BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abortion is wrong and needs to stop please tell me im wrong.

Uh... I guess this is my first case here, so I'll stumble around quite a bit, but I don't believe there is anything wrong with abortion. If, and only if the mother is raped which is the cause of insemination and becomes pregnant then I say she should be able to abort herself, especially in cases where the mother abuses the child because of bad memories (Which I suppose at least one person has done), then the child commits suicide. Or maybe the mother beats the child to death. In that case I'd rather she'd aborted it, because then there's less pain and suffering for the fetus involved, and other people who became attached to it while it was still alive.
Guns should be banned for US Civilians who arent part of the Law Enforcement

Another thing I would like to bring up is explosives. How often to you see explosives in crimes? Very Very Very rarely. And the reason for that is because they are illegal. Same can go for guns if the US can make them illegal. I would like to call out something someone said in the comments. Well first of all I would love to debate this topic with the person who left the comment. And the second thing is what he said in the bank robbery analogy. I don't know about you but I certainly wouldn't feel safe when I'm out on my normal routine and whenever I'm in a crowd of people know that someone has a gun on them and at any point can pull out that gun and start shooting people. I would rather live my life with assurance that a large large amount of the population is gun free. I know I already used this analogy but ill say it again. Its like placing a bomb in the middle of the most populated city and know one knows if it will detonate or not. They just live their lives crossing their fingers hoping it won't. Its not worth it. Get rid of the bomb, get rid of guns keep people safe.
Guns should be banned for US Civilians who arent part of the Law Enforcement

Ok, I see your point. However I want to compare a couple of these fine 50 states. I come from both California and Alaska. Alaska have the most lenient gun laws and California having the most strict gun laws. Alaska ranks #1 in gun violence with Louisiana following at #2. California has a moderate gun violence crime rate. Why? Because they have strict gun laws and the only thing that is giving California moderate gun crime rates is because it is a border state. And that has to do with the illegal immigrants that are coming over the border illegally with illegal guns. That's an issue about customs and such and getting rid of the illegal immigrants with illegal guns from the border. If we got rid of that issue that is in the way of gun safety then we just have to deal with the Americans who have the guns illegally. A good amount of the gun crimes in America involved Mexicans, and any other illegal immigrants. So if we got rid of illegal immigrants and guns combined crime rates should ideally go down. Anyways back to Alaska. Alaska has really lenient laws when it comes to guns. Therefore almost no matter who you are your going to be able to get a gun. USA today says that Alaska gun crime death rate is 19.6 per 100,000. Shockingly high. And this is all because of gun laws. I would also like to bring up the horrific Sandy Hook incident. 20 kids and 8 adults were kill by Adam Lanza who opened fire at an Elementary school. Adam got his guns that he used from where? His moms house and his mom had the guns he used registered legally. If guns were illegal he would have not been able to get those guns he used from such an easy source. He would have to find the guns from an illegal source and he could have been caught in the process of finding those guns. Same with the incident that happened recently with the boy who shot a little girl with his dads shotgun. If that dad didn't have a gun cause guns were made illegal. That incident would not have happened. Turning to what was said in a comment that was just made. Criminals are going to go for quick and easy. Sure some go for under the radar but a lot go for quick and easy. Therefore finding a legal source to obtain a gun. They want to go in and out before cops can find them. Also if guns were made illegal. The government is going to trace as many people as they can who obtain a gun legally, take those guns, then move on to getting the guns obtained illegally. And if they were still illegally making guns how will they get bullets? They can't cause they aren't in stalk at most stores. And if they had some of their own they will run out at some point. So my point I guess is that of course the US is not going to be a 100% safe country but if we can make it at safe as we can we would do it. Every gun taken away can potentially save 1 or more lives.
Guns should be banned for US Civilians who arent part of the Law Enforcement

