BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Most Old World Boxers (pre 1930) would be at a disadvantage in a modern boxing ring

Hi Eyeballsac. I was hoping to debate with a nostalgic boxing fan with a penchant for certain fighters from days gone by, however, whether that is you or not, thanks for accepting. In saying, "most 'Old World Boxers' (say pre 1935) would be at a disadvantage against a modern counterpart of equal standing if they fought in 2012” I was suggesting, the modern fighter would have an advantage over the historical fighter. Your response however would seem, to me at least, that you thought I meant disadvantaged per se…You text is in bold.(1.) 15 rounds of boxing was changed to12 in championship boxing. This happened becaue 15 rounds became a healthhazard, so an "Old Boxer" fighting now would have a lesser chance ofbecoming seriously injured. You are right in saying an olden day boxer, over a shorterdistance, would be at less risk of serious injury. However against a modern fighter, over 12rounds, he would be equally advantaged/disadvantaged as his opponent. So thatdoesn’t really prove much. (2.) The weight of boxing gloves was raised 2 ounces. This happened because after a longmatch, the gloves began to break. This would ultimately result in a bare-knuckle fight, which is more dangerous than with gloves. So now, the gloves are more resistible to breaking, making it slightly safer. Both fighters wearing the same sized gloves would give neither fighter an advantage/disadvanage.My initial arguments are:1) Boxing has evolved. Training techniques have improved, favouring the modern fighter. The skillset of the modern fighter puts him at an advantage over the crude sluggers of yesteryear. 2) The officiating/rules of the modern game favours the modern fighter therefore the 1930’s fighter would likely be disqualified.
Most Old World Boxers (pre 1930) would be at a disadvantage in a modern boxing ring

I accept your challenge, because I do not see how "Old Boxers" would be at a disadvantage.I will state rules that have changed from the 1930's to now.1. 15 rounds of boxing was changed to 12 in championship boxing.This happened becaue 15 rounds became a health hazard, so an "Old Boxer" fighting now would have a lesser chance of becoming seriously injured.2. The weight of boxing gloves was raised 2 ounces.This happened because after a long match, the gloves began to break. This would ultimately result in a bare-knuckle fight, which is more dangerous than with gloves. So now, the gloves are more resistible to breaking, making it slightly safer.I conclude my beginning arugment. I am eager to see your arguments as well.
Most Old World Boxers (pre 1930) would be at a disadvantage in a modern boxing ring

My argument is that most 'Old World Boxers' ( say pre 1935) would be at a disadvantage against a modern counterpart of equal standing if they fought in 2012. Format = Informal (new to this) First round = Acceptance and your argument to the contrary. Second round = Rebuttals Third round = More Rebuttals
gun banns

DEFENSE1. Your logic is fallacious. Just because it's always the first thing a dictator does, doesn't mean that every time it happens, a dictatorship is imminent. You still neglected my United Kingdom example. My evidence clearly shows that gun banning and dictatorship has no correlation whatsoever. Once again, the United Kingdom's murder rate with guns is 40 times less than the United States'. That's very substantial.First, I'm not saying that the freedom of speech, press, petition, religion, and assembly are privileges. Those are rights. But have you read the explicit words of Amendment 2? Here it is and I quote:"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."It says a well regulated militia. Unless you're in the militia, you're not authorized to have one, and that's the supreme law.2. Your 10 million figure matters. Is it 10 million illegal immigrants over the course of US History? 10 million illegal immigrants since the last 10 years? Because if it is the former, it's not very impressive. 10 million throughout a course of over 200+ years wouldn't prove your point at all. I urge that the voters would disregard his uncited argument.I addressed your gun smuggling issue in Round 3. You didn't provide any evidence that says that gun banning will lead to the rampant selling of guns to Average Joe Americans. I urge that the voters disregard this argument as well.3. My point is that gun banning will lead to less public shootings, which you didn't refute as well. By restricting guns, Average Joe Ameicans don't have the power to commit spontaneous murders in public area. OFFENSE1. An overwhelming majority of the Fifty States allow anyone to purchase a firearm. That, as I have proven, is incredibly dangerous because medically insane people could obtain them without any difficulty. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)2. Gun banning WILL make the country safer, as shown in United Kingdom and Germany. This is because no one can obtain them, and thus making public shootings much scarcer, or even disappear. (http://www.gunpolicy.org...)WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE PRO1. I have successfully shown and provided links that gun banning isn't destructive to the nation's security.2. I have successfully responded to every issue my opponent presented me.I urge the voters to only assess the arguments and rebuttals presented within this debate. I thank my opponent for creating this debate. Thank you for reading the entire debate and using your impartial judgment to cast your ballot. PS: In Round 4, in my recap, I meant "Not banning guns...". Sorry for the confusion, if it caused any.
gun banns

