BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Guns should have restrictions in the US

The Second Amendment was written to allow for self-defense from attackers as well as the tyranny of an overreaching federal government. As you can see from today, the government is becoming more tyrannical and people are becoming more aggressive then ever. With worsening race relations, there has been an increase in racially motivated crimes, including the attack in South Carolina. A properly handled firearm could have prevented that attack. Additionally, you state that criminals get their weapons from firearm stores. That is definitely not the case. A majority of violent criminals who have used firearms of any kind in their endeavor to commit crime have used illegally bought weapons. Most gang violence revolves around weapons bought and sold without permission. Without proper means of self defense, we fall prey to a tyrannical government. If you take a look at past dictatorships, such as the USSR, Nazi Germany, China, and Cuba, all of them had massive gun control, which made is impossible to purchase or own any type of weapon. This needed to occur since their massive human abuses and lack of care for human rights could only be stopped by an armed population. Furthermore, crime is most prevalent in areas that have high gun control. Baltimore, Chicago, and Los Angeles have extreme gun control, to the point where most private establishments as well as public establishments do not allow any firearms inside at all. I currently reside in Chicago, and I am fully aware of the high crime here. Most crime is gang related, and there are more established gangs in gun control cities then any other. This is a direct result of a disarmed population, which enables these criminals to commit murder, rape, assault, and robbery without any immediate repercussion or any risk to their lives. Our liberties are transcendent throughout all times, and we should never have to relinquish our liberties due to the wrongdoings of others. Instead, we should emphasize education and determination, rather then handing out money to impoverished families and creating nothing but just blatant dependency.
Guns should have restrictions in the US

Thank you for accepting and I am glad that you did. You brought up the second amendment. The second amendment states that all citizens have the right to bear arms(there is no argument there) but you have to remember that this Amendment was created in a time when we actual needed guns to protect ourselves, for example it was possible for America to be attacked at any time by either another country or the Natives. I believe this is reason enough to say that this Amendment shouldn't be an amendment in this day and age that we live in. I also don't think that this in any way is good reason to blame minorities. Because most of the black community is very poor and have no where else to turn. I also think it is unfair to blame the black community as a whole. To address your other argument, the way that a criminal gets a gun is through their local gun store, where they can get a gun with little information, and cheap enough to buy in a day or two on minimum wage. This my opinion and I don't mean to offend you in any way. Thank you
Guns should have restrictions in the US

I will be arguing on the side of Con, that law abiding American citizens deserve their 2nd Amendment rights, and it should not be denied to them because of the acts of a few criminals. Our Constitution was written for a purpose, and that purpose was to guarantee basic rights and liberties to American citizens, as well as to establish a set code for government. If you look at statistics, you can see that gun violence deaths are highest in African-American communities, and in areas with high gun control. Buying a gun is traceable, and it also is rather expensive. Criminals often buy weapons illegally, or steal it from someone else. Your argument states that there should be a "legit reason for some on to have one". Will there be a committee that is set up to decide if the reasoning of a gun owner as to why he/she wants his/her property? If we were to let the wrongdoings of a few impact how we see an entire group, then the African American and Latino communities have much to answer for. Sources: [1]. http://www.theacru.org... [2]. http://www.cato.org...
yo mamma "So ugly, So fat, So dump" joke contest

Please make sure you post 3 Yo mamma jokes, 1 of each ""So ugly, So fat, So dumb" Yo mama is so ugly that her birth certificate contained an apology letter from the condom factory. Yo mama is so fat that she has to iron her pants on the driveway. Yo mama is so dumb that when she went for a blood test, she asked for time to study.
yo mamma "So ugly, So fat, So dump" joke contest

Bring it on, your best 3 Yo mamma jokes, 1 of each for each round ""So ugly, So fat, So dumb", Good luck Yo mama is so ugly that she turned Medusa to stone! Yo mama is so fat that the National Weather Service names each one of her farts. Yo mama's so dumb that when she saw the "Under 17 not admitted" sign at a movie theatre, she went home and got 16 friends. Wcha ya got?
Riddle

Rules: I will post a riddle and Con must solve it. If con gets it right, voters give him 7 points. If he fails to answer or gets it wrong, I get 7. I will give the answer in round 2. A murderer is condemned to death. He has to choose between three rooms.The first is full of raging fires, the second is full of assassins with loaded guns, and the third is full of lions who have not eaten in six months. Which room is the safest for him?
Even people who are bowling for recreational purposes should observe proper bowling etiquette

