BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gun rights should NOT be taken away.

a comment made said that criminals can get guns and hurt people if gun rights are kept. but if they are dangerous criminals it should be hard for them to get guns and if gun rights are kept the victims may be able to better defend themselves. Drugs are illegal but people still get those. people will still be able to smuggle guns around too. Imagine this: dave is a law abiding citizen so he does not own a gun. joseph gets an illegal gun and breaks into daves house dave grabs a knife but is shot before he can defend himself. If guns are not legal and a criminal wants to hurt or kill someone they can still use bombs kinves poisons or everyday objects to use as clubs. these objects are not also potentiall dangerous but easy to make untraceable.
gun rights should NOT be taken away.

Here is what you said "but you cant not give someone a gun because you think they will commit crimes." -You can withhold the right to own a gun to a limit amount of people to try to limit a crime such as, withhold some guns (beyond automatic) to people only those with a hunting license (or military) can get a gun only those over the age of __ no more handguns to those without a military license some guidelines that makes the right to bear arms a privilege this would reduce crime yet allow people to protect themselves "If you do not have a license you should not be able to own any more than a simple small caliber hand gun. not every thing should need a license." First let me address the license. I mis-understood. The license belongs to those selling firearms. Not those buying. So you can ignore that point. Since that is the case, I believe, as said above, I believe a hunting or military license should be needed. "If you do actually commit a crime you should have temporary or permanent gun restriction, depending on the crime." This is what currently happens, but that does not stop crime. Why? Because the right to bear arms is a right. It should be a privilege. To stop crime
gun rights should NOT be taken away.

ok i somewhat agree that it should be a privelege. but you cant not give someone a gun because you think they will commit crimes. If you do not have a liscence you should not be able to own any more than a simple small calliber hand gun. not every thing should need a liscence. If you do actually commit a crime you should have temporary or permanent gun restriction, depending on the crime. when i started this debate i expected someone who would say that no regular citizens should own guns. arguing against you makes things more complicated.
gun rights should NOT be taken away.

Look, I am a republican, supporter of the second-amendment, etc. Please do not USE the second-amendment to say why we have the right to bear arms. I will debate the validity of having the RIGHT to own a gun. In my position as con, I will argue that people have the PRIVILEGE to own a gun :) Ok? Good, so to begin we must decide what a right and what a privilege is: Right: something guranteed that you do not have to deserve Privilege: something granted that you have to deserve I agree, the ability to own a gun is good. But it is also bad. 1.) You must get a license to own a gun, therefore, a gun is a privilege not right 2.) Those who want to commit crimes should not have the right to own a gun. If the right to bear arms was in fact a privilege to bear arms, then less people would be able to grab a gun and shoot someone.
Abortion

To clarify on some of the rules. Aborting a Zygote before it implants in cases of rape should not be considered abortion since fertilization AND implantation are required for conception. First off are we not a society that requires us to pay the consequences of our actions both good and bad. If I rob a store I repay what I owe or go to jail or sometimes both. The Government doesn't give me an out. Another example that I am sure everyone heard growing up is if you play with fire you are going to get burned. Don't do your homework you fail the class, etc. The list goes on and so it is interesting that in the case of Abortion we take an attitude that's a little different we think we don't want to ruin the persons life and what is really interesting is we make the poor baby pay for the mistakes of the parents. I mean how does that make any sense at all? Imagine if my parents robbed a store and the police went to my house and I had to pay them back and/or go to jail. Doesn't that seem a little twisted? . https://www.guttmacher.org... . http://www.abort73.com... The above statistics show some startling information. Around 1% of abortions are due to rape so that completely destroys the rape argument since that represents such a small group. But again in the cases of rape is it the babies fault that the father or mother made some really bad choices? Again who is paying the consequence for the actions? Also 58% of abortions are to women that are in their 20's. My wife had our first kid at age 20 ironically and here we are 4 years later and we haven't been financially destroyed at all and it didn't prevent her from going to school outside of 1 semester so we are walking proof that going to school is very possible. So in the end people really abort their kids because they just don't want them. But they obviously enjoyed the part about making them. So how is this right that in our society we allow people to avoid getting burned when they play with fire. In no other circumstance in life is this allowed. What is even crazier is the baby is the one that pays for the mistake. My last argument for this round is based on this source: . https://www.lifesitenews.com... Clearly this baby born at 22 weeks is alive and well. So these late term abortions are actually killing babies who can go on to live healthy lives as shown in the article. It's a technical point I know but still it goes to prove that a hard cut off doesn't really exist. On a side note it is very sick and disturbing that Planned Parenthood is selling baby parts. Mister may stand against this and say I don't agree with that but it is after all a fruit of abortions. If you are pro abortions than you must accept the fruit that comes with it. It amazes me how many illegal things are done at planned parenthood those doctors should lose their license. But that is what happens when we support abortions and encourage young women to follow through on them. Again I would like to thank Mister for taking time to debate me and I look forward to a great debate between the two of us. Good luck to you as well Mister :)
Abortion

