BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That gun control laws create more dangerous countries.

Modern countries such as Canada and Britan seam to be completely obsessed with disarming their citizens. Being Canadian I find this extremely alarming. Personal defense is a basic human right. If I am attacked by a chainsaw wheeling psycho, I should be allowed to shoot him, but only in self defense. This brings up the fact of criminals total disregard for gun laws. To put it another way, if you want to kill your brother because he has been sleeping with your wife, why would you heed 3 gun laws? Your going to kill someone, some tiny little gun laws wont get in your way. You will to strait ahead after all if you gt caught for murder, a couple illigal gun laws won't seam like such a big deal. Since guns are so hard to acquire, especially hand guns. The majority of Canadian public does not carry a side arm. Imagine for second if every person in Canada was required to carry anside arm at all times. Criminals would think twice before trying to rape you in that back ally while you are taking a piss. Criminals would have to completely rethink their "plan of attack." No longer can they just barge into a bank holding all for hostage. Now every person in that bank has a side arm, and is willing to use it. If more people carried weapons, and if our country even let us, then criminals would think again before harming innocents.
That gun control laws create more dangerous countries.

My opponent starts off and gives us our rights, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Did you catch that? It is the right of the people to bear arms, for personal defense, and or defense from corrupt leaders. The second amendment is built on these main facts:" An American citizen's right to own guns is upheld by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. However, many people feel that the amendment is outdated, and that gun control is of utmost importance in an increasingly violent society. Gun rights activists have staunchly supported the Second Amendment and will continue to do until the government agrees with their position on firearms. Though gun control advocates seem to be unwavering on imposing further firearm laws and regulations, anti gun control factions such as the NRA have proven to become extremely influential and powerful political force to be reckoned with. It is the government's duty to protect the people and society, and stricter laws have proven to adequately offer for a safer environment. The background checks, must therefore, be conducted to only provide guns to lawful owners. Furthermore, if gun owners registered their weapons, it would more adequately provide law enforcement the necessary information to keep track of firearm purchases and make sure that all sales are legal. My opponent talked about society being weaker from gun control but I think we see that gun control has lessened our crime rate. These statisitcs rarely accouns for the grwoth on population and the increase in firearms themselves. While most Americans oppose an outright ban on all handguns, there is considerable support among the public for stricter laws governing firearms. . http://partners.nytimes.com... :"Are you aware that the gun related crime rate in the US is twice that of Israel? ": My opponent here attempts to compare the USA with Israel. There are many differences but the only one we need is the population difference. USA is one of the most populated countries in the world and will be top of any poll or rate. Americans continue to trend toward holding attitudes that are more in favor of gun rights. While solidly against a ban on handgun possession, Americans are nonetheless about equally likely to say they favor stricter laws on firearm sales as to say these laws should not change. I will like to conclude that guns laws are needed to protect society not halter it. I thank my opponent for this debate. Vote Con~
That gun control laws create more dangerous countries.

The point still remains that criminals are not going to heed these "laws". According the the second amendment we are to have guns for self defense, or to protect against corrupt governments. Gun control disarms the public, making them easy to rule. Dont believe me? Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong all implemented gun control laws to further control their populations, Making them easy targets for massacre. Im not saying that countries like Canada, and the UK are planning to kill off there people, but its just a form of control. If we let the government disarm us, whats next? My point still stand that if we are required to carry a sidearm at all times, criminals would be very cautious. Crime rates would plummet. No longer would we be shrinking behind the police, we would have the capabilities to stand up for ourselves. If you were a criminal, would you attack someone knowing they and there whole family had sidearms? I think not, you would wait for some one who is weak, an easy target. The great thing is, as soon as you have a gun, your not an easy target anymore. Your something to be feared and respected. The governments tales of lower crime rates and safer cities are merely smoke shields for a bigger issue, that of total control.
Should we stop protecting Taiwan in return for Chinas peaceful resolution of the South China Sea

The terrorist analogy is inaccurate. First of all, the war will affect millions, if not billions of people, and not in a good way. Also, it's not like doing so is going to torture Taiwan or some crap, it just means that they will likely have Chinese policies, which we can more effectively change if we have good relations with China. All in all though, you debated well and I enjoyed the round.
Should we stop protecting Taiwan in return for Chinas peaceful resolution of the South China Sea

Are we honestly going tio turn in a free people to a savage communist state to quote 'prevent a war,' this is like if there were a terrorist who had a few hostages, and the police decided to kidnap a number of people and give them to said terroris as sex slaves in return for those hostages. This is an absurd, morally abhorrent proposal, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Should we stop protecting Taiwan in return for Chinas peaceful resolution of the South China Sea

