BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Everyone should have the right to keep and bear arms.

I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate. Thank you, dnick. First, my opponent still believes that law enforcement can have a gun if the resolution is negated. However, because what my opponent must prove (as he has burden of proof), is that 'Everyone should not have the right to keep and bear arms. ' Under this resolution to be proved, 'everyone' includes the police, law enforcement, and anyone else. Before arguing against my opponent, I would like to point out that he has not proved that we should not be able to have guns. He has attempted to show that guns are harmful and deadly. As I have already stated, guns would only be replaced by other weapons. Law enforcement would not have weapons. Many people woud get around the gun ban by smuggling and/or law bending. They would be illegally bought and sold. Gun-like things would be invented to replace them that would be just as deadly. The global law would be avoided. In addition, many countries would willingly not or not be able to enforce the law and there would be little to do against it. -My oppponent has suggested that it is possible for a global gun ban to avoid the above problems. However, he has not come up with one. "There are several countries that have had gun control in place for many years—the United Kingdom" The U. K. 's law enforcement doesn't have guns, so, yes, it is not totalitarian or a police state. However, crime rates have not dropped in that country. . http://www.reason.com... In addtion, British gun controls have not slowed gun crime. However, some British people believe the solution is even more of a gun ban (note the irony and read this article). . http://www.guardian.co.uk... There is much resistence to this law. . http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk... Again, gun bans do not reduce violence and rendure victims helpless. . http://www.timesonline.co.uk... "Australia" Australia's gun ban has lead to a 45% increase in armed robbery in addition to other problems. . http://www.worldnetdaily.com... . http://www.gunsandcrime.org... "and Canada" The Canadian Gun Ban is new, and it's effects aren't yet as sure as the British Gun Ban, which has been in effect for over ten years. As hunting has lead to the extinction of helping species, this has been reduced by protection of certain species deemed in danger. Modern hunting is most usually legal and beneficial to the species being hunted. These species made to be hunted by man tend to reproduce far more than their population can handle in preparation for potential predators. "Tasers could also be used to hunt deer as well as crossbow. Crossbow and tasers aren't more efficient on killing than a gun. " Hunting with tasers seems unethical. A crossbow that can kill a deer effectively can also kill a man. In conclusion, a gun ban would be impractical and harmful for the above reasons.
belief=(is)be lie, as i dont know is true

To translate, my opponent seems to be arguing a self-centered form of solipsism. The problem with solipsism is it doesn't explain how things happen that the solipsist doesn't intend. Events in reality have origins beyond the solipsist intentions, so there's no need to believe that the world is simply a projection of the solipsist's mind. I could go on, but this is good enough. Nothing more needs to be said.
belief=(is)be lie, as i dont know is true

i dont know=i have to imagine it=I can at best imagine it kNow=now=matter=true=life=logic=absolute=true=1 i know i am typing these Words on my keyboard and reading them on my screen, i dont have to imagine it you are light on my screen and a story in my mind when i am alone, the true size of the human population is 1 false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now, the reflection of nothing while now matters
belief=(is)be lie, as i dont know is true

I didn't respond before because as I said before, nothing more needed to be said. By not responding, I showed my opponent that his stimulus into the debate was not necessarily the source of my response. I could choose to respond. This is not a story in his mind. His imagination isn't in control of everything. Just because he is alone somewhere doesn't mean the population everywhere is 1. There is more to the world beyond his personal physical experience.
9/11 wasnt the start of the war on terrorism

My argument here is simple, and will follow 2 courses: 1) Terrorism did not originate on 9/11 and neither did the impetus to fight it. Reagan, for example, was very clear and emphatic about fighting terrorism, and even supposedly used the phrase "war on terrorism" [1] As Chomsky wrote: "The war against terrorism has been described in high places as a struggle against a plague, a cancer which is spread by barbarians, by "depraved opponents of civilization itself." That's a feeling that I share. The words I'm quoting, however, happen to be from 20 years ago. Those are...that's President Reagan and his Secretary of State. The Reagan administration came into office 20 years ago declaring that the war against international terrorism would be the core of our foreign policy...."[2] Clearly if the war on terrorism was going on during Reagan's presidency it did not originate in 2001. 2) The terrorist attacks of 9/11 may have been an impetus for Bush to declare a "War on Terror". However, he said in his speech on October the 7th, 2001: "More than two weeks ago, I gave Taliban leaders a series of clear and specific demands: Close terrorist training camps; hand over leaders of the al Qaeda network; and return all foreign nationals, including American citizens, unjustly detained in your country. None of these demands were met. And now the Taliban will pay a price. By destroying camps and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans."[3] This clearly implies that the "War on Terror" was not begun on September the 11th, but rather several weeks later, after Bush's demands were ignored and he supposedly had no choice but to go to war. I await my opponent's rebuttals. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.counterpunch.org... 3. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov...
Personal faith of a politician should not influence their votes or political decisions