Thank you for the compliment your arguments are great also. You said that when guns were banned in Australia law enforcement also had to give up guns, this is false. Look at this link http://www.loc.gov... this is the official library of congress website and very accurate. After the introduction it states that Australian police carry firearms. Even, as it says in part B, State and Territory Police Forces carry pistols. In Australia they did exactly what you are saying to do and things have gotten worse not better. I agree that if drugs were legalized there would be many deaths, crimes, and injuries related to drugs. The difference between drugs and guns is that you can't defend yourself with a drug. With a gun you can. In the graph you sent handguns are shown as the most commonly used weapon for violence. I agree with this but that doesn't mean that they are the easiest to get. It may just be the most convent. It is small, light weight, and concealable. Right now criminals probably resort to handguns over the Ak-47 because Ak-47s are illegal. If all guns are illegal they may get the Ak-47 over the handgun because they are both hard to get but still very possible. This would cause more deaths and violence since its fully automatic and can do much more damage. Also in the graph it shows that gun violence since 1993 has gone down significantly. This article http://www.npr.org... talks about this. Also notice how in the last paragraph it says, "About 10 percent of state prison inmates said they purchased [their guns] from a retail store or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source." 40% obtained their guns from an illegal source so as I previously said they will still get their guns. The other 60% will probably follow and do the same. Making guns illegal for US citizens will result in more crime since the people are defenseless. Criminals will know that no one can defend themselves so they won't be afraid to attack. Right now criminals don't know if someone has a gun on them or not so they are less willing to attack. Banning guns would be a major mistake.
Guns should be banned for US Civilians who arent part of the Law Enforcement

I have got to be honest your arguments are really good. However there is one thing your missing. when guns were banned in Australia they also took the guns away from law enforcement. Same for Europe, guns are banned there and law enforcement officers also are not able to have guns. So if there are no guns for law enforcement of course crime rates will increase because no one has anything to fear. They will shoot knowing there will be no shots in return from the Law Enforcement. So if we made guns illegal for "Citizens" not law enforcement crime rates will go down. Another thing that will help with my point is what you said about drugs. " Many drugs are illegal but people still find ways to get a hold of them". Yes, this is true and is true when talking about guns. However if drugs were all of the sudden made legal there would be so many deaths and so many injuries and crimes resulting in drugs. And we are seeing the same with guns in America. Gun crime rates are way high for a country that is supposed to be "safe". I would like to show you some research i made. Handguns are one of the easiest guns for US citizens to get their hands on because laws aren't as strict for them as rifles. https://en.wikipedia.org... On the link you will see a graph showing crime rates based on weapons. On the graph handgun crime rates are horrifically high compared to other types of guns. If you use an Ak-47 for example which would be put in the "Other guns" categories, a criminal most of the time is not going to try to obtain this gun because it is really hard to get because it is very hard to get because laws are strict on them. So they are going to result towards the easiest most legal thing to get to dodge the law and that is a handgun. So if you were to make guns illegal for US citizens and not for law enforcement it will decrease gun crime rates because its going to make it harder for criminals to obtain and they will still have something to fear if they carry out a crime with a gun and that is law enforcement.
Guns should be banned for US Civilians who arent part of the Law Enforcement

Most criminals may get their guns these ways but if guns are banned they will resort to other ways. They could get them from other countries and other ways. Many drugs are illegal but people still find ways to get a hold of them. Criminals will find a way to get guns. Also if guns are banned today there are many still out there. Criminals aren't going to turn their guns in. In Australia guns were banned and homicide rates went up. The same will happen here. Guns make America safe.
Guns should be banned for US Civilians who arent part of the Law Enforcement

Ok, sure criminals may still have guns however most criminals get what is easy to get and if gun were illegal and banned it would prevent alot of criminals from getting guns because they want the easy way to get them. Think about this if a criminal has a gun to carry out a homescide. Where did that criminal originally get the gun? Now a days most criminals get their guns from local gun shops or they get it from someone else. And even that someone they get it from had to buy the gun from somewhere. If guns were banned the only way criminals can buy the guns would be from a different country and they would have to bring it through US customs which is wayyy hard. So putting that wall in between criminals and guns will make it harder for them to obtain them in the US. Another way homecides happen is because gun shops sell guns to these "stable" people who seem totally fine and all the legal documents check out. Then later those same people become "unstable" and use those guns they bought in the past to kill people. Its like putting a bomb in the middle of a city that you think may or may not detonate. Its just not worth it.
Guns should be banned for US Civilians who arent part of the Law Enforcement

If guns are banned for every US citizen, other than Law Enforcement, self defense is taken away. Criminals don't follow laws. Law abiding citizens would give up their guns while criminals would illegally get them just as they do today. The people who would no longer have guns would be defenseless and more homicides would occur. The only good this could possibly do is that there is a chance suicide rates would go down. Banning guns for US citizens is a very bad decision.
God exists

