attempting to rob someone—and even if all of those people actually were saving their own lives, there’d have to be a lot more of them to offset the larger number of people who get killed in mass shootings. As far as enforcing the laws, we don’t necessarily have to grandfather the magazines in, and we don’t know the costs of instituting the ban. Would probably be easier if the ATF wasn’t understaffed and could use a modern electronic database, as well if we had better licensing practices for dealers.
We Should Not Ban Assault Weapons or High Capacity Magazines (2)

I accept.I argue that:1. The simple act of violating property acts is not sufficient reason to decalre something unethical or unwise. For instance, we arguably violate property rights when we don't allow people to use heavy weapons, or to do whatever they want to their land.2. The benefits of high capacity weapons is that if you are shooting many targets, or shooting many shots, you can continue to fire uninterrupted. However, I would argue that if you need thirty or so shots to fend off your attackers, you're kind of screwed anyway. Because realistically, by the time you've made all those ineffective shots (or shots that only neutralized some of your targets), you are in melee. Or one of the people has pulled their own weapon and shot you. Pretty much the same applies to assault weapons.3. The harms of high capacity weapons is that you can shoot a great many unarmed targets, killing far more than you would otherwise manage, and people have less of a window to tackle you while you're reloading (which is not exactly safe, but that's pretty much the best time to do it if you're going to do it).
Hitler lost WW2 because he invaded Russia.

My opponent's argument is still nonsensical, because as it says in the wikipedia article that he himself linked to, the work in the Me 1112 only started on 25 February 1945. I do not think that Russia did all the fighting. My opponent's other argument is also incorrect, because the Germans did not lose because of many different ' benefactors'. Finally, I would like to debate my opponent again on this topic- but I would like more research and sources to be done and quoted.
Hitler lost WW2 because he invaded Russia.

Okay I'm so sorry I said that wrong plane name. It was actually Messerschmitt P.1112 not ME112. http://en.wikipedia.org.... This super planes could go at speeds of 1100km/h, stay at an altitude of 23000 ft for 2 hours at full thrust and could have a weapon load of 500 kilograms. With that speed and weaponry there's no absolute way Russia, Britain, and the US could deal with them. This plane could of destroy all the British and American fighter planes making way for the junkers to unload all their bombs upon the allies. Also if they mass produced this they could take the Russians on until the the atomic bombs are ready for warfare. This plane would also help them get water to make the bomb. They had the technology, but they lacked time as the allies pushed forward. Say Hitler mass produced this fighter plane. Then what, the Allies would of lost D-Day, and the Germans would be supreme rulers. Okay, I got to say that Germany invading Russia was a mistake and lead to his downfall. Most people think this but it is so not true. That Germans lost because of many different benefactors. Hitler is not good at strategizing attack plans at all. Field Marshall Rundstedt made all the attack plans to attack France, but then later he did not accept any advice from him or any of his wise generals. Also he appointed himslef commander in chef, because he did not trust any of his generals not even a bit. Also never retreating was also a grave mistake. When he denied Frederich Paulus the permission to retreat, it resulted in the total loss of the of 6th Panzer Army. Besides it was USA that did the most damage not the Russians, the Russians only started winning when the US toke out most of Germany's army. Hitler lived in a fantasy world in where there was no retreat no advice from other people only him him him. Vote for me because this other guy thinks that only Russia did all the fighting, not the US and British.
Hitler lost WW2 because he invaded Russia.

