BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control In America

For your first claim: I believe the 2nd Amendment is still relevant in today's society for more than what the founding fathers intended now than ever back then. Though I like to know what these modern realities that men in the 18th century has never anticipated are even though I might have a clue what you mean but just to be on the safe side. I believe the 2nd Amendment was intended for more than just resist a tyrannical government (self-defense, hunting, foreign invaders) though today's militia's aren't as relevant in really anything (Or at all), it is still there for the purpose in case of such scenario where it is needed. The "Regular Army" I'm guessing must be the National Guard? Military branches are forbidden from being deployed on US soil, but for this case let's just say it's the entire military. If the military were to deploy on US soil for some tyrannical reason/disarmament/etc of the US population, it will result in a failure. Last thing enlistees signed up for is to shoot at their own people, this can result in massive desertion and moral issues within the military. No matter which way the people look at it, it will be tyrannical if the first shots are fired by any government branch. There will be a massive crowd probably bigger than the US military (1.8 million, including reserves, not including potential desertions in massive numbers) in a population of 323.1 million. People willing to fight back against it, people don't bow down and accept to oppression so easily, many are willing to put blood on their hands for what they believe, and to die for it. Especially in this country. For you last sentence, are you propose a number limit of firearms a individual can have? If so, what is the difference in... perceived threat of owning multiple firearms? If not, please explain in much more detail. I see it as it's the right of the individual to own multiple firearms as he pleases. I don't see one person with one rifle more of a threat to one person with multiple rifles. A person can only operate one rifle practically with their hands. For your second claim: A firearm yes is indeed a tool, but it is also a right unlike cars, cranes, or jackhammers. The whole statement of license just like a car is comparing a right to a privilege. Should people be taught proper marksmanship and safety classes? Maybe. A gun store can make it mandatory to take the classes in order to purchase a firearm from their stores but to implement it as law is something that is a grey area. Do you have to register to the state to have a license proving you are certified? Understandable good sir, if you can answer this question for me to understand more of your views, that would be much appreciated. What gun control do you want to implement more of/add?
Gun Control In America

I am also a gun owner, but am in favor of stricter gun control. My two main claims are: The 2nd Amendment is no longer relevant in the way the Founders intended, and as such it should be re-interpreted to fit the modern realities that men in the 18th Century could not possibly have anticipated. Specifically, the 2nd Amendment is NOT intended to allow people to resist a tyrannical government (trust me, the US government is not intimidated by your AR-15...), and the concept of a militia being needed to preserve a free state is no longer necessary now that the Regular Army has become so powerful. Citizens should not be allowed to accumulate a virtual arsenal of firepower just because they like guns. Second, a gun is simply a tool, no different from a car or crane or jackhammer. Therefore, just like cars and cranes and jackhammers, one should have to go through realistic licensure requirements before being able to operate a gun. The fact that you can buy a gun in many states without having to go through marksmanship training or safety class is ludicrous. People should have to actually prove competence and maturity before obtaining a gun, just like they have to before driving a car. Looking forward to a throughtful debate. If my opponent could refrain from posting their response until Sunday or Monday it would be appreciated - I can't respond until Tuesday :)
Gun Control In America

I am a gun owner in America that is looking for a intellectual debate on whether or not gun control is needed to become more strict or loose. My stance subject at the moment is to repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934, to make gun laws the same on a nation/federal level instead of state laws. The NFA is a direct infringement on the Second Amendment but is one of the most obvious and highlighted ones to take down. While shootings are almost a common occurrence, I believe gun control is not the answer. You start with your claim first. Accept only if you're very knowledgeable about the topic
Gun Control In America

Why are nukes and missiles an over-exaggeration? The Amendment phrase "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" at face value should mean any arms - because to limit access to certain arms would be an infringement. But of course we don't think that in the case of very powerful weapons. Why? Because of their destructive potential and impracticality for personal self defense. Since we both agree this is a valid reason to control guns, I contend that this reason extends to other arms that have destructive potential disproportionate to self defense needs, like military style rifles. Now Con is backtracking. In Round 3 Con said authoritatively, "the AR-15 is the most practical self-defense rifle in America." Now in Round 4 they admit it is "not the most practical but really practical." Sure, sometime people have used an AR-15 successfully, but these examples are rare and anecdotal. I still think an AR is woefully overkill for the vast majority of civilian self-defense needs. As proof - why do beat cops wear pistols rather than ARs at all times during daily patrols? Because ARs are almost always unwieldy and unnecessary. (not to mention their extended range make them dangerous in populated areas, aka, rounds flying farther than intended and hitting bystanders). I am not assuming you own an AR, and when I said "your" band I was using it in a general sense, not literally "you." As for our debate about who "the people" are, can't you see my point about the subjectivity involved? You seem to assume when legitimate tyranny occurs, the majority of people will stand together and resist. We can't even get a majority of Americans to vote! How on earth can we expect a majority consensus on government tyranny? That's my whole point - at what point do a group of individuals become "the people" - the citizens of a church, a state, a group of states, an ethnicity, the entire nation? This makes no sense, to which I submit as evidence that the Founders never intended to mean the Second Amendment to give "the people" the power to armed rebellion, because it is impossible to define who the people are.
Gun Control In America