Alright, I will be your Pro for this debate. My opinion for believing in a God is through reasoning, not by faith alone. First, I believe that this universe is not only constituted by stuffs and materials, but also the immaterial things that we could not see. For example, what if I ask you what is love made of? I do not see love as a material, but I could feel it. In addition, I also believe that I am not purely synapsis and that there is something immaterial and internal about me which I do not know (such as a soul). Another example would be if I were going to hit you, you would feel hurt (externally, which is your body is hurt) but if I said something that offended, you would feel hurt (internally, which is your body is not hurt but your something is hurt). Why was the hurt (internally) even there and why does it seems so "real"? It doesn't cause you any bodily harm but why do you feel "hurt" inside of you? Second, I don't know how the big bang theory works (the mathematical proofs) but the explanation of it, that a "bang" can create everything as we know it, does seem miraculous to me since it doesn't require a creator or an "outside force" for the process to begin in the first place and that something can come out of nothing. Finally third, it is interesting to me that human, unlike any other species can recognize the difference between right and wrong, good and bad, benign and evil. What are the right things to do and what are the wrong things to do? And how do you know? All of the three points lead me to believe that there is an intelligent designer behind this universe and that without him or her or it, we wouldn't be here at all.
The Obama Presidency has been, overall, a success.

I accept & am excited to participate in this debate!My opponent has a deep dark, daunting task on his hands to say the least. Defending the Obama record is something I could not do if you paid me. That's about as hard as defending the Bush record, considering that Obama is Bush 2.0. Obama has delivered Bush's 3rd term. But I will be expecting the typical Pro-Obama arguments (ObamaCare, Bin Laden, Iraq. The Works...)I will argue that this president is a failure, and is just as bad, if not worse then our last president, and is just another liar/puppet for the Federal Reserve, the Military Industrial Complex, the special interests, and offers no real "Change" for this country. Obama = Status Quo.Mind you that you are debating someone who SUPPORTED Obama in 2008. (What a sheep I was.)I wish my opponent luck in our match. Let the discussion begin.
Uniforms in school

The tie was just an example, but let me try to rework the argument. Say its time to take a big test like the ACT or the SAT. A student wants to have his lucky shorts, shore it is only a mental thing, but it makes him less nervous,so he can do better on the test. That is more what I meant than physically uncomfortable. People could get picked on because their bag looks cheap, if their watch is cheap or the phone they have is old. people might make fun of you for living in a bad part of town, or driving a beat up car or not being able to afford one at all. Clothes are not the only thing that bullies might pick on because someone cant afford something. Also it is not required to say where you buy your clothes. A jean jacket, for example, is a jean jacket even if it is second hand. People pick on others for being different, uniforms only mean they have to look for something new to target. So ask yourself, is stopping some bulling worth giving up your individuality?
Uniforms in school

Salutations. People can express themselves thought there attire, uniforms take away that method of expression. This is not world ending, but school is when people have to slowly find out how they are and what they want to be, so losing one of the ways to explore who you are is not great. Moving on, uniforms do not mean that there will be respect for everyone. They do stop bullying based of clothes, in general, but kids will find other things to pick on that may be more damaging than what someone wants to wear. Uniforms are also not the most effective way to save time, and if one does not want to worry about what to wear, they could wear a similar outfit every day. It would have a compatible effect to a uniform in time saving.
Games and videos boosts students motivation for learning rather than create distractions

I don't also have much time to write more because I have other things to do. I'll just restate my opinion. Games and videos have more negative effects on students because they are not only distracting but also cause some problems such as social isolation or aggressive behaviors. Also they can help pupils react or think quickly in the games/videos, but not really in reality. Also asking teachers and participating in class debates are better ways than rewinding the videos on the Internet.
Games and videos boosts students motivation for learning rather than create distractions

I'm sorry I cannot type much more since I have things to do. Final Focus: Most of my arguments still stand. I will just answer my rebuttal and state mine Rebuttal: Well I have proof that games do help since games and videos have helped me learn concepts This is the age of augmented reality. These videos teach kids things that teachers cannot explain in class since you can rewind them. Why we go to school is because we want to learn, and these videos elaborate on what can be learned. I cannot write more.
Games and videos boosts students motivation for learning rather than create distractions

