BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Firearm bans are unconstitutional and not effective.

I've sold firearms for almost two years now, in Texas. We started our right to carry option after a massacre at a Luby's restaurant in 1991. Since then we have seen less violence than other states with regard to firearms in "gun free" zones. I find it ludicrous that schools should be "gun free" when that makes them obvious targets to psycho dissidents. On a second note, AR-15 (ArmaLite-15) style rifles are just semi-automatic rifles, no different from any other rifle except cosmetics are demonized. I find this repulsive, as they are used WIDELY in Texas for hog hunting and 3-gun shooting competition, among other shooting sports. They are just like any other gun, and if Adam Lanza couldn't get one, he'd have used the much more powerful Glock 20 (10mm) or Sig Sauer of undefined specs to do the same damage. Why are we bullying the rifle when the handguns are just as capable? Why are we bullying any gun when anybody is capable? If guns are responsible for murder, then forks are responsible for obesity and cars are responsible for accidents, as well as governments are responsible for wars (snap!)
The Holocaust Didn't Happen

Debate accepted. As Pro has outlined, I will be arguing that the Holocaust did happen [as per the resolution] and that there was a "widespread agenda" perpetrated by Nazi Germany to exterminate European Jews--and, more to the point, that millions of them [and others] were killed. To clarify the terms of the debate, I'd additionally note to Pro that "the Holocaust" does not exclusively refer to the concentration camps that were established by Nazi Germany, and rather covers a period of persecution that took place in Europe between 1933 and 1945. As alluded to previously, I will highlight that it was not only Jews who were targeted during this period but in fact a number of religious, ethnic and political minorities.
The Holocaust Didn't Happen

I will be arguing that what is commonly referred to as the Holocaust of the Jews by Nazi Germany did not, infact, occur. My contention entails that there was no successful, widespread agenda by Nazi Germany to exterminate the European Jews, and the 6 million figure is a myth.My opponent will argue the contrary: that there was a succesful agenda to exterminate Jews by Nazi Germany, and while he need not prove the 6 million figure, he will need to support the claim that millions of Jews were murdered in death camps. Anything less would not substantiate "successful".First round is acceptance.A debater will be disqualified if he:a: Fails to argue the points outline aboveb: Throws a round
Should museums be free for teenagers

Okay, Pro forfeited, and I will cover as most as I can. FrameworkI will be making two arguments, one is that the mueseum wouldn't get money, and the other is that elders or people do not go to museums. BoP is on Pro. Today's topic is that museums should be free for teenagers, and I am Con. Arguments1. Museums will not get moneyIf we make teenagers go to museums for free, the museums will not get money. Then there is no need for the job. Most one visit to the museum is about $30. However, if musuems are free for teenagers, then the museums wil not get much money. There is a lot of people who go to museums, and then they do not get that much money.2. Other don't go to museumsThis is an argument with two different explanations. This is my first part. Many people like babies and elders don't go to museums. It is usually teenagers. Then that is the same is museums being free. My second part is that the others, adults will be mad that some people go in free,, and they won't go in museums.
The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

Pro now asks the question, "What happens when you get evidence for the Big Bang?" He says that I take evidence for the BB, reinterpret it to mean against the BB, and thus, my objections fail. I refuted his criticism that BB does not predict certain things. Rotational curves deals with the graph of the rotational speed versus distance from Earth. Pro evidently has not read my arguments. Pro now uses tautology to try to support his claims. When I point out his fallacies, he once again gives a Red Herring. This is a debate about the BB. I was not showing how any other model was right/wrong. I was showing that there were other models in contention that does not invoke DM. Ridicule in non-peer-reviewed search hits is not equivalent to criticism in peer-reviewed journals. This is a Red Herring. He claims I have to support a model other than BB. I stated in the second round, and he did not reply to that, that I would be supporting no other models. Pro now accuses me of "cherry picking" when I critique DM. He claims other models do not explain rotation curves as well as DM. False. He evidently has neither read my arguments or researched the other models. Pro has absolutely twisted my redshift arguments. I will not respond to straw men. CMBR: Pro provides my "logic," and claim it is irrational. This is not the substance of my argument, which he does not address. Thus, Pro has twisted, distorted, and straw man-ed my arguments. All other arguments by Pro distorts my arguments. I will not reply to those because he hasn"t actually responded to my arguments. All he has responded to are twisted and straw man-ed arguments of mine. Pro does talk about the ISWE. The data from CMB, however, when interpreted with data from [7] of my R3 arguments, actually does not support Dark Energy. He apparently does not know the difference between dark energy and dark matter. Conclusion: Pro has not provided a valid refutation of ANY of my arguments. He cites his reference [1] as though I"m too afraid to do so. Why would I cite something that he already has in the previous round? When we view Pro"s [5] reference of R3, no such data appears. Not in the abstract, and certainly not in the body. Pro uses non-peer-reviewed sources more than just once. I"m not talking about the NASA articles, by the way. Grammar: Con Con evidently have better grammar and spelling than Pro. Conduct: Con Pro twists Con"s arguments such that the arguments Pro refutes is no longer Con"s Argument: Con Pro does not refute my arguments, he refutes straw men. Sources: Con Pro uses non-peer-reviewed sources. In every case that Con sources, it is to something peer-reviewed or by an eminent scholar.
The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

