BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should school officials be armed

Ah. I see that you, like myself, are a student. Imagine, if you're willing, hearing a single announcement on what you thought was an ordinary school day. 'There is an emergency in the building and we must lock down.' Imagine scrambling to the nearest room as you hear the telltale sound. Gunshots. It's then that you know that the shooter, for the time being, is unstoppable. The police will take a while to respond. For that amount of time, you will be locked in a dark room, with no knowledge of your friends lives, no assurance you will make it through the end of the day. From 1992-2007, for 323 students (abcnews.com) this wasn't a dream. It was a cold, harsh, reality. They never saw the sun again." 13 died in Columbine (http://www.cnn.com...), one teacher among them. Dave Sanders bled to death on the floor of a classroom, the only teacher to die in Columbine. What if he had been armed? He could have shot the gunmen and lived to return to his wife and kids. 12 students could return to their families." An Arkansas principle says"The plan we've been given in the past is `Well, lock your doors, turn off your lights and hope for the best,'" (http://m.nydailynews.com......)." And you know it's true. A piece of 'bullet proof' wood held shut with a little stick of metal won't keep out a angry psychopath with a gun." Teachers cannot re-assure their students of anything. They cannot say 'if worse comes to worse, I can protect you.' Maybe you know karate, or some other self defense method, and that's great. What will you do if a gunman enters your school? Karate chop his gun in half? Good luck. NRA officials stated 'the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'.(Http://m.cnsnews.com...) no"matter how biased you claim this to be, we all know it's true. A arrow isn't going to take down a shooter with a AR-15, and we all know it." There are certain holsters for sale that have built in safety measures to prevent accidents like the ones you mentioned above. Some require the gun-bearer to press a 'button' before drawing the gun, a safety of sorts." Police are good at what they do. At Sandy Hook, they entered the school in nine minutes (https://www.cpcanet.org...). Nine minutes was fast, but not fast enough. 26 students and teachers died (gunman not included). 6 teachers where victims (http://abcnews.go.com...). What if one of them, just one, had had a gun of their own? I'm not"saying everyone needs to have a gun. Just one or two teachers per school would be psychologically evaluated, trained, and given a gun when they have earned it. Just one or two." It won't do to outlaw guns. The second amendment protects that right, and we both know trying to overturn part of the constitution will go over as well as banning ice cream. And outlawing something won't mean people can't get a hold of it. If you need proof, just think of all the illegal drugs you can buy on the street right now. America is already trillions in the hole. Maybe we, the people, can scrap together enough pocket change to do something that will actually matter. After all, a child's life is more valuable than money
Should school officials be armed

I do not think that school officials should be armed because It could endanger our kids if they accidentally get a hold of the gun and do something like pull the trigger or take the gun out of the teachers belt. rep. Elaine Schwartz from foxnews.com says," it is truly dangerous to put guns in the hands of people who have access to our schools and authorities without any psychological testing" you might say that well what do you think there not going to get them tested psychologically but what if the teacher goes insane after the testing or secretly doesn't go to the testing.
Should school officials be armed

When the gun is not in use, the safety would be on, preventing it from going off. If the highly unlikely event of a student over powering the teacher, another teacher in the building would be armed, allowing them to shoot the student if need be. Psych. Testing might not always be accurate, but would you rather a teacher not be tested at all? After extensive searching I have not found a single case where a teacher opened fire on students. This proves that teachers can be trusted in possession of a gun. In closure, at the beginning of this debate, I asked you to imagine a scenario. Now, I ask you to imagine how that scenario would be different if you knew your teacher held a gun. You know that you'll walk out okay.
Should school officials be armed

Now I would like to say that my information was wrong and there was 13 people killed, my mistake. Doesn't the government already have enough to create a police station next to all the schools and I mean the government already makes us pay lots of taxes but that is another issue for another day. My opponent said that the gun would be in a holster with the teacher but what if a student overpowers the teacher and steals the gun or the teachers leaning against a desk and then boom! the gun goes off and we could have a teacher with a injured foot which would add to the money situation for the hospital stuff. Psych tests are not always accurate. Psychological tests cannot always adequately evaluate whether a teacher should be able to carry a firearm or not. David L. Mount, a professor at Wake Forest School of Medicine, notes that "Just because someone tests one way does not necessarily mean that they are that way. People are made up by a combination of several personality traits. There also is the chance of incorrectly labeling a person. Employers should be aware that there is no hard evidence that personality tests, like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" test, are accurate measures of one's personality." This shows that psych tests cannot really prove weather a teacher is fit to have a gun or not. There is always a chance that a teacher could misuse their gun privileges and end up hurting a student or colleague. Even if teachers have good intentions, in the case of student acting up or making threats, paranoia could result in a teacher shooting a student. The repercussions of such an action could be disastrous to the class, the student, and the teacher.
The God Debate

