BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Assault Weapons Ban

Extend. The term "assault weapon" is defined by the legislators as the following: " A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following: (i) A pistol grip. (ii) A forward grip. (iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock. (iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher. (v) A barrel shroud. (vi) A threaded barrel." Keep in mind that "grenade launchers" and "rocket launchers", in this definition, DO NOT refer to actual bazooka type weapons. Grenades and rocket launchers are ALREADY ILLEGAL. The ban targets small notches in a gun barrel which would allow such a launcher to be attached. No one has ever used a grenade or rocket launcher on one of these rifles to commit a crime in the United States, or anywhere outside of a war zone. As we can see, the term is not being used to refer to machine guns, or other military weapons. It specifically refers to semi-automatic civilian weapons. Now, I would greatly appreciate my opponent's answer to this question: What characteristic found in the above definition makes a firearm functionally more dangerous? A pistol grip? Which is a piece of plastic near the trigger? A forward grip? Another piece of plastic on the barrel? An adjustable stock? Which moves slightly to allow the gun to be held more easily? A "grenade launcher" notch? Which, really serves no purpose but to look cool. Has never been used in a crime. A barrel shroud? Which keeps hands safe from a hot barrel? A threaded barrel? Which makes maintenance slightly easier?
Assault Weapons Ban

I cannot stress enough that this debate is NOT about machine guns or actual military weapons. [1] Machine guns are not affected by "assault weapons" bans, only civilian semi-automatic weapons are affected. [1] Machine guns are in effect, already illegal and are NOT used in crime. [1] "Assault weapon" does NOT refer to machine guns (fully-automatic weapons. [1] My opponent states that pistols are safer than "assault weapons". I would appreciate his elaborating on exactly why, and providing a source. My opponent states that pistols are a better option of a gun. This is a matter of opinion and the usefulness of a firearm varies from situation to situation. i.e. an AR-15 is far better than a pistol for control of feral hogs in Texas, while a pistol may be better for home defense in an urban area. "In addition, I understand that the assault weapons are heavily regulated but there still is no reason that a larger and more dangerous assault rifle should be used instead of the smaller and less dangerous pistol." Firstly, "assault weapons" are NOT what i am talking about when I say "machine gun". Machine guns are heavily regulated, "assault weapons" are just rifles, and are regulated as such. Again, please to explain and provide a source stating "Assault weapons" are more dangerous than pistols. If we were discussing the First Amendment, would you believe that we can interpret it as applying to only certain books, newspapers, or religions? i.e. "You are free to practice any religion you want, but it has to be one from this list of approved religions. I believe the answer would be no. The second amendment cannot be arbitrarily restricted, as was ruled in DC v. Heller. Common firearms that are commonly used legally, are protected. My opponent may disagree, but the Supreme court is what determines constitutionality. The reason for people's opposition to this ban is that AR-15's and the like are very commonly owned, excellent firearms, and are barely ever used in crime. We don't want our firearms to be taken away for no good reason. Would you be okay if we said you aren't allowed to own this particular car, because your neighbor's car is just as good and you can buy one of those? Absolutely not, that would be absurd, because nothing good comes from you getting a different car. Same thing with these rifles. We already had a ban on them before, and it did not work.[2] So no good comes from such a ban other than a stepping stone to taking away more guns. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... (keep in mind that the ban is understood as working if and only if it reduced violent crime rates. Taking away law abiding people's guns does not constitute success.)
Assault Weapons Ban

Regarding your statement, "The ban does NOT apply to machine guns, which are already essentially banned for purchase and are never used in crime." First, I would like for you to tell me, which source justifies this definition you asserted because I have my source but I do not see yours. Second, I was not saying that assault weapons are frequently used in crimes. I was making the point that the overall safety of the pistol is higher than the overall safety of the assault weapon. Since the pistol is the better option of a gun, there is no reason to want an assault weapon because it not only decreases your own personal safety but also the safety of those around you and people are entitled to their own personal safety within reason. In addition, I understand that the assault weapons are heavily regulated but there still is no reason that a larger and more dangerous assault rifle should be used instead of the smaller and less dangerous pistol. This would be interfering with the safety of others. The final issue that I would like to discuss would be that the ban would be not unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms. If we ban assault weapons, then people will still have the right to bear arms. That right is no being changed. The outcome of that ban would be limiting the choices of guns that can be used. However, the 2nd amendment would still be in place. The main issue that I would like for you to discuss in the next round is the reasons that there needs to be assault weapons instead of just the standard pistol. I do not understand or see the reason that is preventing people from agreeing to sacrifice a specific set of guns.
Jesus was a schizophrenic madman