I agree to the further explanations. I will advocate no other model. Once I have referenced something, I will not do so again. I will not go too much into technicality first, instead I will set out a general case. Dark Matter: Not only has this hypothetical entity not been observed, when compared with other models, it fails [1]. It has failed to validate each and every one of its testable predictions. It makes predictions contradictory to the available data on mass surface density, rotation curve shape, rotation rate of rise, CMB geometry and peak ratio, etc which I will expand on in the third round. The Big Bang relies heavily on fudge factors such as this. [2] Without these fudges, the Big Bang has no ability to make retroactive predictions consistent with the data. The big bang theory has no observably verified quantitative predictions. Its ability to retrospectively fit data to large numbers of adjustable parameters supersedes all other models. Cosmological Principle: This principle states, "Since the universe looks to us the same in all directions, and we are not in a special position, then the distribution of matter across very large distances is the same everywhere in the universe." [3] This is one of the basic assumptions of the Big Bang. Observational data, however, contradicts this assumption. Quantized redshifts show that galaxies are quantized at certain distances [4]. This is a clear indication that the Universe is not homogeneous, although it is isotropic. The fact that we are able to see distinct regions of redshifts show that statistical noise has not yet made an impact on the data. This indicates that the galaxy shells do not overlap, from our point of view. For such to occur, we have to be near the center. CMBR: The background radiation data show a uniform radiation temperature of around 2.7260K +-0.0013K[5]. This provides a problem for the theory that is not solved. The BR could have been the same before the expansion, but not after. There is not enough time for radiation to have dispersed in such a manner. The WMAP [6] data uses a priori assumptions that cannot be experimentally confirmed. The assumption is that foreground contamination is frequency dependent, while the anisotropy is independent of frequency. Superstructures: The fact that there is superstructures such as the Sloan Great Wall [7] shows that the Universe is not homogenous and cannot be. Lack of Population III stars: There is an absolute lack of population III stars [8]. This hypothetical entity is required for the Big Bang to work. Galaxies and quasars: The fact that time dilation is not observed in quasars [9] opposes the prediction of the Big Bang. I will wait here and turn over the debate to my opponent. 1. http://www.astro.umd.edu... 2. http://www.cosmologystatement.org... 3. http://www.cpepweb.org... 4. http://adsabs.harvard.edu...; www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/18/455-463.pdf 5. http://iopscience.iop.org... 6. www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF 7. http://arxiv.org... 8. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu... 9. http://arxiv.org...
The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

To clarify some rules:"All arguments will cite reference first-hand. Shrinking links, sources, etc. by any means, such as tinyurl, creating a file with links within is not accepted. " - this means if referring to any books (or links to books) the page number must be specified (unless the source is to that specific page only) "No plagiarizing. All arguments must be cited or original"This is two seperate statements. That means, no plagiarising, AND all arguments must be EITHER cited (secondary source) OR original (primary source, e. g. mathematical calculations based on another's work). Meaning, if "all arguments must be cited or original", that does not necessarily mean that the arguments are not plagiarised. If, for example, the entire argument is lifted from an albeit cited website, then that still counts as plagiarism. With that in mind, I'll wait for my opponent to post their opening argument, and look forward to a compelling debate.
The Big Bang Theory (Cosmology)

