BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons.

How is it extreme for people to have equal rights? If the mentally ill are not given the same rights, especially seeing how common mental illnesses are, then it is no right. Either that or you are denying them their basic rights.As you can see from my last argument, the mentally ill are far more likely to be the victim of violence than to inflict it.A right cannot be something given only to some people, over something they have no control.Not to mention they need to be able to protect themselves, and the government has historically mistreated the mentally ill.The euginics movement for instance was primarly focused on the mentally ill and developmentally disabled.Also, abusive mental institutions were common for much of us history, where the mentally ill were often outright forgotten about.Lobotomies were used to treat patients with PTSD as well as many other mental illnesses.Society has shown itself to be a much bigger threat to the mentally ill than the other way around. Mental illness isn't a crime, and they are human.Regardless, the mentally ill that seek treatment are by far the least likely to be violant, and restricting access to guns may for some be a factor to not seek treatment.To conclude, the mentally ill are not dangerus. The mentally ill seeking treatment are even less likely to be violant than those not, and such restrictions only affect those seeking treatment also becoming a deterrent to proper treatment.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.uniteforsight.org...http://www.bbc.com...
Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons.

I promise you I am not trolling. The mentally ill make up a very real and fairly large part of the usa, and as such their rights should be protected. Just as it is wrong and illegal to kill a person fighting mental illness due to their protected right to live.The mentally ill are far more likely to be attacked than to attack anyone, and the vast majority of the time are not violent in any way.I do deal with mental illness, actually. So you don't support my right to own a gun.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Mentally healthy adults have the right to use guns for lawful reasons.

My argument is that the right to defend one's self shouldn't depend on mental health. After all, a right is not a right if it is denied to 1 in 5 people. Not to mention an attack on veterans, who often experience mental illness after active service. 31 Percent of them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.nami.org... https://www.rand.org...
I will not contradict myself

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org......... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with yes, no, or an explanation as to why neither is correct or accurate. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. 10. CON's questions should not require PRO to have significant prior knowledge (for example, asking PRO whether the answer to a complex equation is correct, or a detailed question pertaining to the U.S. Civil War). Questions can still be complex, but not mentally demanding.
I will not contradict myself

"Congrats, mongeese, on four rounds well played. Your attacks last round totally caught me by surprise. Keep it up in R5! " Will do! "But he was also strengthening the left. His decision benefited both the right and the left, so he was also left in making his decision. " So, he was both Left and Right? Then he was still Right. "That doesn't mean he is categorically right. The possibility of him never agreeing at all with the left is astronomically low. While Limbaugh may be very conservative most of the time, he is not politically right all the time. He may claim to be 100% conservative, but he is wrong in this. " He agrees with the Left at the points where the Left and the Right agree. He sides with the Right on disputes. "The first part of the article pertains to Rush Limbaugh. It says '[Rush Limbaugh] pooh-poohs global warming and even boasts about wasting energy. Nothing conservative about that. Rush is saying, in effect, 'if it feels good, do it' – an attitude straight from the New Left. '" The attitude is not what decides the political ideology. It is the opinion. The Right doesn't have a concrete opinion on global warming. . http://www.thedailygreen.com... So, he is on a non-green branch of the Right, but that still places him on the Right. As to all of my opponent's regards to Contradictions 3 and 4, it seems as if he has missed the one part that was the reason why I asked Question 24. A child can still shave himself, sure. However, re-read Question 11. "11. If there is a barber who only shaves all men that don't shave themselves, does he shave himself? " Notice that the barber only shaves men, and my opponent agrees that children aren't men. If the barber is a child, he doesn't shave himself, because he only shaves men. He does not shave himself. All of my opponent's rebuttals have to do with the fact that children can still shave themselves, but we know that this barber cannot shave himself, because he is a child, and he only shaves men. In conclusion, Contraditions 3 and 4 remain.
I will not contradict myself

