BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bringing back gladiatorial games

I propose that gladiator-style games should be brought back and practiced as a form of entertainment or sport. Ideally, This form of blood-sport would allow for the killing of participants during the games, As of old. Several points must, I feel, Be considered if a debate is to be had. Gladiatorial games have been seen as an affront to public decency, Cruel, And barbaric, Yet I believe they can still have a purpose and a place in modern society under the right circumstances. Gladiators have long been seen as an ancient and outdated profession, Yet I believe the games can provide a source of entertainment and revenue for a modern city or town. Arenas used today for the Olympics are fast becoming dull for a newer generation of people, They offer the same categories each year, Javelin, Swimming, Cycling, Etc. Violence would present a humanitarian issue, But also an outlet for repressed adrenaline, Watching violent acts would sate a primal 'bloodlust' that people will pay to watch. - Revenue generated from the games would go towards the champions, Families of the fallen, And to the maintenance of the premises. Fallen fighters would be honoured with tributes and their names living on if they earn the crowd's love. - Fighters must be over the age of 18, Must provide written, Willing consent and must undergo several mental evaluations before entering. - Prisoners sentenced to death-row may choose to serve as a fighter until they are killed in the games, This way freeing up money on their upkeep that could otherwise be spent more productively, And allowing them to earn a form of redemption if they earn enough victories. Death-row inmates will earn no champion's purse, Instead the money they would have received will go to their victim's families if their past crimes involved violence. - Weapons used should vary, Though keeping to the theme of roman-style gladiators, (e. G. Swords, Spears, Shields, And other common melee instruments) Missile weapons such as bows, Javelins and slings are permitted only under decided upon circumstances. - Participants who volunteer are free to leave at any time during the inspection process, Yet once they are in the arena, They must earn their freedom and emerge the victor. - Champions are free to leave after a match and have no duty to return. - Fallen fighters are to be buried according to the wishes of their kin, If no kin remained, An honorary communal burial site will be chosen.
Teenager should be given more freedom

What a life! How nice it would be, to sit on the beach without the constant itch in your pants! I was once on a beach, a couple years ago. The cold water was stinging, but me and my mates went in anyway. We had so much fun, we stayed on the beach for hours. But then, when we were swimming in the deep lake, a guy suddenly started drowning. If we had some supervision, maybe this wouldn't have happened! Teenagers need to be monitored and supervised in case any disasters like this happen. We had to drag this guy onto beach. Within seconds, we performed CPR. Good thing there was a lifeguard there and we weren't completely free to go anywhere. My first child is 1 year old now. I hope he never gets any ideas from me. I will make sure I protect him and keep him safe. This was not an incident of misusing freedom, but just unfortunate chance.
Teenager should be given more freedom

Teenagers should get freedom in their life.If they do not get so they couldn't success in their life. They have to know that what is going on in their surrounding. As long as we know what to do and not do, and may sometimes even choose the wrong things and decisions we learn from them. Keeping us locked up and not allowed to go out, meet friends and have free time is not teaching as anything and instead it's making out lives more miserable. Giving more freedom does not mean that the parents don't keep a check on them.My parents have given me enough freedom a teenager wants at the same time they do keep a check on what I am doing.We are teenagers and we should be mature enough to take our own decisions of life ,if we cannot take right decision at this age how would be able to handle our problems in the future.As long as we know what to do and not do, and may sometimes even choose the wrong things and decisions we learn from them. Some teens do misuse their freedom but it he who is responsible for that , parents at this stage give you freedom expecting that you should know how the outer world is. When some parents curb the freedom of their child and keep them out of the outer world they might get depressed which may affect their other activities and the teen may even go into depression. So I conclude by saying that teens should be given freedom..
Teenager should be given more freedom

No they shouldn't. What are you, a little kid? I'm a goddamn 17 year old with two children and a degree in quantum physics. My parents gave me a lot of freedom as a child, and since I was a brilliant kid, they let me go to parties etc. since I didn't need to study for any of my courses. I got my girlfriend pregnant at 15 and another at 16. Although I am blessed and grateful for my two children every day, I still regret my parents not holding me back a little more, for now I am having trouble going for my degree in nuclear chemistry. Listen to me, don't do what I did.
The turkey should be the country's animal rather than the bald-eagle.