I haven't had a debate in a while so I figured why not end my dry spell with a bang and talk about a lovely subject with a member I found in the Opinions section. We seem to have opposing views on slaughtering unborn children, so we've talked quickly and decided to have a debate on this. We've already agreed on the rules, but to clarify, I'm going to be arguing that aborting an embryo/zygote/fetus before approximately 24 weeks of gestation age is okay, and my opponent, Dan, will be arguing that it is not okay to abort any type of fetus, pre-birth, whatsoever. Four rounds 5,000 characters 3 days per round First round I'll allow Dan to present any opening arguments he has, and I'll counter followed by bringing up my own arguments and we'll do that until round 4, where I will only counter his arguments and solidify my own. Okay good luck, Dan! :)
Gay Marriage should be legalized in the US

My stance is that I oppose any federal efforts to redefine marriage and impose their standards of marriage on us. I do support the Marriage Act since it limits the Constitution`s Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing states to uphold their own state law, thereby not having to allow same-sex marriages performed in other states. However, there is the issue of the federal government granting benefits, tax exemptions, and hospital visitation right, etc. that are not extended to same-sex married couples that makes this a federal issue that I totally agree with. I`ll be arguing that those same rights should be extended to civil unions so as to not make marriage more preferable in economic and legal protection. Hence, neither should be granted any special interests, and therefore I do not support DOMA section 3 since that gives the federal government the right to define marriage, and I argue that we should leave the argument out of it. Thus, it seems to me me that in order to strike a reasonable compromise, distinguishing between marriage and civil unions is a win/win situation for all parties irrespective of their sexual preferences. There would be almost no difference from a legal perspective. They both would enjoy similar legal protections, regardless. The distinction is one of a moral pronouncement. I belive this would satisfy both parties, both the religious rights who wants to uphold the sanctity fo marriage as well as gay couples who, at least, could receive the same legal rights when being in a civil union. My essential point is that the states can decide best for themselves. Those states who want to be progressive, such as California, go ahead. Texas and others who want to be more conservative would have that right as well.
LeBron James (pro) is better than Michael Jordan (con)

If we are simply comparing statistics, it's no contest: Michael Jordan is superior to LeBron James in almost every conceivable way. Michael Jordan, when compared to LeBron James, has: -twice as many Championship titles (6-3) -played in more NBA seasons (15-14) -played in more playoffs (13-11) -played in more All-Star games (14-13) -been awarded Season MVP and Finals MVP more times (5-4 and 6-3 respectively) -been awarded "Scoring Leader" 10 times as often (10-1) -on average, more points per game in the regular season (30.1-27.1) and the playoff season (33.4-28.0) -more total points in his career during the regular season (32,292-28,316) and playoff season (5,987-5,572) -during his best season, had more points per game in the regular season (37.1-31.4) and the playoff season (43.7-35.3) Source: [1] http://www.landofbasketball.com...
It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on Elton John.

I will however jump right into his points due to character limits. I see my opponent has taken the path of humor, as if I were a paid PR person for anybody then I probably be having a lot more money then I do. My opponent has taken a joke interview someone made up on YouTube to mock the Rocket Man. This however holds no water to the case as my opponent has decided to take this debate in a non-serious direction from a serious direction after round 1. Do not fooled by this. I pointed out all those awards and songs of Elton John to show he is NOT overrated. My opponent never proved how or even why he considered Elton John overrated. Someone who is overrated would not have tickets that sell out within a hour as shown here. . http://eltonjohnnews.blogspot.com... Regarding Elton charity work my opponent is not impressed about $125 million raised since 1992. That is $125 million more that would have NOT been there if not for Elton starting this charity. I wonder how much my opponent has risen if he scoffs at this number? Now my opponent wonders why Elton does not go to these countries, do some volunteer work, etc. My opponent once again has failed to do his research because Elton does such things! . http://eltonjohnnews.blogspot.com... That link above goes into depth about Elton's LOW KEY visit to South Africa. Every year, Elton and his partner David go to parts of the world that money from the charity goes to. He does this out of his own heart because he cares. Below is another link in which Elton visits KwaZulu Natal. . http://www.aids.org.za... As the choir member at the end of the article said, this is a good man and never forget him. Now my opponent points have refuted in both Rounds 1 and 2 so therefore any reasoning for the ASBO does not exist. My opponent also has only been able to cite one example where Elton John COULD be considered a public nuisance and even that was refuted. Let us not limit Elton movements because otherwise he will not be able to do such things like go to Africa and visit these people. I therefore call voters to look at the evidence along with the facts and vote for me. Final Points: My opponent failed to bring up several of my refutations in Round 2 so I assume he has conceded such points. I have refuted my opponent points in both rounds while my opponent tried to move to humor. Any questions about Elton charity work in Round #2 were answered clearly with links of pictures to back it up. My opponent has failed to bring up any other examples of why Elton should deserve a ABSO other then that one in Taiwan which was refuted. So therefore, I think this is a clear and concise victory for CON and hope you the reader vote as such. Thank you and I will leave you with these two videos of the Rocket Man from his 60th birthday performance at Madison Square Garden which was also his SIXTY (60th) sold out performances at MSG which further proves how he is not overrated. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com...
It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on Elton John.