Argument 1: Not all videos help students. Games and videos are interesting so that they attract many people, making them to spend more and more time on the games/videos. This occurrence leads to addiction and let them gradually become dependent on games or videos. (Look more on http://www.education.com...) Disadvantages 1. If they become dependent on games and videos while they learn something, they might not pay attention to what the teacher says in the class. Therefore, the importance of school is thought to be low, which can also cause a low attendance of students. 2. Learning extra things that pupils are curious about is beneficial; however, learning contents that they are supposed to accept in the class with games is not a good way. Also they can"t keep doing it in even when they're in an university so that they"d better improve their study skills. Impact: Students have lack of independence on education, depending on other medias such as games/videos on the Internet. Argument 2: Games and videos cause social isolation. According to a website, dictionary.reference.com, the definition of social isolation is a state or process in which persons, groups, or cultures lose or do not have communication or cooperation with one another, often resulting in open conflict. When teenagers keep playing games or watching videos even for education purpose, they don"t interact with people in reality. As the time spending on the Internet increases, their social life time decreases. Disadvantages 1. There is a probability that games and videos motivate some students rather than create distractions. However, there is a more significant part in their lives: how to communicate with others, social life. If they don"t have this ability, they won"t survive in a society. 2. Most people watch videos on Youtube or play games "alone" because they don"t need anyone around. They usually get used to being alone, forgetting about cooperation with other people. Rebuttal: 1. You can find out the details that prove that games can they can lead the students to aggressive behaviors or physiological arousal on https://glinton.wordpress.com... ( More: Barlett, C.P., Anderson, C.A., & Swing, E.L. (2009). Video game effects confirmed, suspected, and speculative: A review of the evidence. Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), pp. 377-403. Sax, L. (2007). Boys adrift: The five factors driving the growing epidemic of unmotivated boys and underachieving young men. New York: Basic Books. Stansbury, M. (December 18, 2009). Can gaming change education? eSchool News. Accessed December 18, 2009 at http://www.eschoolnews.com....) 2. It"s my experience that I"ve seen many classes like that in many schools. (I"ve gone to three different schools because I moved twice in my life) There"s one thing that needs more explanation in your arguments. "Impact: Children are more aware of their surroundings and more attentive -Is there any proof that supports awareness of surroundings in reality, not in games?
Games and videos boosts students motivation for learning rather than create distractions

Argument 1: Videos help students with work Summary: Many people have posted videos on youtube and other sites like khan academy to help students learn what was not discussed in class. For example, khan academy personally has helped me out because of the clear explanation by the mentors. Advantages: 1. Videos can be played over and over so even if you do not understand a certain topic you can rewind it and learn at your own pace. On the other hand one cannot rewind teacher's seminars, and many times these people fall behind 2. Good animating and diagrams can allow students to learn rapidly. Crash course is a learning channel on youtube with over 2.5 million subscribers. Using great animating, the crash course team turns learning into a fun experience, and makes their diagrams and explanations clear. Impact: As a result, students get better grades and succeed. Argument 2: Games allow mental development Summary: Video games allow students to learn since they improve how the brain processes information. They allow students to increase reaction time and surprisingly develop responsibility. Proof: TED talks Daphne Bavelier Advantages 1. Shooting games allow people to keep track of things. A study on TED talks shows that people exposed to Call of Duty are able to keep track of more things more efficiently. 2. Video games increase attention. Daphne Bavelier made a study in which one must identify the color of certain words, but most of the words were names of colors that conflict with the color they actually have. As a result, action gamers fared much better than others. This increases attention of surroundings. (You can watch the video at . http://www.ted.com...). Impact: Children are more aware of their surroundings and more attentive Rebuttal: Let's look at your words carefully: 'Almost all games and videos are created to be played for fun,not for education. They are usually violent so that they can lead the students to aggressive behaviors or physiological arousal. ' - Do you have any proof that supports this fact. Even if they are created to play for fun, what is the impact? 'Students are rarely motivated by playing games or watching videos. If we take a look at an actual class that involves using games to learn something, many pupils often go off the topic or start chatting, making fun of silly things during the process. They might have fun and enjoy their classes, however it won't actually help them learn what they're supposed to know. '
Games and videos boosts students motivation for learning rather than create distractions

1. Almost all games and videos are created to be played for fun,not for education. They are usually violent so that they can lead the students to aggressive behaviors or physiological arousal. Like a coin has two sides, of course, there are some games and documentaries that give students lessons, motivating them. However, students are mostly more distracted by the games not really learning by the contents in the games. 2. Students are rarely motivated by playing games or watching videos. If we take a look at an actual class that involves using games to learn something, many pupils often go off the topic or start chatting, making fun of silly things during the process. They might have fun and enjoy their classes, however it won't actually help them learn what they're supposed to know. During the games/videos, they might learn the wrong values, which is completely different from teachers' purpose. Therefore, I think games and videos create more distractions and don't boost students motivation for learning even though they are made for the purpose of education.