I apologize beforehand that I am only going to argue two points as I have little time this week but the two points are very key. 1. Religion can predict policy The argument w/ JFK was that electing a catholic meant he must listen to the catholic church so the catholic church would control the executive in America. Luckily for us, JFK wasn't a strict catholic. The same argument is used to rationalize why we shouldn't elect a Jew or Muslim or Scientologist. BTW scientologist isn't in this sites spell check. If one is a strict orthodox member of a religious group that requires its members to adhere to certain doctrine, one must then theoretically base policy off of one's religion. Therefore in some cases, religion should influence politicans. Besides the fact that many of our founders were very religious and used this to effect policy there are also other countries that are not democratic but are theocratic. Would one discard religious influence in a society ruled by religion. No. Our lawmakers use religion to religion to shape policy also b/c they got their own morals due to their religion.They understand what is right and what is wrong from their religion. We want our politicians to do what they think is right. Therefore religion can predict policy and in some cases should be used to influence decisions. As a side note in one of my debates I argue that a human fetus that is 6+ months old. born is not yet necesarily deserving of human rights. An objective doctor would claim the fetus behaves more like a parasite than a human. A politician (all I think) would claim its a human as its wrong to kill a fetus that is so developed. In this case people want politicians voting on right/wrong, not objectivity. 2. Politicans get elected by votes. Politicians get elected by support. They can often get support from preaching their religion and voting on religious lines. If we want the most democratic politicians then religion will be a factor in electing many. The idea w/ America is that there would be so many conflicting factions that not one could gain total control. Religious groups are just one more special interest faction in America. If we want a semi-democracy, religion must be allowed to be a factor with our politicians. There is a reason the founders did not ban church and state entirely.
Personal faith of a politician should not influence their votes or political decisions

In this country, there is the fundamental separation of church and state. For a lawmaker to inflict his/her personal faith upon that of the rest of the country's would mean a violation of this fundamental rule. In this country, not everyone shares the same morals, faith, and religion. Therefore, why should our lawmakers use their own personal morals, faith, and religion to justify particular bills and laws? If a politician's faith, personal morality, or religion were used as a rational to pass any particular bill, then arguably any politician should be able to do that, even if their individual faiths, moralities, and religions were totally different from each other. This would create chaos, as politicians would be arguing over which religion is most popular, and whichever one was most popular would be incorporated into law. The purpose of religion is to have faith is something, not necessarily to explicitly know the answers to everything. As well, as there are obviously multiple religions, how do we distinctly know which was is "right," given that the preceding statement is correct? The purpose of laws are to do what is right for the citizens of the country, whether it be to provide or protect. Therefore, religion and faith should not be implemented into the political sphere.
Girlfriend is questioning abortion

My girlfriend and I wanted to make a life together some day, to get married and to have kids but now she's carrying life inside of her as a result of rape. Now, I want her to keep the baby though it's women's choice. But I think we could raise this baby, my mother and father offered to help us with any financial difficulties and my grandparents would be able to take care of him/her while we are at school. Conscious or not, there is still life growing inside of you and to abort the baby would still be considered murder. It's a moral sin. When he/she grows to be a teenager we simply tell him/her that they were a gift from God. We were blessed to have him/her in our lives. Regardless of the father, it's just like adopting a child. Aborting the child would just simply result in depression. You would regret it after having the abortion and we would end up fighting over every little thing and I can't risk losing you. I love you with all my heart and I love this baby, even though he/she isn't mine I will be the father of this child.
Girlfriend is questioning abortion