Many thanks to my opponent for his valiant attempt to defend Elton John. I admire him for this, as Sir Elton's PR people are paid fortunes to do this and deserve every last penny, it's got to be the toughest job in the business. The best way to illustrate this point is to refer the voters to a recent television interview he gave. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... My opponent pointed out that Elton has received a large number of awards and accolades and in so doing, proved my point that he is over-rated. Regarding his charity work, I'm not impressed. So he turns up at a ball once a year, sups some champagne and scoffs some canapï¿½s and then buggers off back home. So what? He's not working these days, why doesn't he roll his sleeves up and do some volunteer work for AIDS victims in the slums of Jo'burg? I think everyone would respect him a bit more if he did that. Just to clarify, if enough people complain about an individual's behaviour, for example making a public nuisance of themselves in public places, the local authorities can impose an ASBO on which places limits on their movements. I therefore call for all voters to vote for me and I will refer my victory to the Crown Prosecution Service and demand that they act against Elton John into hand forthwith. Thank you.
It's time for the Government to crackdown hard on Elton John.

The man has gone too far and it's time he was stopped. Whether you hate and despise him, or merely loathe him with a passion, you have to admit that this over-rated celebrity singer-songwriter is at least one sandwich short of a picnic. Let's look at the facts: He's a married man. Nothing wrong with that, you might say, until you discover he's married…TO ANOTHER MAN! http://www.flickr.com... It doesn't matter that he's gay, obviously, and I know that same-sex marriages are not illegal everywhere, but how far do you think he and his husband would get trying to check into a double room at the Cromosaig guesthouse in Scotland or the Al Faisaliah Hotel in Riyadh? Surely he thought about the international reaction before he took the plunge? http://www.guardian.co.uk... Not that he should be allowed out of the country in the first place, mind you. This cracked old crooner is a Knight of the Realm, and so is viewed as a cultural ambassador for his nation. Yet, when he's abroad, he behaves like the spoilt little brat that he is by acting up in front of the world's press, as he did in Taiwan when he threw a Wendy at some photographers. http://news.bbc.co.uk... His disgraceful behaviour brings shame and dishonour on Britain and his anti-social antics abroad cannot be allowed to continue unabated. Then there's the question of his profligate spending. Okay, it's up to him how he spends his own money, but when half of the world's children are mal-nourished, can he really justify spending over ï¿½300,000 ($600,000) a year on flowers? Yes, that's right – flowers. Most people in the developing world wouldn't earn even a fraction of that amount in an entire lifetime, but Sir Elton wastes that amount annually down at his local florists. What do you think of that? http://news.bbc.co.uk... For these, and many other reasons, I propose that the British Government should find a way to slap an ASBO (1) on him and have his passport revoked. Thank you. . (1) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk...
We should not be afraid of advanced robotics playing a vital part in our future lives.

Everything works to a certain extend, as of right now, humanity could be experiencing the full potential advantages that technology brings us, but it will get to a point where too much of one thing could be more negative than we anticipate. Too much autonomous and little control could be very dangerous. I for one do not want to see robots roaming the streets and could possibly create privacy issues around neighbourhoods. What happens when failure of robots lead to the loss of multiple lives? Who will take the blame then, what actions should we take if that were to happen, we are simply not ready at this current course, and I doubt that we will be ready when the time comes. There are technologies out there that only a minority can control and use, and some are still experimental, we do not need something else that we are unsure about to be put into our daily lives. And do you not think that playing God is not a good idea at all?
We should not be afraid of advanced robotics playing a vital part in our future lives.