Etiquette in recreational bowling is not important. Although I agree that a bowling alley should be safe and an unsafe alley is not fun, if the lack of etiquette made it that unsafe of an environment then this list of etiquette would become the rules of the game. However, when you take out the fun and relaxation of the game then you are also taking out the recreational part of the event. A person should be able to take as long as they want to bowl without being rushed because that is the point of performing a recreational activity.
Even people who are bowling for recreational purposes should observe proper bowling etiquette

Etiquette in the bowling alley is important because it makes for a safer playing environment, as well as a smoother environment. People deserve a good, fun, safe time. Of course, fun is important, and letting loose is fun, too, but keeping things safe in an environment that calls for remaining safe. My opponent has brought up good strong arguments, though. He brought up that etiquette is appropriate at the right time, however, etiquette down at the bowling alley, at least in a modest form, is important for fun and safety purposes.
Even people who are bowling for recreational purposes should observe proper bowling etiquette

These are good points that you bring up. As I mentioned earlier, there is a time and a place for everything. That even includes etiquette. I was raised in the south and was taught proper eating etiquette. However, although I would like for everyone to adhere to this etiquette, I understand that not everyone is going to follow this etiquette at a restaurant. Yet, at a wedding or fancy banquet, it is understandable for everyone to be held to the standards of following proper eating etiquette. As for the danger coming from bowling, I am sure everyone has seen inexperienced bowlers either lose grip from the ball or fall down while bowling. This happens to professionals that are following all the proper etiquette. Here's one example. http://www.youtube.com... To keep the game fun and to attract new bowlers, professional bowlers should not pressure etiquette onto recreational bowlers. This will then drive beginner bowlers away from bowling. With the lose of revenue from recreational bowlers, the alleys might end up having to close down. As a bowler, I'm sure you wouldn't want that. I'm also sure that if you didn't have fun when you first started bowling, you wouldn't have continued bowling. League bowlers have their time to practice when only league bowlers are allowed in the alley. When that time is over, following bowling etiquette shouldn't be a big deal. This is the time when parents can bring their kids, or couples can go on dates. Worrying if they are not bowling fast enough can really take the fun out of the game for people just learning or are just out to have fun.
Even people who are bowling for recreational purposes should observe proper bowling etiquette

However, as a bowler, I would like to see proper bowling etiquette practiced around me, due to the fact that the violations of the etiquette has not only made me lose focus, but also has made me feel nervous, due to the fact that I have almost hit someone, someone has almost hit me, and people have caused me to lose focus, as I mentioned already. I would like to touch on the list I made regarding etiquette. People do get in the way, not causing you to delay, but causes I rather dangerous environment. Bowling balls at the lowest weigh 8 pounds, and at most 16 pounds, which, when thrown, might as well be a flying lethal projectile. Bowling bowls being taken: whether it was a house ball or someone else's ball, if it was not put on the return rack by you, you are not to use it period! This may lead to causing someone to delay their shot. People use specific balls that may not be theirs, and from the bowling alley, and it may easily cause a delay in their game. Yes, bowling is a fun family and friend hang out, but, if etiquette isn't followed, not only does it make the game go less smoothly and causing more distracting to people trying to really bowl and work on their game, but it can also create a dangerous environment.
Even people who are bowling for recreational purposes should observe proper bowling etiquette

Thanks for posting the list of bowling etiquette and I accept the list to be used in this debate. Because bowling is a game, it has rules. Some of the items in the etiquette list are either rules in the game or very common rules in a bowling alley. Such as, no offensive language, wearing correct shoes, crossing the foul line. I'm only going to concentrate on the items that aren't normally rules and they are: 1. Do not make people wait for their turn 2. Do not use someone else's ball without permission 3. Do not bowl at the same time as other people to the left or right of you 4. Stay out of sight of the ones who are bowling 5. Do not stand on the approach when someone else is bowling 6. Never be in front of someone who is about to bowl As a frequent bowler, I eliminated the common list of alley rules from the list of etiquette. That's because etiquette isn't required and I've seen plenty of people be kicked out over some of those items. I also believe that 5 and 6 are covered by 1. That means the list is now just 1-4. For number 2, I'm assuming that means the bowling alley's ball because taking someone's personal ball is not only stealing that goes beyond bowling etiquette. I'm claiming that bowling etiquette doesn't need to be followed when people are bowling for recreational purposes. Since recreational means it is for enjoyment or fun, it can be seen why bowling is done for recreational purposes. Bowling is not just a sport. It is also used for family fun, dates, and just a relaxing event for friends. There is a reason that bowling alleys have laser nights, college nights, and family nights. This is a game for people to unwind and have fun. Just because the etiquette exists, doesn't mean that it should always be followed or else they would be rules. There is a time and a place for everything. There is dinner etiquette but worrying about which fork is the salad fork while you are out with your friends, just because the guy at the next table cares, will ruin the dinner and make it feel more like work. There is also golfing etiquette, but following them while playing miniature golf or a short course with your friends will ruin the atmosphere for the ones playing recreationally.
Even people who are bowling for recreational purposes should observe proper bowling etiquette