I will be debating the part of the male, sense I am against the Topic being stated. Rules: You must give your person a name and state whether you are male/female, and what their role is Gender: Male Role: Boyfriend Name: Johnny I was at my girl friend's house yesterday and she said that she needed to talk to me about something, so I said, "alright, what is it?" She told me I probably had to sit down for this. So I did...and started to get worried. "Johnny, I'm pregnant..." she said. But the thing is, we had pledged to abstinence. "How is that possible, babe?" She was in tears at this moment explaining that she was at a party a couple of weekends ago and she had blacked out. She was 8 days late on her period, as well. I asked her if she had taken a pregnancy test already and she said no, so we went and got one. The test name back positive. A little angel was growing inside of her. "I don't want to keep it. I'm not ready for a baby. I'm only 17." She said the A word. "You can't get an abortion!" I fought back. "Johnny, I was RAPED." Tears were streaming down her face. I hugged her and comforted her. "We're going to get through this together." I couldn't let my girlfriend get an abortion just because some a** hole slipped something in her drink at a party. I just couldn't...
Girlfriend is questioning abortion

Who said I was ever going to break up with you? I will love you no matter what choice you make and I hope that we stay together through all of this. I'm not saying that the DNA growing inside you is a human being but you should take in account that you are the mother. How does that make you feel that you are killing a child that was supposed to have a life. Think about all the great this child could do for us. He/she could become the next Albert Einstein or Steve Jobs. Who knows. At the moment when a human sperm penetrates a human ovum, or egg, generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian Tube, a new entity comes into existence. "Zygote" is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo, followed by the "Morula" and "Blastocyst" stages. The zygote is composed of human DNA and other human molecules, so its nature is undeniably human and not some other species. This DNA includes a complete "design," guiding not only early development but even hereditary attributes that will appear in childhood and adulthood, from hair and eye color to personality traits. It is also quite clear that the earliest human embryo is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction Finally, is the human zygote merely a new kind of cell or is it a human organism; that is, a human being? Scientists define an organism as a complex structure of interdependent elements constituted to carry on the activities of life by separately-functioning but mutually dependant organs. The human zygote meets this definition with ease. Once formed, it initiates a complex sequence of events to ready it for continued development and growth. So after reading all of this, it is in fact guaranteed to be human. Sources:http://www.frc.org...
Girlfriend is questioning abortion

Johnny, are sperm cells considered human beings? Because if they are, then people would need to have sex before every third day, because sperm cells die after three days and are recycled with new ones. Scientific evidence shows that life growing inside the womb is not actually a human being until the 24th week. It is just DNA and an assortment of different tissues. If we consider these cells to be human beings, then sperm cells must also be considered to be human beings, and so whenever a man goes four days without having sex, he has committed murder. I'm convinced this is not true. Human life begins after twenty-four weeks of conception, so before that time, the fetus does not have a right to a life because we cannot give human rights to non-human entities. The decision would fall on me, the mother. I do believe the only reason I would be hurt and depressed is because other members in my family are hurt and depressed. Statistics show that only 5% to 30% of women are actually depressed and guilt-ridden after an abortion. And most of the time this is due to the woman's hormones switching back to the way they were before pregnancy. Emotions are all muddled together and confusing, but this is a completely natural response. On top of that, the family usually does not support the mother after she gets her abortion, and the loneliness does not help her cope. If you are going to break up with me because I don't want to carry this burden, because I love you and I want to have a child with you, then maybe you never loved me to begin with. True love can survive over any hardship or turmoil, and you need to try and understand how I'm feeling right now, Johnny. I've just been raped, I've been deprived of my right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and I've been emotionally scarred to re-experience that moment over and over again in my head for the rest of my life. I shouldn't need to keep this unborn baby, it is not a moral sin if I get the abortion before it develops into a human being. Please try and understanding my reasoning. Sources: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... http://www.pro-truth.net...
There is no sure hope if Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead.