I say that Hitler lost the war mainly due to not mass fracturing ME112 A fast super speed fighter plane that would of stoped the invasions of d-day with the planes in mass production. Hitler could of token on the US and Russia if he used those new planes they had access to during that time. This delay of d-day would give Germany enough time to research and manufacture nukes to drop on the US and Soviet Union. Boston and New York would be the new Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Soviets wouldn't make a difference if Hitler ordered mass production of the super planes. I'm glad that he didn't dough because I wouldn't want to live in a world with German supremacy.
Britian is a christian culture

Yes the pas can be an indicator of the future, however both the past and future role of Christianity in British society are irrelevant this debate is over whether Britain is at present a Christian nation. I'm willing to conceded that church attendance is 15% to save time. However 15% is still extremely low, so describing Britain as a Christian country would not be representative of the wider population as by your own statistics 85% of people do not attend Church regularly. Christianity has very little roll in current music is merely providing moral laws for musicians to exploit by rebelling against to gain attention and be seen as "edgy". It contributes very little to the current music industry save for a few unpopular Christian rappers. Again I must repeat myself that the same sex marriage bill is reflective as if Britain was still a Christian nation there would have been outrage. There wasn't. The lastest poll made by BBC Radio in March 2014 found that 68% of the respondents agreed same-sex marriage should be permitted and 26% opposed it. The research also found that younger people were more likely to support same-sex marriage, with 80% of 18 to 34-year-olds backing it, compared with 44% of over-65s. Of those polled, women were more likely to support same-sex marriage than men, with 75% of women for it compared with 61% of men in favour. Our architecture has been heavily influenced by many different cultures form around the world but it is insignificant. Britain should be described by the will of the people, a massive majority of 85% of people do not attend Church regularly os Britain should not be described as a Christian country regardless of how our buildings are designed. Although Christianity has had some influence in British literature most writers openly state people who or what influenced their writings and very few say Jesus or the Bible. Ultimately Christianity is just another factor contributing to the multiculturalism of British society. In the end comes down to the statistics and I think its clear they speak for themselves.
Britian is a christian culture

Although the past does not dictate exactly what will happen however the past is an indicator of the future which is one of the main reasons why we study history we have had dips in church attendance. In fact church attendance is at 15%, 15% attend church once every 3 weeks. Christianity has a very strong link and involment in british culture and society, In our literature, architechture music and practically every area of british life. Same sex marriage bill is in no way reflective of society there was insufficient debate and time given, it was jus rushed through parliament. If you were a British vote in the 2010 election no party had included it in their manifesto or even barely mentioned it, candidates didn't mention their religion and their were no major religious issues at the time how could they possibly vote accordingly. Christianity has doiminated british culture for 1800 years an infrequent momentarial dip shouldn't destroy it as I said before would you drop all science related degrees just because of a dip in interest. Stone henge is the only single part of our culture that is linked to paganism that you can name and is not particularly significant name one piece of literature, architecture, or political influence paganism. And as for political influence, its not like we had blasphemy laws since a couple of years ago , its not like our prime minister claims to be Christian to pander to Christian voters and speaks of his own "faith", its not like we have bishops in the house of lords or 300 mp's signed up to Christians in parliament. The fact of the matter is that Christianity has always had a heavily significant influence in British culture and society just because of a momentarial drop in church attendance why should we abandon that influence and sever our links there have been drops in attendance before in our history, granted they are infrequent however this doesn't mean that Britain is not a Christian country.
Britian is a christian culture

I would first like to remind the proposition again that how figures will change in the future or how they have changed in the past is largely irrelevant the debate is over whether Britain is a Christian country at present. Neither is the debate over whether we should remove all Christian influence from society as you seem to be suggesting. The legalization of same sex marriage was a reflection of the public view as there has not been any large scale show of public opposition shown. Although people may disagree with it they clearly don't care as even the petition over the badger cull amassed over 300,000 signatures. If the country was still Christian then people would care far more about whether badgers were culled than the passing of laws which in their view would cause millions to suffer eternal torture. Simply because the numbers of Christians have recovered in the past is not reason to believe that they will do so again. The situation following the reformation was completely different so that comparison is completely invalid. You have failed to respond to my point that only 4% of adults are practicing Anglicans(meaning they regularly attend church) You have also failed to respond to my points clearly showing that Christianity has lost all power in the legal system and some courts have even made ruling against Christianity in landmark cases. You claimed that because Christianity has been present in Britain for a long time it makes Britain a Christian country, there have been pagan influences on British society also and paganism has been present in Britain far longer. Much of our culture is also derived from paganism and it is also responsible for iconic British landmarks such as Stonehenge however this doesn't mean that Britain is a pagan country. Paganism like Christianity is simply one of the many contributing elements which make up British culture.
Britian is a christian culture