If we never try to cooperate with China then we will go into a war. If we can negotiate successfully, then we can save millions of lives. It doesn't matter who's fault it is; lives will be lost on both sides. Therefore, we must try to do what we can to try to diplomatically resolve issues because it helps relations and it can save lives. And the only way to get China to listen is to offer to do something for them in exchange for them to do something for us.
Should we stop protecting Taiwan in return for Chinas peaceful resolution of the South China Sea

Chinas foreign policies show that they want a war, and in the effort of preventing such a war the United States should not behave as a push over. If there is to be a war between the United States and China, it will be started by China, through such policies as this one that somehow or another, the Sovereign State of Taiwan, an ally of the US, is part of their nation.China wants a war, I want China to back off- if China decides that they will not back off, but will rather step up their level of aggression, this is Chinas fault, and would not be a result of the US.
Should we stop protecting Taiwan in return for Chinas peaceful resolution of the South China Sea

The problem is that you show the same train of thought as that that will start the war with China, supported by my Jason Thompson evidence. And if we go to war with China, Taiwan will likely support us, which means China and their allies will likely attack Taiwan. If we enact the plan, we can avoid a devastating conflict that will kill hundreds of millions of people, which outweighs the arguments brought up in your second speech. And the plan helps fix relations between China and the US by solving two points of conflict between China and the US, meaning that we will be more diplomatic and not enemies anymore.
Should we stop protecting Taiwan in return for Chinas peaceful resolution of the South China Sea

I support the following plan: the United States should stop supplying Taiwan with weapons in return for peaceful resolution of the South China Sea. 1: Relations A. The US/China relationship has reached a dangerous tipping point-overcoming hostility is vital: David Lampton, who is chairman of the board of the Asia foundation B. The plan is the only way to reverse this trend, resolving Taiwan overcomes any other impediment to strong relations: Charles Glaser, who is a professor of political affairs and director of the institute of security at George Washington University C: Crossing the tipping point risks war and undermines cooperation. Relations aren't resilient without the plan: David Lampton (same guy from subpoint a) D. US/China cooperation is crucial to solving all global challenges: William Cohen, chairman and CEO of the Cohen Group 2 A: China is dominating the South China Sea right now, US has not communicated red lines to China, instead focused on shoring up Asian competitors, that policy fails and new direction is key: Jason Thompson from the Christian Science Monitor B: Things can get worse: eroded US credibility is threat multiplier and makes escalation more likely: Andrew Erickson, Associate professor for China Maritime Studies Institute for the US Naval War College C: Plan solves as US red lines solve the balance of power conflict by clarifying escalation ladder: John Schaus, from the International security program at CSIS If you can't tell, this is my policy debate case (except I got rid of the inherency cards)
<GY> Water should be Privatized

To counter your statement, my point was not that God would not want water to be open to everyone, but that if we did make water legal and open to everyone, that would cause even more problems in our society. 1) Yes, God cares very much about humans, and does not want them to thirst or starve. However, He does want us to work towards what we want and need. Making the water free, means that even the people that don't work, or don't go out into the world and get a job, get the same priveliges that poeple do who do work hard. 2) There are places where you can get free water. There are many places where you can get free cups of water. People don't NEED bottled water. If they are so picky, they can earn some money and buy themselves a bottle. 3) There are worldwide systems and organizations that help people get water. We should take those oppurtunities and help the countries in need. Thank you for listening to my side of this debate.
<GY> Water should be Privatized

I will start by suggesting some rebuttals My opponent has suggested that God wouldn't want water be opened to everyone because a lot of water will be lost, and therefore it should be privatized in companies' hands. However, this argument fails for many reasons; 1) First, more water is going to be lost even more if they are in companies' hands, as I have previously stated in my first round, because companies have their desires for profits. Their desire for profits far outweigh the need to preserve water, and to produce more 'water products', they will even risk using an excessive amount of the water resources that we have. This might lead to the depletion of water. 2) Yes, it is true that our lord wouldn't want the water resources to be wasted. But as I have stated, more water resources are going to be lost if they are in private companies' hands. Plus, if water is privatized, that means that the poor people and those who don't have money will not be granted the access to water, a source that is directly related to life. This is already unfair in the means of human rights. Would God really want his people to suffer the situation where they have no water? God cares about his people first and satisfying their thirst and need for water before he worries about the minor losing of water. 3) Your statement on 'selling less' does not stand, because to make a profit, companies will have to increase the sales; and increasing of supplies is inevitable.
<GY> Water should be Privatized