Pro. Who claims to be an atheist, gives far to much credence to the tale of Jesus Christ and to the mythology that preceded and succeeded the life of Jesus. That is assuming that the Jesus of the tale, was actually a real person. In fact. Pros proposition is based entirely on assumption and also, entirely on their own interpretation of the mythical/fantastic/supernatural events that supposedly occurred during Jesus' lifetime. Con asserts that, the whole Christian myth was instigated by and perpetuated by others. Others that saw benefit and value in the creation and perpetuation of the myth. Others that saw benefit and value in the manipulation of the family of a simple, gullible itinerant carpenter and his equally simple and gullible wife. If Jesus did exist. He was merely a simple pawn in the political games of clever manipulative people who sought personal wealth and power. Con would conclude that it is irrational to make assumptions about the mental health of someone, who has been deceased for two thousand years. Especially if those assumptions are based solely on a mythological text, containing what can only be regarded as fictitious accounts of fictitious, supernatural events. There is no rational evidence whatsoever, to suggest that "Jesus was a schizophrenic madman".
Jesus was a schizophrenic madman

Well, if we can discard the gospel account of the crucifixion, I think we can also disregard its account of the virgin birth and, more importantly here, the claims made by Mary.I propose this alternative:Jesus espoused his ideology (or some rant that appeared much like what has been recorded) and many of his sycophants and other people who were in lower lower classes (whether due to actual inability to work or just laziness, recall this is an age before any welfare system truly existed) opted to copy his ideology. Trying this on people throughout the region of Judea and finding that it failed, they invented many stories regarding the supposed "divinity" of their bronze age Marx. These were, of course, impossible and contradictory (see Gospel of Mark's account of how at the moment of crucifixion, the dead in Jerusalem came back and walked around). Now, I would posit that some of these were based on the insane claims of the Nazarene madman. Granted, a schizophrenic's claims would be scattered and nearly impossible to understand (this bread is my body).
Jesus was a schizophrenic madman

LOL. An idle carpenter who mooches around making outlandish claims and not really doing anything. Sounds just like my Brother in Law. Seriously. 1. We're both atheists. So I would assume we are in agreement about the whole son of god, immaculate conception thing being a myth. Sure, Jesus could be based on an actual character. Jesus could have been his real name. But let's not forget, that it wasn't Jesus who instigated and perpetuated this myth. Jesus was just an innocent baby when everything kicked off. I would suggest that Jesus and his family were not the madmen. But those who coerced and subsequently manipulated them into going along with the nonsense. I would also suggest that there are obvious comparisons to be made here with the formative years of the Dalai Lama. And I'm sure no one would suggest that his conditioning caused the onset of a schizophrenic and mad personality. 2. Jesus showed no fear at his execution/crucifixion. How do we know that? All we have are the words of those who saw benefit and value in the perpetuation of the Christian myth. I bet Jesus the poor fall guy, was actually bricking it!
Jesus was a schizophrenic madman

I was actually hoping to piss of Christians, but this might be more interesting.You doubt the veracity of Jesus of Nazareth because of the outlandish claims of his magical abilities. This is foolish. Of course there had to be somebody there. Hundreds of early adherents discussed him. Chances are, he was more like a schizophrenic and primitive version of Marx; ranging from claims of divinity and talking about some world in the hereafter (of which he never provided proof) to demands for handouts and more charity (a wandering carpenter who never appeared to be employed seems to be constantly mooching off of people).One piece of evidence for this is that schizophrenia is not something one is born with, but something that one develops. Jesus did not start his wandering until he was in his thirties (According to most accounts). This can be taken that Jesus developed schizophrenia. In addition, his lack of fear when faced with the possible punishment of crucifixion comes across as someone who does not grasp the gravity of the situation: a split from reality, which schizophrenia is.
Jesus was a schizophrenic madman

Hello. Your a bit of a mixed up sort of a person. One minute you believe in a god of sorts and the next minute your claiming to be an atheist. If you are an atheist and don't believe in the Christian god. Then surely you don't believe the tale of Jesus to be true. Therefore Jesus must have been a mythical person. Did the teller of the tale of Jesus, ascribe schizophrenia and madness to him? I certainly can't remember it being mentioned before. By the way, I'm definitely an atheist.
Slenderman vs. Jeff

Yea, sure. Jeff Dunham, as opposed to slenderman, is a ventriloquist and a stand-up comedian who has appeared on TV shows such as: The Tonight Show, Sonny With a Chance, and The Late Show. So obviously, slenderman's idiotic hypno-stare will only work on his talking dummy. Then, Jeff, being the smart human he is, can simply pull out his .44 magnum, and blow off slenderman's faceless head. Ventriloquists also have the supernatural power to throw their voice, making it sound like they are somewhere else in the room. So once faceless slendy tries to follow the sound, Jeff can pull out his magnum and again, blow Mr. S into oblivion. Slender is an amateur compared to Jeff Dunham. And Jeff is a comedian too, so he's cooler than the slender looking man.
Slenderman vs. Jeff