1. No, I"m not taking a huge leap. The amendments are not a "right"" I don"t know where you ever heard that" and I"m not saying that we will automatically turn into a dictatorship, just taking the civilians weapons are always the first thing a dictator does. Are you also saying the freedom of speech and freedom of religion is a privilege? No, not at all because this is why this country was created. Being allowed to protect yourself against the government, which is what the second amendment is saying, is not a privilege from the government" sounds kind of stupid if you ask me. 2. First of all it is well over ten million, but that isn"t even the point. It just shows how it is easy to sneak into America, never mind bringing in weapons. No, weapon smuggling may not be a problem right now, but it would be if all guns were banned. As you can see drugs are banned, and so much of it has been snuck into the US. The same would go for guns if you couldn"t get them in the US anymore. 3. So what"s your point? You can"t take guns away as easily as you think. It would only be easy by taking them away from law abiding citizens, because they follow the law. Criminals don"t" Tell me how you would take the guns away from a criminal. Recapitulation- 1.You just said gun banning is dangerous. I"m confused with your point. 2.Do you know the history of the US? We don"t want to start following into England"s ideas of ruling. That"s why our country was created" that"s why the second amendment is there, so we don"t become like them. 3.Vote whoever the hell you want
gun banns

REBUTTAL:You fail to debate we Americans deserve this "right". We don't, in fact. This is a privilege. By saying that we take guns away from people turns us into a dictatorship is a huge leap. Once again, I provided a cite that shows the UK's success in its gun bans, which you failed to refute. The United Kingdom is SURELY not a dictatorship! Dictatorship is caused by something way more than just taking guns away from people so I fail to see how your argument materializes. I agree there are illegal immigrants in the country. However, I don't believe your number of 10 million. Also, I don't know if this is 10 million every year? Or 10 million total? A citation would provide clarity on that I hope. I believe it's not my burden to prove your statistics. First, I would like to say that we're not only trying to get criminals to hand in their guns. We want all the citizens to do so. Second, I believe I never said to break into peoples' houses to take their guns for the Fourth Amendment protects them against unreasonable seizures and searches. Third, please show a clear causal link between gun ownership and dictatorship. Even though the unarmed man can't do much to protect his family, that is not what my case is wanting to solve. My case wants to solve public shootings, where everybody is practically unarmed. By restricting guns and making it harder to access them, it makes it harder for these shootings to happen! EXTENSIONS:In Round 3, I showed that an overwhelming majority of the states allow anyone to purchase handguns and rifles without needing a license to purchase one. This allows anyone to have easy accessibility to have a gun, even though they might not be physically qualified or psychologically qualified. This is what caused the insane shootings at Newtown and Virginia Tech. Also in round 3, I provided hard evidence that one, gun banning won't lead to dictatorships like in United Kingdom, and two, gun banning lowers violence, also evidenced by my gunpolicy. org link. Finally, I asked you to explain why more harm would be done in Round 4, which really haven't done so you agree that more good will come from gun banning. RECAPITULATION:My case:1. Gun banning is dangerous because anyone, even medically insane people, can easily obtain it. This led to horrible incidents.2. Gun banning doesn't lead to dictatorship and will lead to a safer environment, as shown in the United Kingdom.3.
gun banns

Many people don't think about this, and maybe it is true it's not really worth taking into consideration, but what I mean by the government getting to controlling is by us losing our rights, etc. Turning into a dictatorship. Now there may be a very little chance of this ever happening, but it is a mistake you can only make once. History shows us what controlling government can do. It's history. You can't ignore it. Now I'm on a kindle fire so it's almost impossible to show my citations. But there is millions of illegal immigrants in the U.S. Please look it up if you wish. Now please explain to me how you can get these criminals to hand in their guns. I have yet to hear one good idea besides completely turning into a dictatorship and breaking into their house. Now please give me some ideas of what an unarmed man can do to protect his family if a criminal with an illegal purchased gun broke into his house.
gun banns