Robots are everywhere, they are everywhere around us, but not intelligent robotics, intelligent to a certain extend they are only intelligent as to what they are designed to do, intelligent in the 'workplace' that was designed around them. This is probably one of the main reasons why people do not think that robotics will get to the stage where they can compete with human intelligence, the efficiency of humans ability to adapt to new environments quickly and react to external stimuli is something that robots do not possess. But we can all see how fast robotics are developing, we've all heard about it on the news and watched about it on TV. They may still be 'toddlers' compared to us, but they have been 'growing' rapidly. Faster than we can anticipate, as fast as human intelligence allows it, and eventually, we could create something that supersedes our intelligence, then how do we stop it? People might say I watch too many sci-fi movies, or read too much or I am paranoid, but even Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking said themselves that they are worried on the news. If robots are at 'toddler' intelligence and they could build and create objects that most people on this planet have no idea about, what would robots be like if they develop to 'teenager' or 'young adults' intelligence? If a 'toddler' is capable of moving around with precision and efficiently decide for themselves, we should be worried, we have the right to be worried. Robots are 'stealing' people's jobs, a lot of people's jobs have already been 'stolen' rather...some robots are designed to 'steal' our jobs, can you believe that? 'Toddlers', or rather, robots with the intelligence of an unborn foetus are 'stealing' people's jobs. Sure, they will be solving problems for countries that lack manual labour workers and create more creative jobs for people around the world and get more and more people into the world of engineering but that takes time, it will take time for people to get into other job areas and learn new things so implementing this vast number of robotics at this pace, is not a good idea at all. What about robotics for security? In the medical area? Would you like to have your operation conducted by a fully-autonomous robot? Or be in the scope of a robot gunner? Would you put your life in the hands of a robot? Or fighting for your country, for dignity and peace against a lifeless being that kills on sight and only obey a series of computer commands made behind the screen of a computer? Just a few clicks on the keyboard can lead to lethal and potentially inhumane killing out there. And we gain nothing from it.
Capital Punishment Ought to be Eliminated

As previously agreed (in the comment section), I will not put fort any further point that have anything to do with the debate topic in this round. First, I would like to thank my opponent for engaged in such a high spirited debate. It was truly an interesting debate, so much so that the glaring limit of 8000 characters has never felt so crippling. There are so many points went unaddressed simply because of the character limit. I seriously hope someone would do something regarding that limit in near future. I think it is good to remind the reader that the purpose of a debate is not to prove a point, but to see both sides of a problem. With that in mind, my opponent essentially agreed with me most of the time. The rest, I would like the reader to judge himself.
Capital Punishment Ought to be Eliminated

My position is that CP ought to be eliminated as a form of punishment from the judicial system. I shall have BoP as the US does have the death penalty, my opponent shall justify it's useage. I shall try to make a case for it's removal. My opponent:Round 1) acceptance & arguments 2) arguments/rebuttals3) arguments/rebuttals 4) rhetorical statement of choosing. Me:Round 1) terms and conditions2) arguments/rebuttals3) arguments/rebuttals4) conclusion May be done through political, legal, medical, or economic arguments. No semantics. No plagurism (due to us having this debate before) Failure to adhere to the rules results in an automatic loss. Goodluck to my opponent!
Homosexual Relationships

Well is there really no connection? Even between the same gender? Isn't it interesting that when you spend time with someone, you learn to finish their sentences, know what they are thinking, and even eventually do what they want without being told? With one glance you can understand exactly what they are feeling and thinking, without words being exchanged. We may be born alone, but we also live together. What specifically makes you so strongly believe that we are all meant to die alone, when for the longest time, we have learned to live together and be together; whether it's as a society, a family, whatever it may be. We are generally united rather than alone. Why shouldn't homosexuals be united as well?
Homosexual Relationships

Who are we to say what is right? Is any relationship right, per se? I believe all relationships are wrong, we are born alone and we die alone but that we should tolerate the wrongness because life would be unbearable without them. It's sort of like how we legalize some recreational drugs when really all of them should be banned for our wellbeing. Everyone needs some release, some superficial meaning of life and it's a waste of life and non-productive (I mean a homosexula one is quite literlaly unproductive in the physical sense) but it is not wrong enough for use to outlaw necessarily, that's definitely a gray area. No doctor or person on Earth would ever go up to someone who wasn't outed as gay and say 'hey I think you should be gay, it's a great way of life.' but for those who are just so addicted to the idea that the withdrawal symptoms of gay sex (yes even before they've ever actually had gay sex) they feel suicidal, feel liek their entire life's purpose is this one true love for the gender their body was never designed to ejaculate into. Oh how beautifully wrong it is indeed.