I can only assume that mongeese has dropped his previous claim about my profile, as he did not bring it up in R3 or R4. < > But he was also strengthening the left. His decision benefited both the right and the left, so he was also left in making his decision. < > That doesn't mean he is categorically right. The possibility of him never agreeing at all with the left is astronomically low. While Limbaugh may be very conservative most of the time, he is not politically right all the time. He may claim to be 100% conservative, but he is wrong in this. Here's another link: http://www.thedailygreen.com.... The first part of the article pertains to Rush Limbaugh. It says "[Rush Limbaugh] pooh-poohs global warming and even boasts about wasting energy. Nothing conservative about that. Rush is saying, in effect, "if it feels good, do it" – an attitude straight from the New Left. Contradictions three and four can be addressed together by showing that the answer is still 'neither'. I shall show that it is impossible to answer either 'yes' or 'no' to question 11. Mongeese says that the barber could be a child prodigy. That doesn't mean he cannot shave himself. Shave (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) 1) To sever the hair from (the head or another part of the body) close to the roots; to cut off (hair or beard) close to the skin. Shaving of hair on the head is a common practice in the military, and often takes place among civilian populations. President Barack Obama even ordered that Steven Colbert's hair be shaved [2]! Before mongeese dismisses this by pointing out the use of the word 'haircut', note that shaving someone's head is a method of cutting their hair. They are not mutually exclusive. Now,a barber who is a child prodigy could easily shave his head, arms, or legs. However, without knowledge of his actions, I cannot say whether or not he shaves himself. The answer to question 11 is still neither, although, in this light, my previous answer was incomplete. A complete, corrected answer should read: "11. If there is a barber who only shaves all men that don't shave themselves, does he shave himself? This question is impossible to answer with a 'yes' or 'no', as either answer is logically impossible. If the barber shaves himself, then he cannot shave himself. If he cannot shave himself, then he must shave himself, and the cycle continues. If he is a child, it is still impossible to say. Without more knowledge, it is unknown whether this male child shaves his head, arms, or legs. Neither answer is appropriate." This answer doesn't contradict my previous answer, it just makes it more correct. It is still logically impossible to discern the answer. < > Congrats, mongeese, on four rounds well played. Your attacks last round totally caught me by surprise. Keep it up in R5! Voters, still vote Pro! [2] http://www.colbertnation.com...
I will not contradict myself

"Only in his vote for Obama. By encouraging Powell to actually join the left, Rush is strengthening it. There is a difference between Colin Powell supporting the left, and Colin Powell explicitly joining the left." Colin Powell had views of the Left. He was just a Left-supporting parasite for the Right, and Rush challenged him to stop claiming to be a conservative. Rush was Right when he rid the Right of someone who did no good for the Right. By having Powell join the Left, the people of the Right would no longer support Powell, so there would no longer be any confusion in supporting regarding that matter. "Besides, even if my example above is not accepted, Rush Limbaugh is not always politically right." Wrong. Rush Limbaugh is the Right. http://voices.washingtonpost.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Rush Limbaugh defines the conservative movement. Contradiction #3: The Barber "11. If there is a barber who only shaves all men that don't shave themselves, does he shave himself? This question is impossible to answer with a 'yes' or 'no', as either answer is logically impossible. If the barber shaves himself, then he cannot shave himself. If he cannot shave himself, then he must shave himself, and the cycle continues. Neither answer is appropriate." "24. Are all male humans men? No." Toast never realized that the barber could be a child prodigy. The point is, any male human could be a barber, and because not all of them are men, this allows for the possibility that the barber is not a man. If the barber is not a man, then he could shave all men who don't shave themselves, and not shave himself, as he is not a man, but a boy. If all male humans are men, then the barber might not be a man, so if he cannot shave himself, he can still not shave himself. "If he cannot shave himself, then he must shave himself..." Contradiction #4: Ability "11. If there is a barber who only shaves all men that don't shave themselves, does he shave himself? This question is impossible to answer with a 'yes' or 'no'..." "22. Are you capable of typing any answer you want, provided that it can be typed using your keyboard and you suffer no disabilities? Yes, provided I don't acquire a disability while typing, and that the answer exists." It is already established that the answer is "no," because the barber must be a boy, not a man. Toast said that he can answer any question as long as the answer exists. He has proven capable of typing "yes" and "no" multiple times. Therefore, he must be able to answer #11 as "no." However, he said that this is impossible. This is contradictory. There you have it. Three contradictions. Good luck with your responses, Toast.
I will not contradict myself

< > Only in his vote for Obama. By encouraging Powell to actually join the left, Rush is strengthening it. There is a difference between Colin Powell supporting the left, and Colin Powell explicitly joining the left. <> I assumed that capitalizing right was a typo. Besides, even if my example above is not accepted, Rush Limbaugh is not always politically right. 21. Is your answer for question 12 true? Yes. 22. Are you capable of typing any answer you want, provided that it can be typed using your keyboard and you suffer no disabilities? Yes, provided I don't acquire a disability while typing, and that the answer exists. 23. Are you going to fail to answer this question in a way that allows for the possibility of the answer being positive, negative, or unknown? Yes. 24. Are all male humans men? No. 25. Is there a possibility that your tournament bracket will be used? No. L-M stated himself that another bracket would be made. For the purpose of this answer, I trust L-M's word. 26. Is it possible that any number of people of any combination will drop out of the L-M Classic (excluding L-M himself) and any number of people will join? No. 27. Are logically impossible things possible? No (in my opinion). I have tried to research this to no avail. I am answering 'no' because I believe there is a logical explanation for everything. 28. Besides your photos, is your profile true? No. 29. Are all of your answers for questions 21-24 true? Yes. 30. Are all of your answers for questions 25-28 true? I don't know. No matter how much I think about #27, my answer is a guess at best right now. Without this knowledge, neither 'yes' nor 'no' is appropriate.
I will not contradict myself