So You think this will work? You think that taking away the millions of guns will lower crime rates? Well over ten million illegal immigrants have been able to sneak into the U.S. You think that banning guns will stop this? All you are doing is taking away guns from the law abiding citizens. Let's say all guns in America disappear. They will only slowly come back and only to the criminals who sneak them into the country. There is also the chance of the government getting to controlling. You can not say it will never happen because that is an assumption. America is the youngest country meaning it is the last country that can say we will never be taken over the government. Personally I don't think it will happen, but it is always a possibility. There would be more harm done if all these guns were taken away.
gun banns

Yeah I'm arguing all guns. Basically all laws that the US Government pass are impossible to enforce completely. There will always be resistance to any law especially one that takes away their privilege (not right) to own guns. So your argument about the dichotomy of the law-abiding and the non-law-abiding applies to every privilege circumscription law, even those that have been passed already. I believe that banning all guns will lower the amount of gun violence. If there aren't any laws to ban guns, there will be people, some perhaps with mental disorders, that will be a threat to society because of their legal possession of firearms. Therefore, I believe that by restricting guns available to the civilian to zero, we can reduce gun violence.
gun banns

Now I'm assuming you are saying "all" guns. This however is not possible, and making a law to take away the rights will not help anyone. There are 2 types of people in this country, I'm talking about the U.S.A., and that is law abiding citizens, and non-law abiding citizens. I will be explaining this in the next few rounds. Now please tell me why automatic rifles should be ban while pistols are still out there. If this is not your argument, please tell me in the next round. If it is, give me some examples of why it should be banned over pistols.
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

You are absolutely correct my opponent. People can own handguns because of the Human rights. If you have a stranger in your house with a weapon such as a knife, you can get killed without even fighting. What my opponent said is that guns allow their owners to use them for protection. In this case, guns are necessary. However, think about this. If that stranger in that house had a gun pointing at you, would you still have a chance to shoot him and still be alive? There is only about less than 1% chance that you can shoot the stranger. The cause of this scenario is the law that allows people to have guns. Handguns depend on how the owner uses it, and in these days, people use them in bad ways. The ironic part of the law that allows people to own guns is that people are using them in bad ways, and police officers always have a hard time taking control of crimes that include gun shooting. People who own handguns always say this: People should be able to defend themselves from danger. However, people can use knives or other weapons to protect themselves. Allowing people to own handguns is only making it harder for people to defend themselves from danger.
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. In the United States, people are able to carry handguns. This is because handguns are there to protect the owner from danger. However, there are lots of crimes that involve guns. The first reason why people should not be allowed to carry guns is because nobody can tell who is going to kill someone with his or her gun. There is no guarentee that you will not get shot. To reduce the number of crimes, private ownership of handguns ought be banned.
Existence of God

Cosmological Argument Where my opponent fails to understand the concept of simultaneous is that the moment of the ACT of creation and the creation of time itself occur at exactly the same point. Therefore the act of creating time is occurring within the framework of time thus making it possible to use the language of time for example "simultaneous" Q.E.D. My opponent states that nothing can come from nothing is a contradictory statement. He however, fails to SHOW how the premise "Nothing can come from nothing." is contradictory. He, however, attempts to apply the same rule of the causality of the universe to the creator God. If the same rule of causality applies to the creator God then the creator God is not greater than the universe but its equivalent. Something equivalent to the Universe can not create the Universe. Therefore the creator God does not abide by the same principal of causality as the creator God is greater than the Universe. It appears that in my opponent's third contention he has chosen to reiterate in a different manner his second contention. As I have responded to his contention I'd like to show that my opponents belief that every cause must have a cause is inconsistent. If we apply this principal to everything in science then no explanation would be valid as EVERY explanation could be brought to an infinite regress. If every explanation needed an explanation to be valid then NO explanation would be valid. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause which is the creator God. Teleological Argument My opponent's contention focused on the idea that other forms of life might exist. My opponent claims that I have no evidence that this could NOT occur. I'd like to rebut by asking my opponent for explanation of how it CAN occur. I'd also like to point out that my opponent chose not to respond to the vanishingly small likelihood that this would occur leaving our final explanation, design, to be the strongest explanation. Objective Morality My opponent appears to believe that 2 + 2 = 4 is an "agreed axiom" of mathematics. This is a false premise. To assume that 2 + 2 = 4 is agreed upon is to remove it from its objectivity. Even if every leading mathematician in the entire world stated that 2 + 2 = 5 they would be wrong. My opponent appears to fail to understand the concept of objectivity and therefore contends that morality that is objective must be proven. Objective morality exists necessarily for it is unable to NOT exist. To contend this my opponent would have to prove that morality is not objective but rather subjective. I shall leave this to my opponent. In conclusion I believe we have seen 3 good reasons to believe that theism is true. We, however, have not heard any arguments to believe that atheism is true. It is for these reasons that voters should vote Pro. I'd also like to, if my opponent is interested, continue to the debate with a new challenge to allow us to further delve into this interesting topic.
Existence of God