I would like to answer your question. Turkeys may be thought of as "independent and not to be messed with", but wouldn't that encourage other competing countries to say "oh hey, let's go size up against the old U.S. because they say they're independent and shouldn't be messed with"? Yes that's a good thing but what if others proved us wrong with war? We wouldn't be entirely truthful with our symbol. Wasn't it the Choctaw Indians that said the bald eagle was a symbol of peace?
The European Union is a dictatorship that must be abolished

I will be arguing that the European Union is not a dictatorship.DEFINITIONSA dictator is defined as "authoritarian rulers with very few (if at any) checks on their power. They tend to be brutally corrupt and repressive" [1].REBUTTALSPro: its own flagWhere's the lack of check on power? Where's the oppression? Nationalism isn't necessarily tyrannical.Pro: national anthemWhere's the lack of check on power? Where's the oppression? Nationalism isn't necessarily tyrannical.Pro: presidentWhere's the lack of check on power? Where's the oppression? Centralized leadership isn't necessarily tyrannical.Pro: free movementTurn this argument! Free movement of the citizenry suggests against a dictatorship, where oppression should be occuring.Pro: Its time Britain left the EUThis argument is irrelevant to the topic. Pro must argue that the EU should be abolished, not that the UK should leave the EU.SUMMARYPro has failed to meet their burden of proof. Vote Con.REFERENCES[1] http://rationalwiki.org...
Assault weapons should be banned.

CommentsOdd, our sources seem to contradict. You say the UK has a decline in weapons, while I say they didn't. Let's not blame each other about this, but it's just something I pointed out. Terrorism can happen in any form, bombing, or invading. They could head to NY and shoot down people on the streets, that would still be an act of terrorism, even if no bombs were detonated. Yes, I know that the military has a never ending arsenal of weapons, but if there's a mass revolt, they won't wipe out a majority of the population. And your lack of sources, does not help you much in the argument.Back to the UKI don't want to go back and forth about this, but the http://www.examiner.com... says "Yet none of these laws prevented today's mass killing spree. indeed, this is not the first time that I’ve written about the failure of British gun control laws to disarm criminals. To name a few cases, I’ve written about a pregnant British woman being raped by an armed home invader, and a British postal worker who was fatally shot by an armed robber. I’ve mentioned how a British bicycle rider was gunned down, and how teenagers are often shot in London these days. I’ve discussed how a former boxing champion and father of 2 young children was fatally shot in a smoke-free nightclub after politely asking a violent individual to stop smoking indoors. Moving beyond those anecdotal evidence, crime statistics show a 40% increase in handgun related crime in the first two years after the British banned handguns. In sum, British gun control has failed to disarm the criminals, who get their guns on the black market - or simply manufacture their own illegal guns." The last part, the black market, and illegal manufacturing.Other ways of having gunsAbout 253,000 U.S. guns, are smuggled, illegally, south of the border each year. That's a lot of guns, that clearly would still be smuggled, if gun control was set in motion. 93% of guns, have been obtained on the black market, gun control can't stop that. If criminals want a gun, they will do anything they can, to get their hands on one. I will end this argument, with a quote, by Niccolo Machiavelli. "When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred."
Assault weapons should be banned.

Thank You for finding better examples. Government: My evidence that the government won't attack its own citizens is the lack of evidence that it will. If our government is so tyrannical and has the intent to attack its own citizens, what's taking so long? Do you honestly think that your assault rifle is keeping the government from taking over? They have a virtually endless supply of military resources including, nukes, missiles, aircrafts, that your guns wouldn't be able to anything about in the crazy scenario you described. I never denied that there were any foreign threats, I only denied that we would find ourselves fighting these foreign threats, rather than our own military. I will also add that an ISIS attack would most likely mean something like a bombing, meaning that there wouldn't be much we could do to defend ourselves, other than preventing them from getting here in the first place. Gun Control in other countries: UK: Actually, gun control has not failed. From 1996-2011 The total number of annual gun deaths went from 247 to 146 (40% decline), and the total number of gun homicides went from 84 to 38 (55% decline). This proves that there has been less gun violence as a result of gun control. Japan: Japan has one of the strictest and most effective gun policies in the world. Despite having a population of almost 130 million, almost no gun violence. In 2006 there were only two gun homicides. Australia: Gun-related violence decreased dramatically after implementing gun control in 1996. In the eighteen years before passing gun control, there were thirteen mass shootings. In the years since, there have been zero mass shootings. From 1996 to 2011, the number of gun related deaths in Australia has gone down 63%, the number of gun related homicides down 58%, and the number of gun suicides down 65%. http://www.gunpolicy.org... http://ivn.us...
Assault weapons should be banned.