This debate is about the Big Bang Theory. Anyone who accepts this debate agrees to the following: 1. No trolling 2. No semantics, other than in the case of clarifying technical terms with credible sources 3. The BoP will be shared 4. The debate will not sidetrack off-topic 6. Arguments will be intelligent, logical, and data-based. 7. All arguments will be text-based 8. All arguments will cite reference first-hand. Shrinking links, sources, etc. by any means, such as tinyurl, creating a file with links within is not accepted. 9. Forfeiting equals a 7 point to the opponent. 10. No plagiarizing. All arguments must be cited or original For Stephan Hawkins Base definitions: Big Bang Theory The widely held belief that the Universe began in a fiery explosion, 10-15 billion years ago. The cosmic microwave background, big bang nucleosynthesis, and the observed Hubble expansion of the Universe are considered proof of the big bang theory. [1] I expect the acceptor to be literate in science and its definition, hence I will not define it here. I have made the debate generally unacceptable for now. Comment to debate. 1. http://cfpa.berkeley.edu...; http://cfpa.berkeley.edu... (This is for more information)
Halo Or Call of Duty.

In the last round you basically rehashed everything I said in my argument. You said, "well halo (all of them) are really made for the campaign not muliplayer." Halo games strictly the numbered games have a good campaign story, but lots of time has been spent working on Halo's multiplayer. I found this statement, "In the Halo games, multiplayer has been regarded as a core element to the game's design and a giant part of the success of the Halo franchise." (http://halo.wikia.com...). It says right there that the multiplayer aspect of halo greatly related to its success as a frachise. Also on the same page in the Halo 2 section it says "Halo 2's multiplayer functionality was completely redesigned." This proves that the Halo creaters Bungie, and more recently 343 have indeed been trying to make Halo for multiplayer. You said "halo is more strategic campaign." The only Halo strategy game to be released on a video game system was Halo Wars, any other Halo (Combat Evolved, 2, 3, ODST, Reach, Combat Evolved Anniversary Editon, and 4) are all classified FPS (First Person Shooter). No strategy is in any Halo game but Halo Wars, making only one Halo have a "strategic campaign" not all, only one. Halo is just another FPS with the same formula as any other first person game. In Halo multiplayer you can custimize your armor, and the only time you get to see the armor is when you either die or your waiting in the lobby for the game to start. Also notice in Call of Duty there is a higher level of weapon costumization no armor to worry about not being able to see. But instead, Call of Duty allows substantial weapon costumization. Rail attachments, weapon skins, variety of scopes, dual magazines, and skills to enhance your combat preformance. Here is a list on this website that shows you what proficencies you can get for your weapons. http://www.themodernwarfare3.com.... Lastly most recently Halo 4 inserted custom classes to the multiplayer making it less Halo-like and more Call of Duty-like. But it still lacks the amount of customization ability, even armor costumization should be removed because it's not like you get to see it, like you get to see the weapon in Call of Duty. Call of Duty has action in the campaign, and the multiplayer continues to deliver this action to players. Halo constanty wants to improve its multiplayer but fails to do so for lack of originality.
Halo Or Call of Duty.

Let me start off by saying Halo and Call of Duty are both good games, but Call of Duty has the upper hand on Halo. This is because more players prefer the Cod expeirence, then Halo. I played all the Halo games through over many times, the Halo series is a good series for story, when you enter the realm of multiplayer though... it starts off as a rush and something new but then slowly dwindles into the same linear gameplay from Halo 3. Big maps, small maps, vehicles, team slayer. Not to mention when 343 took over the Halo franchise they really destroyed the Halo Reach multiplayer by allowing the players to move so fast they basically floated above ground and made it almost impossible to move swiftly in buildings because you would always over shoot the next corner. Not much has changed in Halo 4 either. Call of Duty offers an actiony story line in each game even if its the same over and over but the action continues in multiplayer.
time to be vegetarian, why eat animals!

Humans are at the top of the food chain. Due to our ability to organize and create technology. Animals don't love, think, or feel emotions. There are many nutrients you need only found in meat. Vitamin B12 a water-soluble vitamin that is involved in the function of every cell in the body. It is tightly involved in the formation of blood and the function of the brain. Vitamin D3, studies show that D3 is much more effective than the plant form. Carnosine protective against various degenerative processes in the body. It is a potent antioxidant, inhibits glycation caused by elevated blood sugars and may prevent cross-linking of proteins. Docosahexaenoic Acid critical for normal brain development.
time to be vegetarian, why eat animals!

first off I've been a meat eater all my life only cause that's how I have been raised. anyways I do love the concept and further agree that being vegetarian is the way to go. why put an innocent animal to death. others have the concept that humans are top of the food chain, is anyone truly sure that this is accurate. and picture if that isn't the case, would the meat eater then have the logic to see that he is creating a cycle in life that could be damaging to himself and others around him? imagine the Garden of Eden.
should schools have GSA