"the Founders could not have anticipated the advancement in destructive power of weaponry, and would certainly favor limiting access to firepower that is unreasonable for the average citizen to possess." Of course they would've, though the weapons I did mention (But there's many more) are lacking in performance, it showed there were still on going research, inventions, and efforts to advance in technology. What you stated on the failures of these rifles are trial and error. You don't get it right on the first try. So you improve and improve. Also, comparing nukes and missiles to a rifle is over-exaggeration. Nukes and missiles I agree wouldn't be anticipated. "An AR-15 is absolutely not the most practical civilian self-defense weapon. " Not the most practical but really practical. Different situation means different applications. Not all are CQC Here are some articles talking about where an AR-15 was used in self-defense in many environments and applications from armed criminals, robbers, etc. Stores and homes: http://controversialtimes.com... " They're long (clumsy to maneuver in tight space), difficult to conceal/store (hard to quickly access), and are designed to suppress targets at ranges upwards of 300m (completely unnecessary in a face to face encounter)." Well if it wasn't for the National Firearms Act of 1934, we would have AR-15's that are way shorter and not restricted behind a $200 tax stamp and be even more effective in CQC. Although, a non-NFA AR-15 is restricted to a barrel length of 16" or longer, it's still effective if you know how to apply it. The range effectiveness does not matter if you don't know how to use it right, even then it's good to have it just for any application, the AR-15 is adaptable if let to be. The AR-15 has more controllable recoil stability than a handgun due to a stock, more capacity, easier to aim, etc. This article explains it more: https://www.americanrifleman.org... You seem to think I own a AR-15... Your assumption is wrong. Also my band of freedom fighters don't exist. That's too much Red Dawn you're watching. Your claim is a matter of opinion on whether or not the government is afraid or not. SWAT teams and tanks can easily be avoidable with guerrilla warfare tactics. The people at Waco was strategically at a disadvantage. Not to mention the scale it was on. A small group of cultists. McVeigh and Koresh didn't have the support of the people of the United States. Any that do is a very very small minority. It's not individual citizens, it will be a cause/movement of citizens. Anarchism is not what neither anyone intend. Anarchy is a stateless society. A resistance/cause against a tyrannical government is to reform it, not make it stateless. Criteria: Unjustifiable/illegal violation of rights or laws Who: The people, not a individual or few.
Steroid Users Should be in The Baseball Hall of Fame

Thank you very much, Yes, that being steroids being illegal I agree, However like I said before these players do have a lot of pressure on them. most athletes you may know" have" or "will "or "had" done a type of steroid "Legal" Or "illegal."The University of Nebraska explains "Oct 17, 1997 - Although users report increases in muscle bulk, strength, and endurance, steroids can not improve agility, athletic skill, and cardiovascular capacity -- factors which also affect performance. In addition, there is no conclusive evidence that steroid use decreases recovery time from injuries. In fact, some research asserts that steroid abuse hampers the normal process of wound healing." There are plenty of good side effects to steroids as well as bad. Theres also the fact that we allows more dangerous activity that using steroids in our society putting it frankly Norman Fost, MD, MPH, Professor and Director of the Medical Ethics Program at the University of Wisconsin, made the following statement in a Dec. 18, 2006 interview "[W]e allow people to do far more dangerous things than play football or baseball while using steroids. We allow people to bungee-jump, to ski on advanced slopes, to cliff dive. To eat marbled meat or ice cream pie every day if they want. I don"t think we want to go down a path in which we restrict and even criminalize behaviors just because they have health risks. And steroids are so low on the list of drugs or diets that cause serious harm I don"t understand why we would start there." Norman Fost...ec t(many more people.) -Baseball Men - The Skeptic and University of Nebraska- Steroid research
Steroid Users Should be in The Baseball Hall of Fame

