BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control in the United States

There should be more gun control laws because of the increasing mass murders in the last twenty years. These mass murders have occurred in places such as Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. In these states, there are no requirements to have a permit to purchase a gun, provide firearm registration, and to supply an owner license. This shows that there is a correlation between minimal gun laws and mass shooting. The number of murder rates in Rhode Island, Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii are very low. This is because of the strict laws of requiring a state permit, owner license, and carry permits. These states have the lowest amount of murder from the survey of 2010. This shows that strict gun control laws in the United States lead to less murders. In my research, I have found that other countries and continents besides the United States have a low murder rate compared to the United States. This includes Sweden, Spain, Canada, and Australia. Why is this? This is because of the many firm laws. These laws include registrations and permits, psychological tests, and safety courses. As you can see, states like Iowa, Rode Island, Hawaii and countries like Canada, Spain and Sweden, all have low murder rate because of more rigorous laws. From the research that I have provided, gun laws and murder rates associate with each other. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.cnn.com... http://www.sunray22b.net... http://www.deseretnews.com...
life being nature, there is no, before life

lol.. religion is false.. proves itself at best 1 can be true, and many exist, hinetedi hint hint life requires nature, life is nature, nature is life plants cant exist without a sun? also sun and plants are nature.. and clearly i am right.. just give it up hint, judgement reveals defeat and you have been defated in all lengts sir, you havnt even been con yet :) a tip, maybe you guys should learn what the con position is, just saying
life being nature, there is no, before life

God, what it must be like in his head. Honestly if mind reading were possible, reading his would be illegal. They would probably legalize weed first.Firstly, Pro can't prove religion is false. Thus that means nothing. Also Pro never offered any real impact from that statement. Next his says he can't exist without nature. That doesn't matter. Because the resolution seems to imply that nature requires life, not the other way around.Also, lets look at that whole "without nature life can't exist, nature is life". A leads to B, therefore A is B without rational logic. The Sun allows for Plants. Thus the Sun is a Plant. I wonder if it tastes good.Pro believes he can somehow twist (to put it lightly) some part of my statements against me. I didn't say he must prove life exists. I said he must prove his definition is right. But the voters can easily see that Pro has performed a strawmanAnd Pro ends with a question that means literally nothing to the course of this discussion. Presumably it's a strawman as well.Hey, has anyone else thought that Vi Spex is a mutated Spam Bot? It would explain the discussions he has.Anyhow, things happened, a fellow coworker took some food out, and didn't check it, and shipped it. Well.. to get to the point.. The Boss's Wife got a semi raw Lemon Basil Tilapia. I took the fall. Son of a b*tch. Yeah he was pissed. Well after a short discussion, I've opted to accept a job offer elsewhere, and put in my two weeks at my place. I can do my job d@mn well, I don't need someone treating me like cr@p. Well I'ma head off.As Always, vote ConSources: America Fvck Yeah!
The length of summer vacations in the American school system is harmful to education.l

im gonna have to forfeit, i have no idea what i has thinking when i posted this haha. Late night caffeine induced thinking. the only thing ive got to rebut is that as a kid my summer break was from mid june to mid August, about 2 months. and then ive heard off schools having 3 1/2 month breaks and i was like WHY THE F?
The length of summer vacations in the American school system is harmful to education.l

I would like this debate to be about educational effectiveness and not about the cost of schools. Con will debate why summer vacations are good for education, not for the recreation of students. Now my argument. There is so much time off during summer breaks, 2-4 months on average. That time causes the knowledge attained during the previous school year to fall into disuse, making it more difficult to build upon that knowledge in the upcoming school year.
Dairy Farming is Inconsistent with Modern Western Ethical Norms