Your argument is Y1) If J then H. Y2) If no J then no H Y3) If no J and H occur, then no Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious H, Y4) H is based on Self interpretation of Pro, go back to Y1 While I say you make no argument, I mean no logically consistent argument. My argument, which is logically valid and sound is thus C1) If J then H. - TRUE C2) If MS then H – TRUE, I have offered 3 examples C3) If no J, H (as per c2) still exists – TRUEC4) If no j, no H – FALSE My argument stands on its merits and logic, yours does not. You have only challenged 2 things; Y3 an C2. I will address them each. I will address C2 first. What you have done is try to dismiss any Sure Hope is invalid without Jesus. This is an argument, not proof. It’s not even a good argument. 1 - You can change Jesus to Moses, Mohammad or Pastafarians, and your argument does not change only your perspective. An argument or truth stands on the argument its self, not the self-described truth of the individual presenting it. 2 - If a Muslims, Jew or Pastafarians says they have Sure Hope, Sure Forgiveness, Sure Understanding they are mistaken as they are not as sure as you, as its not based in Jesus? Are you saying everyone else sure hope is invalid? and how do you proove it, you havent offered any proof beyond repeating your assumptions. As for Y3, and Pro attempting to straw man my argument - please read the The full statement. I do apologies if it is unclear. "As for Sure Hope, Pro offers a nonsensical modifier', aka a further step in the logical order, adding Y3 a degree of certain and Y4 non-quantifiable measurement. As I was pointing out, it was the extra steps that were nonsensical modifier not there term Sure Hope. Pros assumption is Circular assumption, to wit Y1) Pro - It requires a pen to draw a sure circle, if no pen no sure circles Y2) Con - I can draw it with a pencil, or chalk and my profile picture is a circle, Y3) Pro - it’s not a sure circles, as sure circles require a pen. Why Y4) Pro - It is still a circle, but this not a sure circle as not pen drawn. PRo - Im right. I win. In his statement Y1 is true, as is my statement of C2. However after that pros argument falls apart. Y2 is affirming the consequent, Y3 in Argument of Special Privilege and Y4 Goal Raising. Faulty Arguments. Rebuttal and Closing “he is agreeing with me that there is no sure hope if Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead”. No I am not. My argument stands. I have hope without Jesus as does anyone who chooses to have hope. If I and other people do, your argument fails. Your only statement is “I reject all sure hope as invalid if it does not involve JESUS.“ This is not an argument, and it does not prove your point. Yours argument falls apart on the proof and logic of mine. If J then H. - TRUE If MS then H - TRUE If no J, H still exists – My argument is TRUE Thank you, this was fun and I learnt alot.
There is no sure hope if Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead.

Thank you con for your argument. While the first few paragraphs were too muddled for me to decipher, I did pick up the theme of my opponents argument as this: "As for Sure Hope, Pro offers a nonsensical modifier for a well establish meaning by adding a degree of certainty to a non-quantifiable measurement."In this statement, my opponent seems to be saying that hope cannot be sure, because the modifier "sure" is nonsensical when applied to a non-quantifiable measurement. Then, a bit further in his argument, my opponent claims to have sure hope in things like his son making the world a better place, the universe continuing beyond his next blink, and other things that I will address after first pointing out that my opponent defines sure hope as a nonsensical concept before he claims to have sure hope in some things. Also, I want to point out that hope is a quantifiable measurement in spite of my opponents assertion that it is non-quantifiable. I could think of a million examples of how we can see hope is quantifiable, but the first one to pop into my mind is of a man stranded at sea after his boat sank. He sees an object floating which is big enough for him to hold onto and maybe he could pull himself up on it out of the water, so in hope of reaching that goal, he begins to swim toward the object. The man's hope is quantifiable as evidenced by his swimming. He moves in hope, his hope giving him reason to swim toward the thing he is hoping for. If he had no hope of reaching an object that might keep him from drowning, then he would tread water in hope of somehow being rescued before he drowns. Swimming toward an object is quantified with a stronger and more directed act than treading water with no hope in sight of anything beyond the amount of time he can tread water. Hope is quantifiable by the amount investment in that hope. My opponent is correct that talking of sure hope is adding a degree or certainty to a well established meaning that generally lacks certainty, but to say hope is a non-quantifiable measurement is an understatement of the word's meaning. When my opponent asserts that sure hope is "a nonsensical modifier" attached to a word with a well established meaning, he is agreeing with me that there is no sure hope if Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead. If Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, which it seems my opponent does not believe, he remains standing in his position that sure hope is a nonsensical concept. Either way, my opponent in these statements is agreeing with me that He can show no sure hope: but then he gives examples of things he claims to have sure hope in that I will now refute.1)How do you know you will leave the world a better place? It seems to be getting worse; no sure hope there.2)Your son may meet a terrible accident or fate; no sure hope there.3)You may die or suffer a trauma that stops you from ever blinking again, your eyes may remain shut if you blink; no sure hope there.Thank you.