First welcome to the site and congrats on your first debate. Steroids are a banned substance and illegal in the United States. According to the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004. These Professional athletes not only used banned substances, but they broke the law in using these banned substances. Also the MLB established new rules in 2005 relating to Steroids users. Players caught using performance enhancing drugs (i.e. steroids), would be subject to suspensions eventually leading to year long and lifetime bans. These players were breaking the rules of the MLB and should not be allowed into the Hall of Fame despite their playing careers, which should be scrutinized because of usage of PED's. Your turn. http://www.whatsteroids.com... http://www.cbsnews.com...
Steroid Users Should be in The Baseball Hall of Fame

Haha, my first debate, Steroid users hmn? Why should they thats a tough one. You see Steroids are any of a large class of organic compounds with a characteristic molecular structure containing four rings of carbon atoms (three six-membered and one five). They include many hormones, alkaloids, and vitamins. Given that they may include vitamins many people or "Athletes may be using a(n) may not even know. You see....all steroids do is push the body to it's most extreme limit. It doesn't (Enhance you.) doesn't (Make you stronger.) It just pushes people to limits they would usually go to because of body extent. You see it makes you feel limit-less and God-Like at many times. I Many of these players have much stress on these players to preform a good show, feeling these extent they feel no alternative to go to "Drugs" these bring in home-runs "Home Runs" Bring in money...money keeps the team up...and that keeps jobs. Beyond the point...there not becoming superman just a what there potential could be if there endurance was (RAISED) just a bit. Also look at the economy the last few years psssh, lose a high paying job like in the sports category your screwed guy!
Steroid Users Should be in The Baseball Hall of Fame

Thank you for being my first partner! Like I previously mentioned but yet Ill explain again...These "Cellphones" are not the users own intelligence is much more than that. That of what you said is like saying that theses players had half the hole world holding there bat with them. Yes they were illegal, but yes haven't we all felt a time "Pressured" to the extent of cheating? Say when you were a kid and took a candy bar...I should arrest you then shouldn't I? Your mother/father told you not to yet you did it anyway I should have fair reason to arrest you? Look at it like this alot of these players are one a family man, two may loose there jobs if they can't preform like expected. If I hired someone who couldn't do there job like I expected then goodbye, I don't care If your old, to young ...ect. Besides The men and Women who run it know about the drug problem that went on back then and that does today! Only when the issue and the media get in it, its a problem? So if this is the case then lets take all the players who have used out or who ever will out, that's half and let us flush them. That leaves us more than half empty. Its all about these players keeping there statues que (Simpler terms: There average) and if they fall below its over for them so yes some times these players break the rules and sometimes these COACHES, and TEAM LEADERS allow it. So if anyone attack them... so don't hate the player hate the game!
Steroid Users Should be in The Baseball Hall of Fame

PED's are illegal according to bylaws of MLB, as I explained before. Now these athletes that did use PED's should be considered cheaters. To pose a question: If a person uses a cell phone during the SAT's and scores higher than they would without a cell phone, should that person be allowed to go to an Ivy League School because of their SAT scores? Knowing that cell phones are illegal, the answer is no. The same principle applies here. The players used illegal substances, knowing that they were illegal, and therefore should be banned from the Hall of Fame.
Steroid Users Should be in The Baseball Hall of Fame

Playing "Fairly" is only a matter of opinion Many people in these people all have something hidden that they had done. It just depends on if it is legal or not. "Breaking News: Babe Ruth Admits Using Performance-Enhancing Substances" this was an artical By Perry Arnold , Senior Analyst Feb 13, 2009...beyond the point. (<)Him and many other "GREAT" Players your willing to shut out of the "Hall Of Fame" something they worked VERY hard to get into and may be the sole reason they used these performance Enhancing drugs? Like I said it doesn't simulate artificial muscle it just raises the player endurance. Meaning they wont give up as easily! These people aren't becoming supermen just super versions on "THEMSELVES" It unlocks potential that they would of possibly never reached to without this extra boost of testosterone in there systems. So just for being super versions of themselves they should be cast out? What about the men who use corks or springs? http://bleacherreport.com...
Steroid Users Should be in The Baseball Hall of Fame

I will agree with you that anabolic steroids cannot speed up the healing process. However, Human Growth Hormone (HGH) is a drug that athletes use to hopefully speed up the healing process. Despite the positives or negatives HGH has on the human body it is an illegal substance according to Major League Baseball. It does not matter the reasons why these athletes used PED's the fact of the matter is that they were illegal and athletes like them should be punished. If you take a look at the Home Run Leaders All-Time in MLB History, it is interesting to note that within the Top 10, Three of them had been caught using PED's and a Fourth was linked to PED's but has never been officially caught, Home Run King Barry Bonds. Within the Top 25, Seven were linked to PED's. These men do not belong to be enshrined in the Hall of Fame with the other Hundreds of Players that played the game fairly and cleanly. http://www.webmd.com... http://www.cbsnews.com... http://www.baseball-almanac.com...
The Reverse Modal Ontological Argument Refutes God

