BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Liberals have already won the gun debate you just don't realize it

Ok seriously am I arguing with a bot here? You literally must have not read anything that I have written here and have just copied and pasted some generic arguments for why the Second Amendment is a good thing. That is not the point of this debate!!! If you want to find someone to debate with that is totally against the Second Amendment and wants it abolished post your own debate. There are plenty of those people out there. As it is you have completely wasted my time by ignoring everything I have posted and instead debating some imaginary anti-gun advocate. Either you are a robot who is programed with only the basic responses to Second Amendment debates, or you are trolling me, or your reading comprehension is non-existent. Thank you for wasting my time
Liberals have already won the gun debate you just don't realize it

Abolishing the second amendment is detrimental to the US economy The firearms and ammunition industry is important to US jobs The US firearms and ammunition industry grew to $51.3 billion by 2016, and employs over 300,000 people, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation"s (NSSF) Economic Impact Report. This figure is a 168% increase from the industry"s 2008 economic impact, which then stood at $19.1 billion. It paid roughly $7.4 billion in federal and state taxes in 2016, according to the NSSF Report. Around 30% of adults own the 310 million guns in the United States. In Nevada, 38% of adults own guns, and private gun sales are legal. The NSSF estimates there are between 5 to 8.2 million assault-style weapons in the United States. After the shooting in Sandy Hook, Connecticut in 2012, sales of these weapons increased rapidly due to fears of future bans. Still, assault rifles make up only 2-3% of firearms owned in the US. Companies in the United States that manufacture, distribute and sell firearms, ammunition and hunting equipment employ as many as 141,500 people in the country and generate an additional 159,623 jobs in supplier and ancillary industries. These include jobs in companies supplying goods and services to manufacturers, distributors and retailers, as well as those that depend on sales to workers in the firearms and ammunition industry. These are good jobs, paying an average of $50,423 in wages and benefits. And today every job is important. In fact, workers in the United States face an unemployment rate of about 5 percent. This means that there are already nearly 8 million people trying to find jobs in the nation and collecting unemployment benefits. The economic benefits of the gun industry spreads throughout the country Not only does the manufacture and sale of firearms, ammunition, shooting and hunting supplies create good jobs in the United States but the industry also contributes to the economy as a whole. In fact, in 2016 the firearms and ammunition industry was responsible for as much as $51.3 billion in total economic activity in the country. The broader economic impact flows throughout the economy, generating business for firms seemingly unrelated to firearms. Real people, with real jobs, working in industries as varied as banking, retail, accounting, metal working, even in printing, all depend on the firearms and ammunition industry for their livelihood. The gun industry significantly contributes to tax revenue The firearms and ammunition industry generates sizable tax revenues. In the United States the industry and its employees pay over $6.5 billion in federal and state taxes including property, income and sales-based levies.
Liberals have already won the gun debate you just don't realize it

The concept of what I am saying here seems to have gone a bit over your head so hopefully I can bring it back to a level we can debate on. I am not your everyday leftist here advocating liberal values of Second Amendment destruction. You seem to have somehow misunderstood my writing and assumed that I think banning guns will stop mass murders or that I am anti-gun. That's not the issue I am here to debate so we can skip all the standard talking points you already went over. My assertion is that the idea that certain weapons are too dangerous for people to own has already been accepted by everyone in the United States and that list continues to grow. Owning automatic weapons produced after 1986 is illegal. Do you agree that this is a good thing? You yourself used the fact that fully automatic weapons are illegal in your argument! Why? Why can't we have those weapons? As you said, "Guns aren't the issue. The people who commit these sick, twisted crimes are the issue." This is just more proof that this conversation has been so slanted that your starting point, and all the arguments you present when you think I am anti-gun are to protect your right to have semi-auto "assault" rifles. So lets try this again. I will try to simplify. Do you believe that law-abiding citizens deserve access to the same military grade of weaponry that our government does? Why or why not
Liberals have already won the gun debate you just don't realize it