Referring to my opponent's point on the school's responsibility, since the said club is an after or before school function, the club is based on a more loose standard of conduct. The opinions expressed by members of a club are not necessarily those of the organization the club is under. However, my opponent has strayed from the original debate topic, "Should schools have GSA?" The school itself has no obligation, as implied by "should", to provide clubs for any students. Any school clubs and organizations are formed by students and teachers, separate from the school itself.
should schools have GSA

My opponent failed to note my statement "and/or support of gay rights." I made no claim that someone had to be of the LGBT spectrum to be in a GSA. The matter of education is an unsupported statement, for many GSA clubs are a haven, rather than a class. Students who join a GSA are generally already educated on sexuality and its complexities. Also, referring to my opponent's point about more students being understanding of sexuality, a GSA in a school would not affect the entire student body. These clubs tend to me of a smaller member number. The primary purpose of a GSA at a school is to unite members of that community and its supporters. Such activities in many GSA's include guest speakers, club activities, and book clubs or movie nights. Again, none of these fall under an obligation of the school itself. Schools are, in fact, not obligated to provide any form of after-school clubs and organizations. Rather, if a number of students decide that they desire a club, and can find a teacher sponsor, then the school is allowed to decide upon if the club will be created or vetoed.
should schools have GSA

being in GSA doesn't tell people that your gay. GSA is the gay straight alliance there fore you don't have to be gay to join. I'm straight and I'm in my schools GSA. I agree that they do need a teacher to advise the club/group but schools shouldn't deny students the right to support something they believe in. GSA also helps to provide more information on being gay. I feel like the students in schools that do have GSA are more understanding on why some people are gay and that helps them to support it more.
should schools have GSA

I accept my opponent's challenge, and seeing as there are no rules for structure will begin my argument. My opponent claims it is a responsibility of the school to provide a GSA for LGBTPQAS+ students, with the biggest support being bullying against said students. I would like to point out that joining a GSA would put a metaphorical target on a student's back for bullying. It confirms their sexuality and/or support of gay rights. If said student is already being bullied for these reasons, confirming them in a public club would provide no aid. I would like to address that it is also not the obligation of the school to provide religious, racial, or sexuality orientated groups or clubs. A public school is to remain unaligned as an organization to any political, racial, or religious group. If students truly desire a GSA, it is their responsibility to find a specific teacher who supports these values and to start the organization on their own. An issue that I find in my own school is the group Fellowship of Christian Athletes. This club is highly endorsed by teachers and administrators, thus providing a biased opinion on religious standing of the school.
Gay Marriage Is Wrong

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for his first debate, and hope that he has many more to come. Claiming that something should be maintain simply because it is tradition is a common falacy, known as appeal to tradition. Examples of how this is not an adequate reason to preserve something by itself are such issues as slavery, and discrimination of women. Simply because that is the way things were, does not mean that is the way thing ought be. I would also like to question my opponent's claim that, "I believe it is the child who chooses to become gay in a more mature state of mind." If a child can simply "choose" to be gay, then they can "choose" to not be gay. Also, if someone is capable of such a choice, then my opponent would be able to simply become gay for 30 minutes, then become straight again, as would I and anyone else reading and voting on this debate. As of now, I have not found the way to choose to be gay. Even so, I don't see how choosing or not choosing to be gay should effect if gay marriage is allowed. If the government is going to provide financial benefits (along with other benefits) to people that are married, then what reason does the government have for omitting and discriminating against a classification of people? We already know that the government recognizes gay people as a class, thanks to surveys and the military's DADT.
Gay Marriage Is Wrong

Hello, I am new to this website and usually debate on such sites as CNN.com. (I would enjoy a debate in which there are limited to no resources, just perosnal experience; just for curiosity.) I decided my first debate was going to be over the highly controversial "Gay Marriage". I, for one, strongly disagree with Gay marriage and not for religious purposes. As a person who does not attend church, or believe in a higher supernatural power, I simply do not believe it is right and I know it will hurt our posterity in the future to come. One would claim it is alright for Gay people to have the right to marry under the government and in some cases under the bible, but to me, and many other people it is a slap to the face of the norm and it is sad to see our children look at gay couples and to think it is okay for them to have a relationship with someone of their own sex. I guess my main concern is for the well being and traditional values or our children. Let's face it. No parent wishes their child would come out homosexual. And for the most part no child does. I believe it is the child who chooses to become gay in a more mature state of mind. As for the rest of my argument, I will let it come to light when I receive a challenge and so forth. Thank you for your time.