Okay, so I would like to start out by saying that if we made water open for everyone, then there would probably be a higher risk to lose the water that God has given us. Water being cleaned and sold makes money for the companies, yes, but we don't need to worry about losing it. We have plenty, and making costs for the money actually puts standards to meet in order to purchase the water, thus selling less saves the water. We should not make this a big issue in the world right now. We have plenty more other problems. Trust in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart. :)
<GY> Water should be Privatized

To have a conclusion for this debate, water should not be Privatized because this could lead to water waste. Having water free and open to everyone causes us to lose more water. If anything we should look to purchasing the water saving appliances like China has. It's a wonderful way to save water and would help countries in many ways. However until we work something out it makes no sense. We need to work hard to help the poeple without water and reach out to them. Thank you for listening to my debate.
Should Cell Phones be used in class.

if student choose to not do something in class and would rather be on there phone that is there chose if a student rather fail that is on them so i don't see your point of us not to be able to have are phones in class cause me personally i could still pay attention in class while having my phone on me or any other electronically device with me and even if there not allow what is going to stop a student from having there phone with them cause it would be more of a distract if i had to hide my phone to reply to a text
Should Cell Phones be used in class.

I think that Cell Phones should not be allowed in the class room while yes they may need to use their phone they should create a laptop or something for class uses because then the teacher can exit or make the student get off of thing they shouldn't be on. Phones in class is just waiting for a text and us teens can send and read text messages but making it look like we are focused in a book or something. Cell phones should not be used in class because its just going to distract the student and they will start texting.
My little pony and the "Brony" fandom is bad and a menace

If you were against bronies than make the title "Bronies" not "Bronies are a menace". You do know how double negatives work, right?1. It may seem that way because the mild watchers often don't post about it or rave about it. You obviously see more wild fans than not because those are the ones posting about it.2. Actually this is probably the brony height. The show is still airing and in full swing, unlike the 10+ year fandoms that have shows that most of the time don't air anymore and if they do, don't have nearly as much fans as they used to.3. It's not like they forced the network to make a whole episode for them. Just a simple 30 sec. commercial. Plus, it's not like they can force the network to do anything, just trying to buy ad space to thank the creators. It's just the same as any regular commercial hub puts on. They would never actually read those letters you know and it's very hard to talk to the creator of a show like that at a convention.4. What I meant was you talked a lot about them hacking and rigging contests and what not, yet you didn't provide links! Don't say things like that with out providing links so we know it actually happened.
My little pony and the "Brony" fandom is bad and a menace

I choose con because I AM AGAINST bronies. Why would I choose PRO (For) if I am against them? 1. You missed that or something because I did say that they (bronies) range, but what I was trying to say is that it is clear that there is way more of the negative range than the supposedly "good" bronies that DO just watch the show. Batsh*t crazy seems to be the majority more times than not. 2. You are right all fandoms do crazy things. I never said other fandoms were spotless. What you are again missing is that most other fandoms "crazy" doesn't compare (usually) to what the bronies do. Let us not forget that most other fandoms have been around for 10+ years. Bronies are about 4 year old to the date. They have packed in the same amount of "crazy" in those four years that took other fandoms YEARS and sometimes even a decade to do. 3. A mild kickstarter? It not only got its intended amount but it even made over what it needed. You are missing the point though. How many trekkie or avatar kickstarters are there for putting out commercials on official cable networks? I can't say I monitor every fandoms crazy kickstarter, but I can't imagine the trekkies or avatars kickstarters being equal to that of the a ACTUAL commercial. Especially since it was created just for the point to thank the creative minds behind the show. As far as I know most fans usually thank the creative minds behind their fandoms through letters or in person at cons. 4. I said they did this? What this are you talking about? I mentioned quite a few "this" in my opening.
My little pony and the "Brony" fandom is bad and a menace

I don't know why you chose the con posistion, since your against bronies, but I guess our roles are switched and i will be defending bronies.1. I don't like how your grouping all bronies together. They are very different and can range from just liking the show to going batshit crazy over it.2. All large fandoms do crazy things. You obviously haven't seen anime fandoms.3. Really, some mild kickstarter is evidence of how crazy they are? So yor ignoring those trekkie kickstarters and avatar kickstarters i see.4. You say they did this, yet you don't provide links. Please provide sources for things like this.
The government should be more straightforward to the people.