More gun control like the liberal party's advocacy supports will not reduce crime Firstly, people will still own guns illegally and commit crime with them Banning guns will not stop mass murders. Paddock had a legal semi-automatic rifle modified to fire fully automatically. Fully automatic rifles are illegal, but the black market exists. Private sells exist. And just like drugs, even though they're illegal, people still obtain them, sell them, use them, and ultimately get arrested and charged for possession of them. Guns aren't the issue. The people who commit these sick, twisted crimes are the issue. Believe it or not, everyone who owns a gun does not have the intention to kill someone or go on a shooting spree at a concert. Responsible and mentally-stable people own guns for reasons like self-defense. In one study, led by epidemiologist Anthony Fabio of Pittsburgh's Graduate School of Public Health, researchers partnered with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police to trace the origins of firearms that police recovered from crime scenes in the year 2008. They found that in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else. The researchers were primarily interested in how these guns made their way from a legal purchase " at a firearm dealer or via a private sale " to the scene of the crime. Therefore, the impact of abolishing the 2nd amendment is that you are essentially advocating to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens and allowing criminals to own them. Secondly, more gun control has shown to increase crime In 1976, D.C. implemented a law that banned citizens from owning guns, as only police officers were allowed to carry firearms. Those who already owned guns were allowed to keep them only if they were disassembled or trigger-locked. Trigger locks could only be removed if the owner received permission from the D.C. police, which was rare. According to prosecutor Jeffrey Shapiro, the results were not good. Annual homicides rose from 188 in 1976 to 364 in 1988, and then increased even further to 454 in 1993. The gun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, and homicides have steadily declined since then to 88 yearly murders in 2012. While Shapiro admits that there were other factors involved with the decline in homicides, lifting the gun ban clearly did not result in a rise in murders. D.C. still has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and consequently is one of the most dangerous places in the country to live, but the facts clearly show that homicides in D.C. rose after the ban was implemented and then subsequently declined after the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional.
Liberals have already won the gun debate you just don't realize it

What is the starting point for every gun debate today? Someone suggests the population shouldn't own "assault weapons" and their opponent suggests they don't have any idea what they are talking about. Which is hardly arguable. Why do we start at this point? How did we get to this paradigm where advocates for the Second Amendment accept the premise that we should not own fully automatic weapons and that is where we start the conversation? It is because those who are strongly against the Second Amendment (or perhaps those in favor of total government control) have already won the debate. Concessions to this viewpoint have already been made and those who are pro-Second Amendment have already accepted the premise that some weapons are too dangerous for private citizens to own and should only be controlled by the government. Liberties have already been severely encroached upon in favor of security. There are only two explanations for why this debate is framed the way it is today. One could be that pro-gun individuals lack the clarity to comprehend the bigger picture since it has never been brought to their attention or framed in this manner. The second is that they tacitly agree with the principles of public safety anti-gun individuals advocate. They believe the same things in principle and don't believe that the public should have access to certain weapons. If your argument is not based on principles such as equal access to weapons for government and citizens then how can you win? You are not making a principled argument when you say we should have access to AR-15s. What government entity uses AR-15s? Why are these the weapons that the line is drawn over? Does the Second Amendment guarantee your rights to bear arms unless they are automatic weapons? Eventually your rights will be paired back further and further, as they have been for many years now, until nothing is left. All in the name of public safety. Do you actually believe in the Second Amendment? Why not fight to reinstate full rights for gun owners instead of quibbling over the already pitiful list of guns the government allows you to own today? Unless you do agree, in principle, with those who want to take away your "assault weapons."
Male leadership is more effective than female one.

The PRO states "Males are also popular today and it means that male leadership is effective than female one." This may have been true many years ago, but females have caught up with men in 'popularity' and in many ways, passed men in that regard. My main argument for this debate is that, men and women are similar in many, if not most ways. In today's society I think that woman could lead just as well as men.
Sunglasses do more harm than good.

I saw this topic on the challenge period list once, but the author closed his or her account before anyone could accept. I find this topic interesting nonetheless. Sunglasses, regular glasses tinted a dark shade, are worn on beaches, sunny towns, and other places. By accepting this challenge, the contender agrees that sunglasses do more overall harm rather than good. 1. No offensive language. 2. The first round is for introduction and agreement only. I wish good luck to Pro.
Sunglasses do more harm than good.

My opponent brought up a good point about how anything can be used immorally, but it still validates my point. No matter how many other objects can be used to do immoral things, sunglasses still promote more immoral behavior than good behavior. Thus I believe I win on this point. Once again, my opponent brought up a good point about the economy, but my point still stands. America has a 9.2% unemployment rate, and those overseas sunglasses factory jobs hurt the U. S. job market, even if just by a little bit. Yes, countries have major exports, but often times those products can only be produced in those areas. Maple syrup in Canada is important because the Canadian climate is well suited for the production of high quality maple syrup, which is hard to do in America's climate. Sunglasses, however, can be produced just about anywhere. In conclusion, sunglasses promote immoral behavior and hurt the American economy and job market. Also, in my opponent's second speech, he dropped his own arguments and merely refuted mine. I believe that for the reasons I have stated above, my impacts outweigh my opponent's. Sunglasses, therefore do more harm than good, as I hope I have proven in my arguments.
Sunglasses do more harm than good.