In the comments, which you obviously had enough time to see them, I said Jeff THE KILLER, NOT JEFF DUNHAM!!! Plz stop making it a troll debate, I just want to do a regular debate, plz. Anyway: Slenderman is a tall, slender figure with 8 tentacles extruding his back, and no face. He is considered the most famous of the creepy pastas; horror short stories http://creepypasta.wikia.com....... Slenderman is seen as a figure that lures people into a hypnotic state with his stare (even though he doesn't have a face, weird :P),in this state, the people walk in a trance like state, right into Slendeman's grasp. Once there, nobody really knows what happens to the people once Slenderman gets to them, but many people believes he impales them in one of his eight tentacle, killing them. But nobody really knows. if Jeff the Killer, another creepypasta, tries to fight good ol' slendy, he will become hypnotized, and travel right into sledy's grasp. End of discussion
Gun Control

Okay, you did make good arguments, but here are some undeniable facts(supported with sources). A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that 'Legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long lasting increased risk of violent death'. Here's the source where I found this piece of information: David Frum, "Are Gun Accidents 'Very Rare'?," www.thedailybeast.com, Feb. 20, 2013 According to a March 10th, 2016 Lancet study, implementing federal universal background checks could reduce firearm deaths by a projected 56.9%. P. Cummings, T.D. Koepsell, D.C. Grossman, J. Savarino, and R.S. Thompson, "The Association between the Purchase of a Handgun and Homicide or Suicide," American Journal of Public Health, June 1997 Of the 29,618,300 violent crimes committed between 2007 and 2011, 0.79% of victims(235,700) protected themselves with a threat of use or use of a firearm, the least employed protective behavior. Michael Planty and Jennifer L. Truman, "Firearm Violence, 1993-2011," www.bjs.gov, May 2013 A June 2013 Institute of Medicine report states that 'almost all guns used in criminal acts enter circulation via initial legal transaction'. That means that legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals. Institute of Medicine, "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence," www.iom.edu, June 5, 2013 So these are the arguments I've just presented: More gun control laws would reduce gun deaths, guns are rarely used in self defense, and legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals.
Gun Control

I have to say that you yourself lacked evidence yet you criticized me not having any quotes. So I will change that. #1. We have a background check. I'll type it slowly, back-ground check! In order for anyone to actually buy a gun they have to get a background check to see if they have criminal records. Nothing new here. Besides, you mention Chicago, the murder capital of the U.S. You must know that Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country yet over Chicago has had over 650 murders this year alone! Look it up. http://heyjackass.com... If you restrict the gun laws to make it would be very difficult for anyone to get a gun, do you know who will follow those laws? Answer - the law abiding citizens. So know it is very difficult for a "good guy" to get a gun so now the criminals have guns because criminals break the laws and now law abiding citizens can't defend themselves. You mentioned gun-related suicides as well. Here is an article on how many people commit suicide. https://afsp.org... So the article says in 2014 the suicide per capita was ~13 per 100,000 people, yet the gun per capita data in the U.S. does not go hand in hand. In the United States there are approximately 88 guns per 100 people or 270 million guns total. So the suicide rate compared to guns in the U.S. is very low. Let's look at South Korea and their suicide rate just as another example. This is a bit older from the Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com... South Korea nearly has 25 suicides per 100,000 people, about double that of the U.S. So South Korea must just have guns spilling out onto the streets. Right? Wrong. According to another article from the Washington post, South Korea has 1.1 guns per 100 people. So that means that the United States has 88x the amount of guns per capita than in South Korea, yet their suicide rate is double the United States. It's a myth, and here is the article to prove that. http://www.washingtonpost.com... Oh, and here is one from Duke with sources and everything proving what I have just spoke about. https://people.duke.edu... So you see, I have proven that gun control is just myths, no matter what people want to say: people get background checks to get a gun, number of guns in this country to not stimulate the suicide rate, and gun control just doesn't work.
Gun Control

You lack sources in your argument(links, quotes, etc.). The more people with guns equals a greater chance for suicides, and self harming. We can't let just any one own a gun, for example, what happens if a psychopath gets a hold of a gun ? Said psychopath is likely to flip out and shoot people who live in approxamity to him or her. You said it yourself. Thousands of people are losing their lives in Chicago each day due to gun violence. Now if we were to have stricter laws and regulations on guns, then we might be able to make it harder for criminals to buy guns. And, if we require background checks for gun purchases, then we'll be able to see who's a felon, or a rapist, or a psychopath, or someone who was arrested for weapon related crimes in the past, etc. Of course we just can't go breaking down doors and taking guns from people, we just need to have stricter gun purchasing laws and require background checks for all citizens who want to purchase a gun.
Gun Control