"Rush Limbaugh encouraged Colin Powell to become a Democrat. Colin Powell is a rather prolific figure, and he would be a good acquisition for the U.S. left. Although he is doing so because he disagrees with Colin, Limbaugh is encouraging him to strengthen the U.S. left. If he were always politically right, he would not do this." You say yourself that it was out of disagreement. You misunderstand what Rush did. He knew that Colin Powell claimed to be a Republican, but had the policies of a Democrat, so Limbaugh said that Powell should declare himself a Democrat so that nobody would confuse him for a Republican. Powell was already strengthening the U.S. Left. Limbaugh just wanted everybody on the Right to realize this, so that they would stop supporting Powell. His actions were Right. "Even then, my opponent uses the last definition of right. If we look to the other definitions of right (suitable, appropriate, proper, correct), we see that Rush Limbaugh is not always right." Ah, but my definition is the only one that would be capitalized without being at the beginning of a sentence. 21. Is your answer for question 12 true? 22. Are you capable of typing any answer you want, provided that it can be typed using your keyboard and you suffer no disabilities? 23. Are you going to fail to answer this question in a way that allows for the possibility of the answer being positive, negative, or unknown? 24. Are all male humans men? 25. Is there a possibility that your tournament bracket will be used? 26. Is it possible that any number of people of any combination will drop out of the L-M Classic (excluding L-M himself) and any number of people will join? 27. Are logically impossible things possible? 28. Besides your photos, is your profile true? 29. Are all of your answers for questions 21-24 true? 30. Are all of your answers for questions 25-28 true?
I will not contradict myself

< > Coincidentally, I thought of this when answering the question. Even if we consider the political definition of 'right', Rush Limbaugh is not always right. So long as he has agreed with leftists at least once in his life, he is not always right. Rush Limbaugh encouraged Colin Powell to become a Democrat [1]. Colin Powell is a rather prolific figure, and he would be a good acquisition for the U.S. left. Although he is doing so because he disagrees with Colin, Limbaugh is encouraging him to strengthen the U.S. left. If he were always politically right, he would not do this. Even then, my opponent uses the last definition of right. If we look to the other definitions of right (suitable, appropriate, proper, correct), we see that Rush Limbaugh is not always right. < > In my profile, I posted a tournament bracket for the L-M Classic. It will not be used, so it is not the true L-M Classic bracket. This doesn't contradict my reality. It does make my profile false. 11. If there is a barber who only shaves all men that don't shave themselves, does he shave himself? This question is impossible to answer with a 'yes' or 'no', as either answer is logically impossible. If the barber shaves himself, then he cannot shave himself. If he cannot shave himself, then he must shave himself, and the cycle continues. Neither answer is appropriate. 12. Have you ever plagiarized? No. 13. Are the answers blowing in the wind? I don't understand this question. If you elaborate, I'd be glad to answer next round. Until then, neither 'yes' nor 'no' is appropriate. 14. In conflict, should life be valued over liberty? Yes, so long as a good quality of life is maintained. That doesn't mean that life should be completely regulated, or that liberty shouldn't be somewhat restricted. 15. Are you sneaky? Yes, I can be. 16. Are you going to fail to answer this question in a way that allows for the possibility of answering this question? No. I succeeded at answering this question in a way that allows for the possibility of answering it. 17. Have you ever deceived? Yes. 18. Do you live within 1,000 miles of Texas? Yes. 19. Are all of your answers for questions 11-14 true? No, as #14 is subjective. 20. Are all of your answers for questions 5-8 true? Yes. [1]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...
I will not contradict myself

My opponent has contradicted himself. "3-6. Is [Rush Limbaugh] always Right? No." "10. Are all of your answers for questions 5-8 true? Yes." However, Rush Limbaugh is always Right. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Right - often capitalized - of, adhering to, or constituted by the Right especially in politics http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] The Right is a conservative position. http://en.wikipedia.org... Rush Limbaugh is always a conservative, and therefore, Rush Limbaugh is always Right. My opponent's answer to #2 is also contradictory, as his reality contradicts his profile. 11. If there is a barber who only shaves all men that don't shave themselves, does he shave himself? 12. Have you ever plagiarized? 13. Are the answers blowing in the wind? 14. In conflict, should life be valued over liberty? 15. Are you sneaky? 16. Are you going to fail to answer this question in a way that allows for the possibility of answering this question? 17. Have you ever deceived? 18. Do you live within 1,000 miles of Texas? 9. Are all of your answers for questions 11-14 true? 10. Are all of your answers for questions 5-8 true?
I will not contradict myself