The laws passed on gay marriage are in no way reflective of society. Firstly there was improper and a general lac of debate on this issue it was ushered into law and not at all in the manifesto. Secondly since when has mp's been an accurate representation of the will of the public take the eu and immigration e.g. if they're was a referendum there would be far more division over the issue. Furthermore you haven't responded properly to my points, I wasn't pointing out that oh look there are still some Christians I was suggesting that this decline is just a mere dip in church attendance of which has happened granted infrequently but never the less there has been a surge of return. This twenty year dip is simply a very tiny and insignificant dot on the grand and sheer weight and influence of Christianity in British culture and society. Let me as you this would you drop all science related degrees just because of a momentarial dip in interest.
Britian is a christian culture

I will be arguing that Britain is not a Christian country. My argument rests on the role of Christianity in the legal system, the constitution and lives of the citizens. Firstly Christianity has little role in the legal system of the united kingdom although some may argue that many laws are based on Christian values these are values which should not be attributed to Christianity but rather to basic human morality. The laws which were more specifically based on Christianity have been gradually removed eg the legalization of homosexual sexual relations. Recently UK courts have actually ruled against Christianity for example it was recently ruled that Christians with traditional views on sexual ethics are unsuitable as foster carers. Another sign we are clearly no longer a Christian country is the recent legalization of same sex marriage. Homosexuality is a sin according to the bible and although some people have protested against the legalization of same sex marriage the number of people opposing is relatively low. If Britain really were a Christian country then this would never have been allowed to happen. Although the British public celebrate many holidays originally founded on Christian ideas these holidays have become largely secular even becoming contrary to many Christian values. Christians attempt to put "Christ back in Christmas" clearly show this. The date of Christmas was originally a pagan festival but no one considers it to be one any longer and this is also the role of Christianity in Christmas for the majority of British citizens. The proposition will no doubt point to the 2001 and 2011 census to show that Britain is still a Christian country however the census is extremely unreliable as shown by 0.7% of the population claiming to be Jedi in the 2001 census. A more accurate measure however is the number of people who regularly attend Church. Only around 4% of people in the UK are Anglicans who attend Church regularly. Christianity has also seen a sharp decline in the UK recently and it has only been stabilized by high levels of immigration and once the rate of immigration becomes lower the decline will continue. This recent decline is significant because the debate is over whether Britain is a Christian country currently not whether the figures will recover and it will once again be a Christian nation.
Britian is a christian culture

I will argue that Britain is a Christian country. Firstly church has always had an intertwining link with state in Britain ever since the edict of Milan. Britain was largely dominated by Christianity 100's of years before the angles and Saxons had arrived and invaded before there was an England. Church attendance figures in the 60's were at 50-60 % I will admit that is a 10% decline from ww1 however it was pretty consistent and far from insignificant, those who called themselves Christian was around 85 % called themselves Christian. This 30 year sharp decline is the most insignificant dot on the sheer length and influence Christianity has had in British culture and society. In fact we have had drops of this magnitude before right before the Christian reformation in the late 1700's Wilberforce etc. church attendance was 30% which had been declining ever since the English protestant revolution. The fact is just because a significant decline within 20 years occurs it does not mean we should rip and tear up the fundamental foundations of British society and culture.
what one must believe to be saved is not clear... or at least is taught sufficiently in proper terms