Hello! In the mood for a good debate on the existence of God. If you are interested in participating, comment your interest and post a link to a previous debate showing your credibility. ACCEPTANCE OF DEBATE OTHERWISE IS GROUNDS FOR IMMEDIATE FORFIEGHTURE Definition of God: a personal entity (i.e., a spirit) who necessarily is eternal, perfectly free, omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, and the creator of all things. (the greatest conceivable Being) *I will not be arguing for any specific God (I.e Yahweh, Allah, etc...) but God as defined above. Round 1- Acceptance Round 2- Opening Arguments (no rebuttals)Round 3- Rebuttal PeriodRound 4- 2nd Rebuttal PeriodRound 5- Concluding Remarks Sources: a). http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
The Slaughter of Animals for the Consumption of Meat Ought to Cease

I appreciate my opponent"s rejoinder, and would like to offer the following points in response. Moral Consistency My opponent"s point, in essence, is that you should believe animals" value can be expressed in numerical comparison to our own because"they feel that it can. Beyond their own intuitions, they offer little substantive argumentation to support their view, going so far as to concede the subjectivity of their position. Their case, in fact, suggests an effort to appeal to our emotions, and not engage in reasoned discourse. I re-iterate that my esteemed adversary shoulders the burden of proof in this exchange, and note that if they would have us assign value to animals " despite their apparent lack of imagination, complex communicative abilities, the capacity for abstract thought, intense sensations of love, hate, repentance, jealously, or any significant levels of intelligence " then I think they should describe their reasoning. My opponent claims that animals can experience "joy, pain, boredom" and seems to use these characteristics as the foundation of their comparison with humans and central to their efforts to assign moral value to the animal kingdom. But two of those traits " the ability to feel joy and boredom " are restricted, even allowing for the most unsupported conjectures in cognitive science, to apes, monkeys, and perhaps a handful of other mammals. These traits are probably not shared by most meat-producing species " like chickens, pigs, and cattle " and thus cannot be used to establish their moral worth. Attempting to establish the moral value of animals independent of human worth, my opponent claims that ending a life, any life, unnecessarily should be avoided. But vegetables are alive, and we are certainly ending their lives when we cut them, mash them, broil them, cook them, smoke them, eat them, and digest them. A response that might be given is that to live humans must eat something, and that eating vegetables is merely the lesser of two evils. But why? Why are tomatoes less worthy of life than chickens, or carrots less worthy of life than cattle? Plants metabolize, reproduce, and react to their environments just like animals do. Some have evolved sophisticated survival aids, just as animals have. It seems an arbitrary distinction to grant one group an absolute right to life and to completely dismiss the moral value of the other group. Food My opponent"s concern about the burden of proof is valid, and I do not wish to over-emphasize their responsibility in this debate. But I do not think that I must appeal to particularly unlikely or fantastical scenarios to dismantle their argument, and I am gratified to hear them abandon this line of evidence. Diseases My opponent"s objection to the consumption of meat for its nutritional benefits rests upon their moral argument, which I don"t think they"ve firmly established. I repeat that medical experts acknowledge the value of certain meats in the treatment of some diseases. Lacking compelling reasons to deprive those afflicted with such illnesses of meat, it seems useless " and even harmful " to do so.
In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote

My opponent has conceded this debate with the statement "Democracy is can only be successful when all members of society contribute". Felons are members of society. Due to the lack of an argument from my opponent, I will provide a list of democracies which allow for felon voting rights, both restricted and unrestricted: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India (yes, India allows convicted "felons" to vote after release from prison), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, South Africa (where Nelson Mandela, a convicted felon, served as President), Sweden, Switzerland, United States (where convicted felon, Sen. Ted Stevens, is not barred from voting, running for senate, and fulfilling his duties as Senator), United Kingdom, and Ukraine all allow some type of restoration of voting rights for felons. (http://felonvoting.procon.org...) Thank you.
In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote

Democracy is can only be successful when all members of society contribute. However, in the U.S> not every1 can vote. Ex. people ages 16 could be more than capable of contributing, however they cannot vote, so my opponent, who does not understand common democratic values and 3rd social studies. Again, my opponent foolishly overlooks why arguments and for some reason cannot comprehend my arguments supporting my 1st contention, so it stands. He attempts to state that he gives a U.S. example to stop my 2nd contention however, I have proven the U.S. is not a democracy. I have presented defenses to all arguments in R2, so my opponent is misinformed and my opponent has NO FRAMEWORK!!! He offers no ways to affirm the resolution. How can one vote affirmative without having any reasons. Voting Issues: 1) My V/VC and contentions all stand except for contention on semantics which my opponent cowards out of. 2) My opponent is a racist because he assumes India, a country with the largest democracy in the world as "irrelevant" 3) My opponent has no framework. I urge to vote neg.
In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote

First of all, I am perfectly clear with the U.S. ideas, since i have lived there for a substantial amount of time. Second, the resolution is not U.S. specific, it states a "democratic society" the U.S. however cannot be a model of this situaiton becuase it does not allow all members of their society to vote. The U.S. does not allow children to vote; who could be more educated than most voters. With this being stated, the U.S. cannot be a consideration for it does not represent all of the indiaviduals in a society. Without the U.S., my opponent cannot find a specific democratic society to prove his arguement while i have proven that the aff must prove this in any society which he has not. My opponent believes that prison always rehabilitates however, there are always circumstances of this not being true. My opponent's rebuttle to my first contention just soley address the U.S. system; which is inconsisnent because the U.S. is not a true democracy so my first contention stands. My opponent's rebuttle to my second contention does not realize that my second contention simply states that the Affirmative must prove this consistent in all societies, while he only sticks to the U.S., which is not a pure democratic society. My opponent's rubttle to my third contention is that it is contridictory, which i concede. So i my 3rd contention doesnt stand. My opponent's rebuttle to my 4th contention is that i am soley focused on semantics and ought= logical consequence. However he did not show how the variation of ought in serious situation is invalid. So either, my opponent finds this resolution unserious, or does not understand what oweing means. My opponent lacks any sort of framework, and offers no suggestions on why felons should vote. My second contention states the burdens the Aff faces which is left unaddressed. With these ideals in mind, I negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote

Today, we live in a world in which societies need authority. People are always self interested which is why most societies cannot flourish. Due to this fact, we must protect society and the people who believe in the society. However, the only way to do this is to find a way enforce people to respect the society. This leads to my value which is justice and my value criterion which is Retribution of individuals in society. I would like to clarify the following definitions from the Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Democracy= rule of majority Innocent= free from legal guilt or fault Felon= person who has committed a legal guilt or fault which is very serious; not innocent My first contention is that every society, including democracy requires for a discipline or something to keep balance and order. For society to survive, it must have a discipline. Some action must be done to balance out the unlawful actions that have taken place, which can greatly damage the society. Without some form of retribution, society would be essentially condoning felony. So then, it would be considered okay for me to just murder someone. Without retribution, any democratic society would devolve into chaos and despair, something as a society we are morally obliged to avoid. My second contention is that the idea of a democratic society can be in all scales large or small. The society could be a few people, or it could be millions of people. They may not even be people! With this being said, we do not know if the society is full of felons and would want to vote nor do we know if the society is free from felons. With this inconsistency, the affirmative must bear the burden of proving that felons should have the right to vote in every circumstance and situation. My third contention is that Individuals in a society may not violate other's rights in a society. The social contract, stated by John Locke, states that the people forfeit some rights to government in order to secure more rights. It also states that when an individual violates the rights of others within this government, it is the peoples and government's responsibility to act against said individual. One right violation (that of life, which is needed to utilize all other rights) allows another right violation (disenfranchisement) to exist. This retribution is needed in order to sustain order. My fourth contention is that People of a society do not owe felons the right to vote. Ought can mean 2 different things. In less serious situations, it can be used as a mere suggestion. For example, you ought to try the apple with peanut butter. In more situations, it is used as owing to. For example, the criminal ought to turn himself in. We can established that this is a very serious situation. Therefore, ought can be defined as owing. However, we do not owe these felons for anything for they have done more harm to society than contribution.
Trolls are ineffective if left unfed.