Spelling and Grammar The quality of my opponent's prose made this debate difficult to read and understand. In addition to 31 spelling errors (according to Aspell), there were randomly capitalized words, incorrect use of quotation marks, incorrect formulation of words, misused commas, run-on sentences, uncapitalized words which should have been capitalized, and incorrect word choices. The prose was often incomprehensible and incoherent even when there were no grammar errors. I will stop here only because there is no need to exhaust the subject. Sources I used 30 high quality citations from mainstream newspapers, books from respected authors, and papers from research institutions. Con included 15 citations in his 2 rounds but didn't even use several of these in his arguments such as: r2.7, r2.8 and r2.10. He simply pasted the links in for no reason. Conduct Though Con was polite throughout the debate, he put a lot of words in my mouth, sometimes in quotation marks to make it appear as if I had said these things verbatim. Though I don't think Con was acting in bad faith, this conduct is tantamount to lying and shouldn't be tolerated at debate.org. Conclusion Dairy cows live lives of severe confinement, are exposed to a battery of crippling diseases and have their tails and limbs chopped of while they are conscious and under no anesthetic. They are overworked to such an extent that they are considered spent before they have reached a quarter of their natural lifespans. When they collapse under this mistreatment they are drug away and killed. Their children are separated from them before they have even had a chance to nurse. Their sons are confined in darkness and are forced to endure painfully deficient diets and various forms of mutilations such as castration, usually without anesthetic. Both mother and son end their terrible lives in slaughterhouses where conditions are too hellish to be conveyed by language. Is this abuse consistent with the values of the modern, enlightened West? This is the question you are being asked to vote on.
The God of the Bible Exists

And now, according to Pro's rules, I am allowed to rebut; I would happily have just rebutted Pro's claims (for Pro has the burden of proof) but I was not allowed to do so under the rules that Pro laid out in R1.The first thing to note is that Pro has not yet made a single argument in favour of the existence of the God of the Bible; at best, Pro has demonstrated that Deism is right. At best.I could literally concede every point that Pro makes (not that I'm inclined to, of course!) and we would be no closer to finding any illumination about the existence of the God of the Bible. So, like my R2 offering, this offering is irrelevant to the debate... I may make some convincing arguments - but I have no need to do so... thus far, Pro has not even tried to meet their burden of proof regarding the God of the Bible.I note that Pro has a surprisingly good grasp of basic biology; so far, so good... Pro talks about "a blueprint" when it would be more apt to talk about "a recipe" but, other than that, I can find no fault in Pro's first nine paragraphs. Then it all starts to fall apart!The biggest issue, though, arises in Pro's final paragraph:"Information intrinsically depends upon an original act of intelligence to construct it".No, this is a major fallacy; this is precisely corrected by the lesson that we can all learn from "On the Origin of Species" - the sublime truth is that information can be created by circumstances (competing individuals) without the need for "an original act of intelligence". Thus I refute that which I need not refute and await Pro's first proposition as to why we should believe that the "God of the Bible" exists... Pro, it is your burden to show that such an entity (call Him Jehovah or Yahweh or God for all I care) exists. Evolution by natural selection cannot point to any god (even its absence can only hint at a Deistic god) - far less the God of the Bible! And I think that I've shown that the "God of the Bible" is a filthy immoral swine... I didn't even have to resort to showing how the bible is pro slavery (as is YHWH)... this is not even, as Pro asserts, an argument from Evil... I'm not about trying to prove that there's no perfectly moral creator by demonstrating evil in the World... I'm simply trying to show that there could be no such thing as the "God of the Bible" in a World that was not literally painted red with the blood of the suffering... for such are the claims of the bible that the existence of atheists and believers in other faiths with intact bodies is enough to prove that no such monster exists.
The God of the Bible Exists

In my estimation, Con has not made a case against the existence of God. He in fact has not made any claim against the existence of God beyond his statement, "I would say that the lack of blood and guts in major cities across the World is evidence that there is (thank goodness) no such bloodthirsty a monster as Yahweh." While the relationship between the prospect of a "bloodshed-free" city and the non-existence of God seems remarkably vague, the existence of such a city would in no way disprove God's existence. If God were "bloodthirsty," His lack of bloodshed in any city or cities would not negate His existence. Indeed, scripture itself reveals various times of peace and prosperity such as during king Solomon's reign. Nevertheless, a notable assumption underlining Con's claims is that God's seeming horrendous character should be grounds for dismissing the notion of His existence altogether. This line of reasoning however is in no way logical; their must be other reasons for rejecting His existence beyond disdain of His perceived character. One's perception of the character of God has no weight as to the veracity of His existence. God can exist and be evil. God can exist and be contradictory; He can say He is good and righteous when He is really evil. These possibilities do not negate His existence. Beyond this, Con makes these claims without explaining why they should be considered wrong (if that is indeed what he is claiming, as he did not say that any of these characteristics of God were wrong). If this is Con's intention, then he fails to provide a standard by which to judge the ethical nature of God based on His proclamations, commands and actions. I hope Con does not want to go "there," as defining a moral standard from human thought, which in a naturalistic/materialistic worldview are derivatives of unguided cognitive chemical processes, is utterly relativistic and ultimately impossible. I will defend and expand upon my statements concerning Con's argument in the following round if necessary.BTW, this is why I asked beforehand if Con would like to decide where this debate will go as now we are essentially having two debates, one on science and the other on morality. Not to mention a moral argument in no way refutes a science-based argument. I hope Con drops the moral argument, as it certainly will not lend any support to his position, and instead opts to focus on rebutting my claims concerning genetic information. If however he wishes to continue with his case based on ethics, I will gladly address each accusation for the sake of defending the character of my Father.Also, God's name is Jehovah, not Yahweh, just so you know the name of the one you are blaspheming. The name Yahweh is not found in any Hebrew manuscript. Here is a debate I had on the topic in which I provide some information , for your prospective interest: (http://www.debate.org...).On to Con...
The God of the Bible Exists