so while you purport to make it easy by giving those tenants, you're not making easy cause those words are loaded to mean some specific things. so you really have to break out a list of things that must be believed. so, it's not clear if all you say is those words you initially said. also... many new christians are not saved because they may have the feeling of it etc or believe one thing like he's God, but they don't belief the delineated explanation that you said yet. this is contrary to what most christians would believe, not sure about you i sppose... ie that they'd be damend if they believed in jesus albeit not completely. also, you said the "confess with your mouth" verse isn't too vague. all you came back with was "we need to streamline the process". how can you streamline it such that someone hears that verse and things they saved... actually isn't saved because you didn't expand on the full meaning of the verse, and the context of the verse wiht other ones? basically... to make a little clarifcation... the absolute minimum is not being described properly. the minimum you're saying is not a minimum but a cursory overlook of a bunch of ideas. (i'm not saying the minimum to get by... such taht you're waffling your way into heaven "i got to do the minimum to get by"... i'm saying the theological minimum needed)
what one must believe to be saved is not clear... or at least is taught sufficiently in proper terms

"i know many dogmatics who say that if you believe "savior" means that he taught a good message that saved you from hell, then that is mistaken, and you are not saved. would you argue that these dogmatics are wrong, and that a gneral notion of reliance is sufficient?" No no, by "savior" I meant you must believe that Jesus Christ is the Messiah of prophecy, God in flesh, and that he died on the cross to cleanse you of your sins. This notion is accepted by dogmatics and casual Christians alike, it is a basic tenet. "also... what if someone accepts him as lord and savior, but doesn't know or do the other two? are they not saved? i know a few christians who would fall into that category. are they not saved? by your list, they're excluded. would you agree that your list is ideal, but that it doesn't *necessarily* have to be that list?" They are excluded. Well technically, a person that accepts Christ as lord and savior is cleared of original sin, so 1 and 2 go hand in hand. Basically, your argument would be "well, what if he doesn't know how to do the third?". We sin every day of our lives, and must ask continuous forgiveness or else our souls remain tainted. So yes, a person who accepts Christ but does not continuously ask for forgiveness will not make it into heaven. Believing in Christ is more than just the belief, it is living the belief. "also... what about the passage that says to confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and that he's risen from the dead and you'd be saved? to you, is this passage being too vague and really the risen stuff isn't necessarily necessary? and in fact taht passage should have added stuff about acknowledging your sins?" It's not being too vague at all. In fact, it's simplifying things. The gospels were written in a time where Christians were heavily persecuted and there were no central churches or teachings. Converting Romans or Jews had to be streamlined. "Risen from the dead" essentially means Jesus was more than man, he was both man and god. "it seems like ultimately, even if that's your formula, and however you answer these questions though,,,, it's just you making the statement. there's plenty of fundamentalists who would disagree. so it's not clearly taught or anything." I don't think any fundamentalist or any Christian would be against what I just said. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
what one must believe to be saved is not clear... or at least is taught sufficiently in proper terms

*******1. Accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior 2. Ask forgiveness for your sins (including original sin) 3. Try your best to live a sinless life and repent when you do. I don't see where the confusion is. Cold you please calrify your argument? *********** i know many dogmatics who say that if you believe "savior" means that he taught a good message that saved you from hell, then that is mistaken, and you are not saved. would you argue that these dogmatics are wrong, and that a gneral notion of reliance is sufficient? also... what if someone accepts him as lord and savior, but doesn't know or do the other two? are they not saved? i know a few christians who would fall into that category. are they not saved? by your list, they're excluded. would you agree that your list is ideal, but that it doesn't *necessarily* have to be that list? also... what about the passage that says to confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and that he's risen from the dead and you'd be saved? to you, is this passage being too vague and really the risen stuff isn't necessarily necessary? and in fact taht passage should have added stuff about acknowledging your sins? it seems like ultimately, even if that's your formula, and however you answer these questions though,,,, it's just you making the statement. there's plenty of fundamentalists who would disagree. so it's not clearly taught or anything.