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. While I agree with Pro's presented definitions, you'll notice that the intentions of trolls were never established. Pro mentions that if left unfed, trolls will not be successful i.e. not create "chaos or trouble" on the internet. However, I contend that trolls can and do indeed cause trouble or other annoyances even if left unfed. Let's take the recent example on DDO - a troll named 9N8X (and all variations thereof). In order to "not feed" him, people were instructed to simply accept his debate challenges and forfeit their rounds [1]. However even having to keep tabs on the challenge section and accept debates the troll instigates just to keep the challenge section unclogged is indeed irritating or obnoxious. So, here we can see how taking action specifically to avoid feeding trolls is still annoying, meaning the troll has successfully annoyed others even if being left unfed. Here's another example. Suppose a troll decides to create a bunch of topics and clog up one of the forums in particular [2]. This means that even if people don't respond, the fact that they have to scroll through such a clogged forum is also annoying or inhibiting meaning the troll was once again successful without being fed. Further, consider an instance where a troll is insulting, such as banker with his anti-Islam topics [3]. Even if left unfed, i.e. ignored, the effect said troll can have or did have on the users he insulted would have still offended them even if they chose not to respond. As such, the troll has once again been effective insofar as disrupting the integrity of the site and creating unnecessary friction. A troll's objectives vary. Sometimes they intend to be funny, sometimes profound, and sometimes just agitating. I contend that all of this is possible even if people do not respond to them. While it's true that trolls will be less effective if not fed (because they won't have people "fueling the fire" so to speak), it's not accurate to say that they are completely unsuccessful or ineffective if in fact they have achieved at least one of their goals, which I'm assuming they always do. [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] http://www.debate.org...
Trolls are ineffective if left unfed.

I am debating in favour of the OBVIOUS fact that 'Trolls are ineffective if left unfed' Let me start with some definitions. Troll: A person who purposely creates chaos or trouble on the internet Ineffective: The purpose of the troll will not be effective Unfed: Not encouraged. --------- OPENING STATEMENT Troll's feed off comments that they provoke that usually differ from their own, the main phrase from that is "feed off comments". The fact is that in order to thrive they need feedback, if feedback is not given a troll cannot successfully troll. Over to the opposition to establish their case. (My opening statement is generally of my knowledge and therefore my 1st round of debating is left without links or quotes. They will be encorporated later. )
Trolls are ineffective if left unfed.

Now, while you are completely wrong, I must now take some quotes that the Lword has stated. Unfortunately the oppositon seems to be sending you subliminal messages. "While I agree with Pro's presented definitions,". You will notice the following inside of that quote: "...I agree with Pro...". He also defined 9N8X as a troll. I suspect this is because 9N8X is actually Jewish and I suspect Lword of being an anti-jew. Lword also stated that he was a nazi. Vote for a nazi and you are a nazi. vote me.
let it be resolved that all drugs should be legal

There are three types of lies, said Mark Twain, lies, damned lies and statistics. The reality is that if you tease the data hard enough you can support any conclusion or any premise. My opponent thinks he can measure 'work which was never performed in the market place'! I'm curious where he gained these powers of omniscience from. Still, even if we grant his premise - and I do not, for one second - what then of the productivity losses due to facebook? Due to cell phones and text messaging? Perhaps we should ban everything that could possibly distract someone from the holy task of obeying their bosses orders. Ban shiny objects, and jokes. Ban water coolers! But my opponents own argument is self defeating. He measures the productivity loss because all these people are incarcerated. Well duh! If we didn't have the war on drugs, they wouldn't be incarcerated. In other words, my opponents statistics are the perfect argument against his case that drugs should be legal. Not only would all these people be able to work, if they wanted to, because they weren't behind bars - we wouldn't need nearly as many guards, or prisons, or many aspects of the prison industrial complex, if drugs were legal and the government hadn't criminalized the non violent behaviour of such a vast portion of the public. Of course if you legalized drugs addict's wouldn't need to commit crimes to get their fixes! You have to understand why drugs are so expensive. The production of a KG of cocaine is not significantly more complicated that the production of a KG of flour. Yet a KG of flour will costs you a few dollars and a KG of cocaine will cost you probably over ten thousand dollars. Why? Because the price of the cocaine includes a huge risk premium for all the dealers who are facing life in jail for selling it and for all the product which is confiscated by border patrol. If these drugs were legal and bought and sold on the open market then the cost of cocaine would be closer to the cost of flour. The same with all drugs. Marijuana is a plant, there's no reason it should cost $200 an ounce except for the fact it's illegal. If these products were legalized, and especially if they were untaxed, they would cost much less. What's the relevance here? Well the reason why a heroin addict must resort to burglary or prostitution to support their several hundred dollars a day habit is because there are not many high paying jobs for heroin junkies. But if heroin was legal it would cost only pennies on the dollar today. They could support their daily habit with a couple hours of begging, or with a very low paying job. Likewise if drugs were not illegal, treatment of addiction and use in general would not be so stigmatized. This would reduce the costs to the health care system and could even reduce overall use. To me it is not a question of more or less use being preferable. That is up to the individual. If someone wants to drugs, that's their personal choice - it's their decision not yours.