To many, bowling is much more than a Friday night hang out and a Saturday family event. It is a sport. A sport that requires concentration. When people are bowling, not observing proper bowling etiquette is very distracting to those looking to work on their game. Bowling is a fun sport, but too many ruin it for their own recreational purposes. I think it is fine to go hang out with people for a night out bowling. But, distracting someone can ruin the fun, and can even be dangerous. Bowling etiquette is as follows: Wearing bowling shoes No offensive language Keep food and drinks off the lanes Remove street shoes from lane Do not make people wait for their turn Do not step over the foul line Do not use someone else's ball without permission Do not bowl at the same time as other people to the left or right of you Stay out of sight of the ones who are bowling Do not stand on the approach when someone else is bowling Never be in front of someone who is about to bowl Do not infringe on anyone else's lane (http://bowling.about.com...) These are all etiquette rules that should be followed by anyone at the alley, because it makes for a fun and safe playing environment
Sexual Orientation is a choice

Now onto the argument. Gregory Herek, a UC Davis psychology professor, claimed that 95 percent of the self-identified gay men in a study he conducted, and 80 to 90 percent of the lesbians, believed they had little or no choice in their sexual orientation. [1] Gays and lesbians commonly have heterosexual partners at some point in life - often due to youthful uncertainty and social pressures - but, most people ultimately can define their own sexuality. Another report; delivered by Jerome Goldstein, M. D. , a board-certified medical neurologist and Director of the San Francisco Clinical Research Center, states that Sexual orientation is neurobiological and is set at birth. [2] Goldstein later goes on to say that brains of people of different sexual orientations " gay, straight, and bisexual " work in different ways. most people do not seem to recall ever making such a choice. While this does not prove that it is not a choice, the fact that people seem unable to point to making such a choice does provide support for the claim that it is not a matter of choice. Do heterosexual men and women think about their orientation, or does it just come "naturally"? Personally, I have no awareness that I chose to be straight. I also have no awareness of selecting my preferences in regards to the type of women I am attracted to. For example, I have a general preference towards woman with blonde hair. However, that does not seem to be something I selected. I cannot think of consciously deciding that I would find dark hair somewhat more appealing than lighter hair, I just do. If orientation were a choice, then a straight person should be able to choose to be gay and vice versa. A person can, obviously, test this by trying to switch his/her orientation. If my opponent/viewers of this debate are heterosexual, I urge you to give it a try and see if you can change preference. . It does not come natural. Another argument would be that if sexual preference is a matter of choice, it does seem a little bit odd that people would not decide to be heterosexual when people were (and still to this day are) persecuted and even killed for being homosexuals. It would make no sense to endure such treatment when a person could simply decide to not be that way. Of course, this argument is not decisive. .. but it is a point to be noticed. In my opinion, sexual orientation is innate but latent emerging slowly as the person develops. This is my opening argument, I await and look forward to seeing what my opponent has to say. [1] . http://www.sfgate.com... [2] . http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...
It's time Mattel released a Barbie and Kim gift set

My opponent makes a number of interesting points using a wit that I can not hope to match. Would it be the end of the world if Mattel introduced a lesbian partner for Barbie? Of course not. I'm simply arguing that it's improper and somewhat ridiculous after 50 years with Ken. The burden of proof is on Pro to say why, and he essentially responds that there is no harm to exposing children to a lesbian partner of Barbie and can help break down hetero-normative assumptions. Fair enough, but Pro has already conceded that little children who play with dolls hardly make judgments about sexuality. So who is benefitting? Most likely, it would be gay rights activists who are jumping at any opportunity to promote the legitimacy of homosexual relationships. On the other hand, it would offend a certain amount of pro-family rights organizations and Barbie fans who view it rightfully as political pandering. It's hardly homophobic to consider the prospect of Barbie cheating on her 50 year partner bad. This is actually an important point that I'm surprised I didn't think of earlier. While there is widespread tolerance of homosexual relationships, cheating - regardless of sex, is generally looked down upon. Especially after 50 years together, the idea of Barbie cheating with anybody is not something that should be taken kindly to. If we want our dolls to present good, moral guidelines to children this is something we should reject. Lastly, I would like to reiterate the notion that it's not entirely clear what Barbie's gay lover would be. Pro seems to imply that it would be experimental in the tradition of Britney and Madonna, and this is probably not the image that serious gay rights movements even want to promote. I personally have nothing against lesbians "experimenting" but remember that Mattel is a company that's target audience is families with children. Would it be totally awesome if Barbie had an drug-fueled orgy with Ken and 2 cheerleaders? Of course. Would it really be a smart move for Mattel to create a doll that would both serve as Barbie's lesbian experiment and cheat on her 50 year partner? I would say no. Once we remove our own attitudes about how freakin' awesome lesbian sex is and look at it from the perspective of Mattel and society, the view becomes clear that this coupling is not desirable.
It's time Mattel released a Barbie and Kim gift set