CommentsYou have no say if my arguments are reliable or not. That's up to the voters, they decide who's argument was better. And yes, I know that my argument of tyranny did not have any evidence. But you have no evidence, that the government won't attack the citizens. MKUltra was a U.S. Government brainwashing program, who's to say that won't happen again? Do you have evidence? I doubt it. Also, your argument that round wasn't what I expected, and seemed pointless in my point of view. So, I guess I'll use this round to use other kinds of sources. By the way, a terrorist attack could happen at any moment, without warning... http://www.commdiginews.com... There's your proof about foreign threats.UK Gun ControlIn the UK, gun control has failed, just as it has in the US. After the Dunblane Massacre in the UK, 1996, there have been stricter gun control laws. But, they have proven to be a disaster. Now, there have been estimated to be about 3 million guns in the UK. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com... Says "A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007. It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.". So it's not just America, the UK still has gun control problems as well. I don't have much else to say, because your last argument was something I didn't expect. So, I just put this in because it helps support my argument. I hope you have a better argument next round.sources; http://theweek.com...http://www.theblaze.com...http://www.americanthinker.com...http://www.nraila.org...http://mic.com...http://www.rense.com...http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...
Assault weapons should be banned.

"My examples were effective, and reliable. I will not tolerate any insults." I would first like to say that I did not intend to insult you by attacking examples. However, unless you are able to disprove my attack on the reliability on your examples, they will be viewed as unreliable for the remainder of the debate, along with any other examples you provided that do not have nationwide gun laws. "What if the US was being invaded by a foreign country? Many citizens would grab their guns and defend themselves from the enemy. And our government isn't 100% trustworty, they could do something that provokes the citizens. Any kind of weapon, is needed to protect civilian lives." Your tyranny/invasion argument is based purely on speculation and not backed up by any factual evidence. You provided no evidence that we are likely to have a foreign invasion which we would be able to defend better than our own military, which by the way is the strongest in the world. You also have no evidence that our Government has any intent to harm its own citizens.
Assault weapons should be banned.

My examples were effective, and reliable. I will not tolerate any insults.US citizen defense As Isoroku Yamamoto, supposedly said. "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." What if the US was being invaded by a foreign country? Many citizens would grab their guns and defend themselves from the enemy. And our government isn't 100% trustworty, they could do something that provokes the citizens. Any kind of weapon, is needed to protect civilian lives. The facts In the US assault weapons have been used in a small amount of gun related crime. In 1994-2004 congress concluded that "the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” Assault weapons, were only used in 1%-2% of violent crimes. That means 99%-98% of the time, assault weapons were not used. To add more, the ban on assault rifles in the US have not reduced crime. After the ban in California, 1989, California's murder rate, increased every year, for five years, 26% overall. And in 2000, they banned even more guns...The murder rate then increased 12% higher than the national rate. The ATF even said it can "In no way vouch for the validity of Brady Campaign’s claim that the federal “assault weapon” law reduced crime.". The CDC, National Academy of Sciences, and the Library of Congress have found no evidence that 'gun control' reduces crime. The supreme court stated that "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” Mass ShootingsIf somehow, assault weapons are banned, mass shootings can still happen. 1999, Columbine shooting. An assault weapon ban was taking place and 13 other mass shootings still happened. There is more proof, that gun control isn't as effective. 14 mass shootings, still happened, while an assault weapon ban was in order. Criminals can still smuggle in weapons, even with the new technology we have today. Criminals can sneak any kind of gun into a place, and shoot everyone there. Wether they bought it or not. Gun control will just prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Criminals do not obey the law, do you REALLY think that the prohibition act in 1920 went well?
Assault weapons should be banned.