My opponent's two main arguments are that sunglasses can be used immorally and that they damage our economy because the majority of designer sunglasses are manufactured in Italy by one company. These two situations are both not so important. Pretty much anything can be used immorally. Water can be poisoned and given to people on the streets. Baskets can contain illegal drugs. You can put a cheat sheet inside a pen cap to cheat on a test (a video of this strategy can be found on YouTube). One cannot blame sunglasses for being used immorally, as everything has been used immorally at least once. The great thing about our economy is that sunglasses aren't the only thing that can be sold. There are many more products to sell than sunglasses. Just because a few jobs are taken away, doesn't mean people can't look for new ones. Also, most countries have their own largest national export. Many products come to the U.S. from China already. For Italy, sunglasses are one of them. For Canada, maple syrup. Again, any product can take away jobs in the U.S. That is how economy works.
Sunglasses do more harm than good.

For another clarification, I, Con, believe that sunglasses do good more than they do harm. According to Dictionary. com, the definition for "sunglasses" is "eyeglasses. . . that protect the eyes from the glare of sunlight". Ultraviolet rays from the sun can cause cancer and sun burn as stated in source #2 below. To the eyes, exposure to sunlight can cause "welder's flash (photokeratitis or arc eye) and may lead to cataracts, pterygium, and pinguecula formation". Source #2 also states that protective eyewear helps block sunlight from the eyes and therefore stops these diseases and injuries from occurring. Blind people wear sunglasses because, unlike people with healthy sight, they cannot tell whether or not they are being exposed to ultraviolet light. Sunglasses provide protection to blind people who are unable to take care of their own eyesight. Though sunglasses are sometimes used for fashion, the majority of people who wear sunglasses wear them for protection. Sunglasses act as sunscreen for the eyes, so they do more good than harm. (1) . http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) . http://wiki.answers.com...
Philosophy is better than Religion for wisdom and morality.

Every man's thinking style and ideology may be unique, but philosophical lunatics are massively outweighed by religious ones. It's the stubborn and desperate nature of religion to prove itself impossibly right. Philosophy has the ability to practice what it preaches with less complications than religion. Philosophical denominations or schools of thought, whatever the equivalent may be, do not have as much personal division or conflict as religion does. The afterlife is not the priority of philosophy, so the "urgency" is not inherent in philosophical discourse. This immature sense of urgency derives from the expectations of the endtimes. These "endtimes" have been propagandized for millennia. It drives evil men to abuse faith for misguided altruism. Philosophy is more mellow, as hippie Jesus counterculture has demonstrated. Compartmentalizing the philosophical aspects within religion would serve humanity better as it would show that philosophy has more potency for freedom, as free will is a more philosophical territory than religion. Religion focuses on divinely ordained destinies and eternal fates. Without that philosophical relief, religion would be overbearing, intrusive without remorse. Jesus himself wanted to separate from the religious chains and almost did with his innovative philosophy. Main reasons philosophy is better than religion: 1. More Self-sufficiency 2. Less Scandalous Hypocrisy 3. More Peace of Mind 4. Freedom from Dogma 5. Directly Commissioned for Wisdom 6. Path to God that Jesus implicitly proved.
Philosophy is better than Religion for wisdom and morality.

Thank you Sophisto for delivering your argument in a quick and decent fashion. I would also like to quickly applaud you, as you have provided quite a unique argument for your case. First I would like to re-present my idea of human nature. According to philosophy, most religion, and even science, humans have a built in superiority complex to them. It is a part of who we are. It is incorrect to blame religion for violence and aggression because that is not one following the religion, but instead making religion justify wrongful actions. Most of the time those people are even breaking the beliefs of that religion. In the end, this whole debate comes down to what is philosophy and what is religion. According to you, both philosophy and religion are of the creation of man. Man will always have its different beliefs between each person, as man will never be united under one single philosophy or religion. There were always be quarrels between man and its beliefs, because that is simply the nature of man. From a religious perspective, Religion is the nature of God, which is perfect. Let's use the example you gave; The Catholic Church. According to the belief, it is the nature of God, but run by man. And because man is involved, it will have mistakes, simply because of the nature of man. All the examples given by pro are even people breaking the laws of the religion itself, and wrongfully using religion as a way to seem justified. A Philosophy is simply a way of thinking and trying to find the very foundation of a field of knowledge. Every act of violence ever committed on earth was committed because someone had a way of thinking, and they believed that they were justified. Not all of these were justified by religion, but all of them had their own way of thinking. As for Abolishing the Catholic Church, it is simply just not possible without violence, if at all. The church has been around for over 2,000 years, and probably will continue to for a very long time. Like a person with a cold, you can't simply kill a person for having a cold. The Church, like all other organizations with humans involved, has mistakes, but that doesn't make any one superior. It just means that they are all run by man. While there are hundreds if not thousands of religions, no two people think exactly the same, and because of such, every single person on earth will have his or her own philosophy on the world, and there will always be a conflict.
Philosophy is better than Religion for wisdom and morality.