Well, that may or may not be so. The 1960's were less enlightened times and Barbie may have felt obliged to supress her lesbian tendencies in or order to conform to the conservative views on sexuality that were prevalent at the time. These days, however, high-profile female celebrities such as Paris Hilton, Sarah Bulloch, Scarlet Johannson, Britney Spears, Madonna, Christina Aguilera, Miley Cyrus, Sarah Silverman, Jessica Biel and Angelina Jolie queue up to be photographed snogging other women. . http://www.ranker.com... Therefore, it would be natural for a high-profile female doll, such as Barbie, not only to be open about her lesbian tendencies, but to flaunt her bi-sexuality by arranging to be photographed with Cindy, nude, prhaps having her back doors smashed in with the end of a crayon. Moving on, it's news to me, as I am sure it will be to most people, that there is a supposedly male homosexual doll called Andy Mills. Check the photograph of him – does he look like Justin Bieber wearing a suit to you? Or is that just me? Anyway, Justin Bieber isn't gay and there's nothing about the Andy Mills doll that is gay: he doesn't have a moustache and he's not wearing a leather cap or anything like that so he can't be gay. Nevertheless, I'd wager that Action Man takes every opportunity he gets to kick Andy Mills' immaculately-coiffured head in. By the way, I couldn't help noticing that the Andy Mills doll retails at $179.00! Not $1.79, or even $17.99, no $179.00 - one hundred and seventy nine dollars – for a bit of plastic and a few fragments of cloth! Jesus Christ on a fvcking bike! The words "fools"; "money"; "soon" and "parted" come to mind! Back on topic, since only girls play with dolls, there's no need for a male homosexual doll, which is why nobody's ever heard of the Andy Mills doll. Now, I am not suggesting that little girls who play with dolls are conscious of the sexual implications of their heterosexual Barbie and Ken roleplaying. Typically, four year old girls in school playgrounds are not overhead saying things like: "Ooh, have you seen that video by Rick Astley? He's so hot. I tell you, by the end of the song I was practically frothing at the gash. " However, because little girls are bombarded with heterosexual role models through fairy stories, children's TV programmes and toys such as Barbie and Ken, it would be reasonable to implant the idea in their minds that it doesn't always have to be ‘boyfriend and girlfriend', sometimes it can be ‘girlfriend and girlfriend' (or even ‘girlfriend and girlfriend her boyfriend') by producing a Barbie and Kim gift set alongside the existing Barbie and Ken gift set. Thank you.
It's time Mattel released a Barbie and Kim gift set

An entertaining debate topic. Let's first look at Barbie. Barbie has a long history with Ken, and there is nothing in this heterosexual relationship that is inherently hetero-sexist. Pro suggests that the relationship is wrong, and that Barbie's sexual preferences should be opened up a little. This argument is not about homosexuality. The character of Barbie has been heterosexual since 1961, and the introduction of a lesbian partner for Barbie is nothing short of political pandering as it will have no effect on how lesbian relationships are viewed. Moreover, one can believe there is nothing wrong with homosexuality while not supporting a change in Barbie's lifestyle. There are gay dolls, and one even came out in 2002 named "Andy Mills" [1]. If a toy is gay or straight, it should generally be considered that from the outset. Many in the homosexual and heterosexual community would be offended by the notion that sexuality can change on a whim, and that is exactly what the company would be doing. There would be an enormous uproar in the gay community, and rightfully so, if Andy Mills dropped his flamboyant attire and found a girlfriend. Regardless, most kids don't know about homosexuality or even what it means to be heterosexual when they're 4 or 5 and playing with dolls, so it is unlikely that they could even recognize Andy Mills as a homosexual. Lastly, I believe Pro is implying that there is something wrong with the Barbie-Ken relationship that needs change. I would like to question this assumption a little further, since I believe simply the absence of a homosexual relationship does not imply homophobia whatsoever. Kids are barely sexual, if at all sexual, when playing with Barbies. The reality is that people have a variety of sexual tastes. What's next, Barbie's transsexual lover "Ty?" Let kids be kids. Don't make Barbie into a political figure by changing her sexuality after 50 years with Ken. It would be perfectly acceptable to create a new gay (or bi) doll, as has been done, but don't break up a long-lasting relationship between two plastic lovers. [1] http://www.queerty.com...