Cosmological Argument "causes do not necessarily have to be antecedent to their effects. Causes can often be simultaneous to their effects, an example of which is a person sitting on a cushion and the cushion compressing to the weight." The concept 'simultaneous' is itself a concept of time. For the same reason that god's omniscience does not disprove free will, as time does not exist for god(simultaneousness included), the universe does not need a cause. "My opponents belief that the universe which encompasses everything can be created and caused from nothing is at face value absurd. It is one of this world's standing principles that from nothing and by nothing, nothing comes. My opponent is to have us believe that everything in the known universe was caused by nothing." Your positing that the universe must have been created because nothing can come from nothing is contradictory. You discard that the universe could exist without a cause but then claim, without evidence, that god can exist without a cause. To respond to your contention that a cause for the universe must be personal being, I can simply apply the argument to god. God must have a personal creator, and that creator must have a personal creator to infinity. Teleological Argument To your contention that life could not form with different universal constants, I respond the same as I did last round. You cannot prove that under a different set of universal constants, radically different forms of life would not emerge. Who are we to say that our form of life is the only one possible? Objective Morality You cannot prove something exists based solely on the definition. And it is up to the one claiming 2+2=5 to prove their claim, however, this is because it has already been established that according to agreed upon axioms of mathematics, 2+2=4. You are making the positive assertion that objective morality exists, therefore you must prove it. Objective morality is not a basic fact as it has not been proven to exist.
Existence of God

Cosmological Argument You misunderstand my argument and I apologize for not being clearer. I was actually disputing that the universe had a cause as I pointed out. I can concede that the universe began to exist while still mantaining that it does not need a cause. As time is a construct within the universe, prior to the existence of the universe(pre big-bang) time did not exist. Therefore prior to the big bang what would become the universe supereded time and thus did not need a cause. Also, infinites or singularities can exist naturally. Take black holes for example. The center of a black hole has zero volume and infinite density. This is a natural singularity just as the big bang singularity was natural. this is because our concept of time is a construction within the universe(space-time). Before the universe existed there was no time. So my argument stands that for the same reason that god does not need a cause(it supersedes time), the universe does not need a cause. Teleological Argument "The fine-tuning of the universe can not be due to necessity as it is both logically and mathematically possible that the constants can be different. The difference however, lies in the result of the changes of those constants which would end in the non-existence of life. The chance explanation fails when you look at the sheer unlikelihood. Such a possibility is less than one winning the lottery 7 times in a row" The chances of winnin the lottery can range from 18 to 120 million to one. So your chances of winning the lottery 7 times in a row could be up to 840 million to one.[1] Now estimating conservatively there could be up to a billion billion planets in the universe. So even if the chances of life arising were more than 1 in 840 million, life would have still have arisen on almost 1.2 billion different planets. It is not the universe which has been fine tuned to create life, but life which has evolved in the way it has in response to the constants of the universe. If the constants were different, then life may have still arisen and evolved, albeit in a profoundly different way. You would be correct in stating that we would not have evolved exactly the way we are now if the constants of the universe were different. Objective Morality "My opponent seems to contest that objective morality is true. This is, to me, a properly basic fact. Certain things based on our own moral intuition are basically wrong, for example, cold murder, genocide, rape and torture. Other things like charity, love and generosity are basically good. It is the burden of my opponent to prove that morality is not objective as objectivity need only be demonstrated" Yes. Objective morality needs to be demonstrated before we can assume that objective morality exists. All you have shown is that people seem to think that some things are bad and some things are good. You have in no way shown that they are objectively good or bad. And the burden is on you as you are making an argument which rests solely on objective morality existing. It is not the default to believe that objective morals exist. [1]http://www.savingadvice.com...