Guns legally owned help reduce crimes from taking place and make our communities safer. If you were to disarm every single American, the only people with guns would be criminals since criminals break the law by their very nature. If someone were to open fire where there is a large group of people with no ways to protect themselves, there would be a massacre when the police would get there. This is called a gun free zone. The worst is when people advocate for gun free schools because the first line of defense would be a legally armed teacher who would protect the students. Maybe school massacres wouldn't happen if the perpetrator was shot because he could kill class after class. Look at Chicago, home of gun restriction in America. There has been THOUSANDS of shootings this year, and hundreds have lost their lives. Gun control is bad for our country and gets innocent people killed every year.
Rap battle: Sigmund Freud vs. Rene Descartes

Freud, or Fraud? The answer's pretty clear. You have absoloutely no excuse for being so f***ing queer. Your theory's are garbage, yet you can't even tell. You want to f**k your mum then your dad all the way to hell. - You invented free association, isn't that enough? The biggest scam in therapy; yeah, I'm calling your bluff. Sitting on your a**, listening to random crap. It doesn't do sh*t, I should give you a slap. - I'm a philospher, I'm rich, and on top of that I'm French. How can you compete when your rapping makes me clench. You're a fake, a forgery, your methods are a placebo. So quit trying to compensate for your abnormal libido.
Rap battle: Sigmund Freud vs. Rene Descartes

You desperate loser, you f***ed your servant girl Helene And gave your stupid child the awful name Francine. I’m hardcore. I did cocaine and made a psychosexual theory. All you do is philosophize and drink French wines–like a fairy. --- You tried to delve into physiology with your faulty Balloonist Theory. You aren’t a doctor like me, Descartes. Of this you should be weary. Your rhymes are all primitive, ‘cause your super-ego’s lacking. I’m smokin’ your a** like tobacco in the cigars I’m packing. --- They say my theories are abstract. They should see Cartesianism. You offer baseless depictions of the mind-body schism. Your appearance is stranger than my middle name Schlomo. I’m a sexy psychiatrist, and you’re a little French homo. --- Shout-out to my boy Wilhelm. Peace.
Rap battle: Sigmund Freud vs. Rene Descartes

Psychoanalysis? Yeah, that's pretty cool.A pity it comes from such a f***ing tool.I invented modern philosphy, you can't compare.If cancer doesn't kill you then you better say your prayers.-Look at you sitting there, addicted to cocaine.You better understand that I'm about to bring the pain.Cogito ergo sum is what allows us to exist.I'm gonna end up popping you, like a giant cyst. -You invented penis envy, to cover up your shame.We all know it's cause your own d**k was so lame.As for my hair, all long and vibrant.Your just jealous cause your bald like a fire-hydrant.
Rap battle: Sigmund Freud vs. Rene Descartes

Sigmund Freud here, the father of psychoanalysis, Here to beat Descartes into a state of paralysis. What are you even known for? “Cogito ergo sum”? Cogito you’re a twit. Now kiss my Austrian bum. - And no one respects your flawed Ontological argument. Little Descartes, I’ll hang you up like a French ornament. Now please lay down on my couch. You’re in an angry frenzy. You have long hair like a woman. You must have Penis Envy. - It seems I have "reverse" Oedipus Complex. Oh, bother. I’ve been f***ing your mother, and I’m out to kill your father. When people think of psychology, they think of Sigmund Freud. While in philosophy, Descartes is a name they ought to avoid.
Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote.

I agree all men are created equal. As were these convicted convicted felons. But from their actions did they make themselves unequal. If they were to have abided by the rule of law in a democratic society then they would still be of an equal rank. Also my opponent mentioned what if some legislation created slavery again. Well my friend if that happened then that certain bill would exclude said country from being a democratic society in which we are debating thus being not topical. Also my opponent said that i am putting felons on a lower rank than the general American. Well to this I say I am. Because in a fight for justice a society must be obedient to laws. As Thrasymacus once said Justice is obedience to laws. Thus these convicted felons are not helping pursue justice only harming it. I would also like to point out i am not advocating an eye for an eye policy. I am advocating a crime and punishment policy. My opponent also said John Lockes social contract does not apply, but this is the basis of our country, he then says it is not in our constitution, but its in the declaration in which the constitution spawned from. He also said it didn't apply because its 400 years old but then mentioned the constitution which is 200 years old, they both apply. My opponent also said that this is not a punishment because felons don't vote often. But then he contradicts himself by saying felons were interested in voting in the 2000 and 2008 elections. Furthermore if negating this resolution provided deterrence for lets say 1% of the crimes it would be worth while because it would bring said democratic society closer to justice and my opponent inherently said that this does provide some deterrence when he said"most felons don't vote" meaning some value it thus it is a deterrence.