Now, I would like to expound on my views of a superior source of human wisdom, philosophy as opposed to religion. Religion is the assumption that God communicates with man. Philosophy is the bread crumbs that God leaves man to consume. The Word of God is symbolic, which is metaphysical as well. Religion needs philosophy for the deciphering of this. Philosophy doesn't need religion, though. A cost-benefit point I would like to mention is that philosophy costs nothing other than the courage to speak your mind and the willingness to be wrong, which is more than can be said for religion. Religion cannot afford to be wrong, because its foundation is the questionable existence of a Supreme Being. Religion is gambling with resources it cannot refund. Philosophy and religion intertwine because of a metaphysical assertion that empiricism is not a complete reality. But philosophy has provided more insight into the possibilities of a transcending reality than religion. Religion doesn't stop at axioms, it arrogantly asserts that God exists and condemns the "heretics. " As for incorporating more religions than Christianity, I do so hesitantly because self-criticism is more objective than attacking other faiths. I could do that all day, but I prefer to clean house before jumping the gun. Then again, being unfair to my own faith is still biased. So, with delicacy I shall scrutinize a similar faith, Mormonism. Joseph Smith's history is not a well-kept secret. Killed by a mob, the dubious leader accused of false prophecy has a remaining legacy that exploits the nature of religion for vice. Racism, misogyny, polygamy and more are careless flaws that were perpetuated by Smith's project. Either a lord, lunatic or a liar as optioned by C. S. Lewis, Smith has almost accomplished all three, one in his followers and the two by everyone else. This irresponsible attempt at replicating Jesus' holiness may or may not have inspired copycats afterward. Jesus definitely inspired Smith, mostly in a negative way. Unacceptable. Catholicism: crusades, pedophilia, Holocaust. Those three failures of the Catholic Church should have eradicated it from humanity's tolerance. But as long as people need comfort, as if comfort was the answer to life. Philosophical extremists don't exist. They don't take the burden of proof that seriously.
Philosophy is better than Religion for wisdom and morality.

Civilized, civil civility. That's how much philosophy has compared to religion's overcompensating aggression and insecure faith. Doubt leads to improved reasoning, self-correcting and open-minded to the ever-changing environment of human history. Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Religion is the love of hate. Religion is a two-faced preacher who leads a hypocritical double life. Philosophy is adaptable. Religion is out of time. Anything religion can do, philosophy does with more peace, insight and more stability. Jesus' parables had a metaphysical nature. Sure, the parables were a moral lesson, but morality in a religious context is imprisoned to that cell of stubbornness. Without Plato's theory of forms, Jesus' parables have no hope of being deciphered. Metaphors are encrypted logic. Philosophers are sophisticated hackers penetrating God's mind whereas religion is a virus gone viral.
A Battle Of... (No.1)

OverviewA battle of...Animals. This debate has a very simply premise. We will each choose an animal in round one (a species, not a subspecies). This animal species must be mammalian, nonhuman, and must not be functionally or actually extinct. You may not claim the same animal as me.Once we have selected our animals (R1) we will use the succeeding rounds to debate which one is "better" where the criteria for what is "better" are: (a) appeal and charisma, (b) effectiveness and fitness, and (c) venerability and richness of its past. These criteria should be weigh more or less equally, and judges should evaluate arguments from an "on balance" perspective. The BOP is shared. Really off the wall semantics will not be tolerated. You must have done 1 debate to accept.Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1: Acceptance + SelectionR2: Constructive CasesR3: Rebuttals R4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals, Final FocusThanks......again to whomever accepts. I choose the Tiger as my animal.