Thanks Pro.PrefaceI hoped to keep this debate relatively quick and concise, thankfully Pro has obliged with his previous round. I request Pro make a full rebuttal next round, otherwise this debate can be reinstated. In any case thanks for the debate and best of luck in the voting!Final Rebuttals“If God is defined as necessarily necessary then a world is only possible if it has all the necessary entities.”I hardly see what the argument is here, this is not a complete argument, and hence must be rejected out of hand. This is clear once it is formalised into a syllogism.P1. If God is defined as necessarily necessary then a world is only possible if it has all the necessary entitiesP2. God is defined as a necessary beingC. A world is only possible if it has all the necessary entitiesI see no reason to believe P1, which is an assertion that comes out of nowhere. The mere definition of something entailing something regarding the contingency or necessity of everything else is absurd – definitions have no causal power.Furthermore it ignores my points regarding how God is defined – God’s necessary existence is contingent on God’s existence in the first place. It’s this latter notion that is in contention within this debate.Furthermore, even if this argument is correct then it makes no difference, since God is not required for something to exist necessarily even if it does. One such application is the modal collapse hypothesis – the notion that everything is actually necessary – thus while everything within this world is possible, they are also necessary (these modal terms are not mutually exclusive). Thus necessary entities work just fine in atheism.“My second contention is that even if there are worlds God is not possible in this only makes God contingent upon a compatible world.”If God is contingent then it violates the definition of God, and thus a contradiction entails. A god that exists in one possible world MUST exist in all possible worlds as per God’s definition. Thus a God that exists in some possible worlds and not in others is impossible – since modal contingency and modal necessity are mutually exclusive modal definitions:Contingent: Something that is both logically possible to be true and logically possible to be falseNecessary: Something that is logically impossible to be falseThis is equivalent to Pro stating that its possible for a triangle to possess only two sides – which I hope doesn’t require explaining is completely absurd. You contradict the definition.SummaryVote Pro. Oh btw, I just got a new job, as a teacher, champagnes are spilling!
The Reverse Modal Ontological Argument Refutes God

Unfortunately I did not get off work early enough to write a full rebuttal.I'll just clarify that my position is, If God is defined as necessarily necessary then a world is only possible if it has all the necessary entities.My second contention is that even if there are worlds God is not possible in this only makes God contingent upon a compatible world. If God is not defined as having to be maximally great then there is no logical link between contingent and being not possible in any world.
The Reverse Modal Ontological Argument Refutes God

Details:I am playing devil's advocate in this debate - since my position is that neither argument actually can even hope to be demonstrated to be sound. Leave a message if you wish to accept. Messaging that you are "unable to accept due to your age criteria, etc. " clearly demonstrates you have not read the rules, and thus will be unlikely to receive the challenge. Full ResolutionThe Reverse Modal Ontological Argument Most Likely Refutes GodDefinitions:God: An intelligent being that would exist modally necessarilyReverse Modal Ontological Argument: An argument that argues God doesn't exist from the fact it is possible for God to not exist.
Congress ought to place a ban on food advertisments that target children under the age of twelve.

Because I have received no arguments/rebuttals from my opponent, I will give a recap of this debate and my arguments. The value I used for this debate was utilitarianism- that is, what does the most good for the most amount of people is, in essence, the most morally justifiable. What this means is that whoever can prove that their arguments do the most good is the winner of this debate. While I agree my opponent had several good arguments, upon closer examination, they hold no water in arguing that food advertisements targeting children 12 and under should NOT be banned. Claiming that it was the parent's job, there are too wide of interpretations, it's a waste of money, and that there were "better alternatives" have each been proven wrong through my logical and factual evidence. When we take a look at this issue, the facts are clear: obesity rates are rising at the same time as fast food revenue, and in essence, advertising is. But where's the public outrage? Because the problem here is that there is none. This means that it is time for Congress to step in to ensure a healthier nation for our children. A nation where children are not told at an early age to buy unhealthy foods. A nation where brainwashing people at a time when their minds are most susceptible to outside forces is illegal. A nation where we can grow up without greedy mega-corporations preying on our young minds. A nation based upon open minds from a young age. A nation of health. And this health will come in the form of banning the brainwashing, preying, and otherwise taking advantage of our children that so often occurs in food corporations. Congress ought to place a ban on food advertisements that target children under the age of twelve.