1. Are all of your opinions on the BIG issues true? Yes, in that they are my opinions. Note, the BIG issues can be misleading. For example, I am for civil unions AND gay marriage. While civil unions do 'get in the way' of gay marriage, they at least provide LGBT couples with benefits. So, until gay marriage is approved, I am pro civil unions. Also, I am against gun rights. This doesn't mean that I am against ALL gun rights, just against total free reign. I think that there should be restrictions on gun ownership. 2. Is everything else in your profile true? No. 3-6. Is Barack Obama always Right? (Joe Biden, John McCain, Rush Limbaugh) No. 7. Do you believe that the United States Federal Government should go against the U.S. Constitution? Yes, but only in exceedingly rare cases. 8. Are all opinions you expressed in your debates and in the forums yours? No. 9. Are all of your answers for questions 1-4 true? Yes. 10. Are all of your answers for questions 5-8 true? Yes. It seems that I posted a bad link in R1. Here is the corrected form: http://en.wikipedia.org...
I will not contradict myself

1. Are all of your opinions on the BIG issues true? 2. Is everything else in your profile true? 3. Is Barack Obama always Right? 4. Is Joe Biden always Right? 5. Is John McCain always Right? 6. Is Rush Limbaugh always Right? 7. Do you believe that the United States Federal Government should go against the U.S. Constitution? 8. Are all opinions you expressed in your debates and in the forums yours? 9. Are all of your answers for questions 1-4 true? 10. Are all of your answers for questions 5-8 true?
Smashing TVs are fun.

Smashing TVs are not fun....1) Can lead to injuries to the person smashing the TV or to somebody near the incident (by broken glass etc.)2) TVs are expensive to replace ( they can cost over $600 to replace or buy a new one)3) Why spend money to but a TV and then smash for exercising your arms will you could go exercise ona gym for a membership fee starting from $20.4) As pro has said: Proving how strong you are to your friends by smashing a TV can make feel better. Why can't you have a arm wrestle or fight with one another or by lifting heavy weigths to prove you are strong.5) As pro has said: Smashing TVs can relieve stress.TVs cannot relieve stress. It will add more stress to find money to but a new TV to smash it again.All pro arguments are not good arguments to show why smahing TVs are fun.
Smashing TVs are fun.

Why smashing TVs are fun. 1. Smashing TVs can relieve stress. 2. Smashing TVs boosts adrenaline. 3. Smashing TVs is also a good form of workout by exercising your arms. 4. Smashing TVs are fun because it makes you feel energetic. 5. Proving how strong you are to your friends by smashing a TV can make feel better. 6. Do you want to smash TVs?
Smashing TVs are fun.

This debate does connect to what my arguments were such as people could get injured or the cost of TVs is too much as neglected by my opponent stating "This debate was whether TVs are fun or not, not the fact that people could get injured or cost of TVs." Clearly, it connects because if you smash the TV and you get a cut (injury), you are not having fun because you are in pain (don't dare say you can shrug of that pain or its nothing). Also the cost of TVs can make it not fun because you need to find a way to buy a new TV which is a pain. First of my Opponents reasons why smashing TV is fun. He stated (Smashing TVs can relieve stress). Obviously it does not, It increases the stress to buy a new to TV is wanted because it cost $100 said by opponent or more. But it can be used to get food, pay rent/mortgage, hydro or electricity. $100 can mean a lot unless you are a ruthless trillionaire. Second, my opponent states "Smashing TVs boosts adrenaline". It may because you are smashing something big and it broke because you are strong. But it could also not boost adrenaline because you are standing at the same spot and just breaking TV by throwing it or kicking it etc. This is my same answer for the fourth argument stated by my opponent "Smashing TVs boosts adrenaline" Third of my opponent's arguments " Smashing TVs is also a good form of workout by exercising your arms." There isn't an argument for this because it is true. But there could have been a cheaper alternative to workout and exercising your arms such as going to gyms and lifting dumbbells. Fifth of my opponent's arguments stating "Proving how strong you are to your friends by smashing a TV can make you feel better." It actually proves how stupid you are. People aren't going to say 'Oh My goodness, he smashed a TV, he is so strong'. They are actually going to say "What a stupid guy. He broke a TV worth over $100. He is crazy!!!" This will make you feel more worse because you are being criticized as being stupid. the sixth argument of my opponent made no sense at all. Now to my arguments. My arguments basically disproves my opponents statement of smashing TV is fun. This is a poll created by me asking Is smashing TV fun? http://www.debate.org... This has been a great debate. I think this was the best one I had yet. Looking forward to who wins!!!!!! Thanks yay28 for this debate