"What does the government have to hide from it"s people?" Well, the government has obviously a lot to hide from us because there is a debate currently happening about it. But if the government has secrets to hide form us, they should have a good reason. People would not want to be able to to know what the government knows if the heard about it on a daily basis. War, treason, poverty, rape, assault, murder, suicide. These are all records on people that the government should hold on to. Do we want these things to be exposed to young children, who deserve their innocence while it is there? I sure hope not. It is a parents decision to tell their child these things or not, but what are the guarantees that that child won"t tell another? The government also hold secrets because there are people in the world who would use the information for and advantage. People who are spies for other countries who are against the country. They blab about it to other nations so that they could use it against on their weakness, or steal good plans/ideas. An example of this is in World War 1, World War 2, and The American Revolution. http://www.history.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... My conclusion is that the government has its reasons for its secrets and they are planned very carefully with top secret agents who are vowed to the country. We should not question the fact that the government keeps them from us and that it is for our safety. "Who would gain from a secret government?" No one would gain anything. But we would lose from a transparent government. Children are the new generation of people. If they were to find out about the things happening in the world (they find out by hearing it form parents, older siblings, people on the street) would they think it is okay to do the thing themselves? Yes. Children see, children do. http://www.fsca.ca... That means the new generations of kids are resulted in; rape, murder, suicide, assault, drinking, and cussing as low as an age like 5 or 6. Because it is unavoidable, 15-16 years later, those kids will become even crazier in adolescence. And fastfoward to 30-40 years later, gangsters on the street everywhere fending for themselves for unreasonable reasons. We would become a savage and ruthless country. Should we be that way? I hope not. Overall, I believe that the government should stay the way it is. Even with the few flaws it has. This country would stay safer and better without knowing secrets that are violent and destructive to the new generation.
Free Market Is Overall a Better System than Socialism (Part 2)

Here is Part 1 of the Debate: http://www.debate.org... Format for Part Two First Round: Acceptance and Definition of Terms Second Round: Opening Argument Third Round: Rebuttal's Fourth: Closing Arguments Terms: Overall: Everything taken into account. Better: comparatively good and well. Socialism: An economic system where economic decisions are regulated or made by the government or community as a whole. Free Market Capitalism: An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. Anarcho-Capitalism: a mix of Anarchism and Free Market Capitalism.
The Earth is flat

Yeah yeah, I know. My argument is pretty long, so take your time to read it. First off, gravity: If the Earth was not round, gravity would be different depending on where you are. The fact that gravity is the same everywhere can prove the flat Earth theory wrong. A simulation showing this can be found here 0:45 to 1:50 I have seen alot of flat-Earth believers try to say "Gravity doesn't exist", but I have not seen much evidence for this. Just throw something up in the air and see what happens. Secondly, time zones. One of the most crippling challenges with the flat Earth theory is the existence of time zones. On a flat Earth, you could not have time zones or even a day/night cycle. Now I've seen this model used by many flat Earth believers. http://d38zt8ehae1tnt.cloudfront.net... However, the mere existence of a day/night cycle on the other planets of the Solar system disprove it easily. The sun is also too massive to orbit Earth. Also, if the spotlight sun theory were true, years would be alot shorter and Earth would be molten. Third, speaking of the other planets in the Solar system, they are round. Fourth, eclipses. During a lunar eclipse the shadow on the Moon"s surface is round. This shadow is the Earth"s, and it"s a great clue on the spherical shape of the Earth. http://physics.weber.edu... Fifth, constellations. In one place in which one constellation can be seen, another one cant, but in another place, it can. You could not have that on a flat Earth. Varying constellations also further debunk the spotlight sun myth. http://www.smarterthanthat.com... http://www.smarterthanthat.com... Sixth, ride a plane. You can see the roundness. My opponent said the ISS is a plane, which is pretty weird. You do not need a rocket to fly a plane. Seventh, their has been numerous images from space showing that the Earth is round. Keep in mind, the Blue Marble photograph has been confirmed to be authentically from 1972, before any sort of editing software was made. Before we even had the internet to download things. Eighth, shadows. Get idk 2 sticks that are the exact same or something like a stick. If you place them far enough from each other, the shadows, sunlight will hit each stick differently if they are far enough apart. Ninth, seasons. The flat Earth theory completely neglects seasons. Seasons are caused by a slight axis tilt. Winter is when your side of the Earth is facing away from the sun. This would be impossible with a flat Earth, whether you disregard the spotlight sun idea or not. As a bonus argument, the flat Earth theory comes with alot of bizarre pseudo scientific ideas like the "giant wall of ice around the Earth" or "spotlight sun" myths.