I would first like to reiterate that this argument only applies to assault weapons. Assault weapons being: "a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military" - Merriam Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com.... I apologize for not making this clearer. The examples you provided to prove gun control is ineffective are unreliable, because the gun laws in those examples only applied to a particular area, and were not nationwide. In Chicago, one of your examples, it would be ridiculously easy to get a gun from any neighboring city. Many countries have passed assault weapon bans on a national level with successful results. In Australia, for example, they have seen gun-related violence decrease dramatically after implementing gun control in 1996. In the eighteen years before passing gun control, there were thirteen mass shootings. In the years since, there have been zero mass shootings. From 1996 to 2011, the number of gun related deaths in Australia has gone down 63%, the number of gun related homicides down 58%, and the number of gun suicides down 65%. This proves that gun control will effectively reduce gun violence. Earlier you stated: "An assault rifle is a great thing to have to protect yourself from criminals, and the government. The 2nd amendment states "A well regulated militia..." We the people fought against tyrannical Britain, many years ago. The 2nd amendment shall not be infringed.". While it may be true we fought against a tyranny almost two and half centuries ago, this is no longer a threat. We have the most powerful military in the world, and there are no countries that pose a tyrannical threat. However, if we were somehow ever to face tyrannical threat, it is highly unlikely that ordinary citizens could defend themselves better that our own military. You also brought up self defense to support your argument. While it is obviously true a criminal is less likely to attack someone with a gun, there is no practical reason to use an assault weapon for self defense. Assault weapons are used in war to kill mass amounts of people, so I see no reason why one would use this for self-defense. http://www.gunpolicy.org...
Assault weapons should be banned.

I'll debate, because I'm bored.Gun Control Reduces Crime Simply, a false statement. Gun control actually increases crime rate. With gun control in place, smuggling will be a lot more common. Also according to this article (Source; http://theweek.com...) Gun control isn't a solution. The article is a year old, but it was published on January 31st, and at that time, 44 people were killed in Chicago that year. States with the carry conceal permit holder, had less crime rates (Source; http://www.theblaze.com...). It has so far been proven, that gun control isn't a great idea for reducing crime rate. Criminals see unarmed civilians as an opportunity. However, if a criminal knows that a house has an armed civilian, he will most likely stay away from that house.Assault weapons This article (Source; http://www.americanthinker.com...) says that "The two strongest reasons for civilians to own assault weapons are self-defense and defense against tyranny". Tyranny is referring to the government. An assault rifle is a great thing to have to protect yourself from criminals, and the government. The 2nd amendment states "A well regulated militia..." We the people fought against tyranical Britain, many years ago. The 2nd amendment shall not be infringed. sources; http://theweek.com...http://www.theblaze.com...http://www.americanthinker.com...
Assault weapons should be banned.

Before I begin, I would like to clarify that the opponent may not just rely on the right to bear arms, but must explain why the should have that right. I will now proceed to my argument. Contention 1: America no longer has the need to protect itself from a tyrannical government, one of the original purposes of the second amendments. Contention 2: There is no practical use for assault weapons. Contention 3: Gun Control effectively reduces the amount of gun violence.
Maths Anxiety

Just because someone's bad at math doesn't mean they shirk at it. I know plenty of people who aren't Einstiens yet try their best in math. It's called not giving up. Second, simply applying yourself in math class doesn't solve. It's not the student, it's the class. According to PBS, there is substantial amount of our schools in crisis, with critically low budgets, bad teachers, etc. (http://www.pbs.org...) Just because a teacher's bad doesn't mean we should call the students lazy idiots for being able to do math. Ultimately, the only way to solve for this math deficit is by fixing the broken eduation system we have, something the pro doesn't do. Even if we get anxiety from thinking of stuff for too long, that doesn't mean we won't do it. Take real-world debate for example. I have known bad debaters who have been forced to debate other debaters, debaters who are certain to win the Tournament of Champions (it's the Super Bowl of high school debate). Did those bad debaters forfeit? No! They got crushed, but they didn't give up. Another way to solve this problem is to solve the chronic problem of our population that is giving up.
Maths Anxiety

Ok, so some people are good at math and some people aren't. But this so called 'math anxiety' is just a label they can use like a disabled badge in a parking lot. I say apply yourself in math class or with a tutor and don't shirk using the logical side of your brain. Build it up like a muscle group with exercises and drills. We all have anxieties when we think about stuff for too long and don't just get on with it!
Abortion is immoral

definitions: "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo". http://en.wikipedia.org...Actual longer resolution:Abortion is immoral when caused by accidental pregnancies (exclude rape in this debate). This debate is ONLY when you have a whoops moment with a boyfriend/girlfriend, or even a husband/wife. NONE of the hard cases in this debate.