I am a Bible-believing Christian and I assert that much evidence is readily available which supports the existence of Jehovah Elohim, the Lord God of scripture. I will allow my opponent to decide in which direction this debate shall go (e. g. ethics, science, logic, philosophy, etc. ). I would rather not make a case for God based on philosophy if he would rather have scientific evidence, and likewise, I would rather not make a case for God based on science if he has ethical objections to the claim for the existence of God. And certainly Con may opt for evidence from multiple fields of inquiry. :)
Access to and the distribution of health related services ought to be handled by the free market.

Happy to think with you today. 1. My arguments will be primarily economic, Certainly. Government control of health insurance is far more practical with how the business of insurance works. A large pool of people sharing costs to protect themselves from tragedies is how insurance works. The larger the pool the better, Generally. There are many other points to show why single payer works best practically business-wise. 2. The moral arguments I use will not be about a "right" to healthcare. I don't believe in rights. I believe that society functions better when all of its members are taken care of. It is more efficient in many number of ways for me to live in a society where all members are cared for than one it is not. It is a selfish position. It is not an intuitive one perhaps, But it is best for me to give my money to care for others. 3. "Rights" and "Entitlements" aren't of interest to me. What is of interest to me is the efficiency of society. Moving towards utopia even if we may never get there. I don't believe anyone has a right to healthcare. I don't believe anyone has the right to life. I don't think these things exist. Things aren't rights if they are granted to you by others. My arguments for national healthcare (insurance) will be mostly based around the efficiency of the economics, The efficiency of society, How well society works for me (selfish altruism), With some moral points in favor of the system. 4. There is no Nirvana fallacy in my mind. There are several drawbacks to single payer in comparison to free markets. My point will be that the system has been proven to be more efficient for the most people, And therefore leads society itself to better outcomes for everyone, And that the cons of free market insurance are far worse when balanced. 5. Private insurance is still an option for people in the version of single payer I support. Doctors are still allowed to practice and not accept patients from the government if they'd like. If the free market actually leads to more efficient options it would win out. If doctors refuse to see government patients, They may not in the end have the business they need to exist. Many would likely end up accepting government insurance even had they not previously wanted to. Doctors aren't forced to however, No real 'freedom' is lost. In fact, Some freedom is gained. A safety net is established if you fail. Keep these points in mind when making your arguments. We can expand on 'rights' and 'entitlements' if you'd like, But the efficiency is the real question for me. Morality is a side note, But an important one that free markets cannot win over single payer. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
Access to and the distribution of health related services ought to be handled by the free market.

Round One: Acceptance and Stipulations. Round Two: Opening Arguments. Round Three: Rebuttals. Round Four: Rejoinders. Round Five: Closing Arguments. Stipulations: 1. This debate will primarily focus--though it will not be restricted to--on Economics. 2. Moral arguments may be submitted since the proposition is normative. 3. Positive Rights are claims (moral or legal) which indicate entitlements; Negative Rights are claims (moral or legal) which indicate freedoms. If my opponent accepts, We may begin.
ReganFan is a failure on this website.

My opponent once again does not argue effectively. I have proved, with my original definition of failure, that ReganFan has been unsuccessful on this website. He has been unsuccessful in debates, and unsuccessful in the forums. The main argument my opponent brings is that he has been successful because his intention on this website was to be so far Right and ignorant that he makes other conservatives look better by comparison. However, this is not the case. ReganFan's posts and forums have made the perception of conservatives on this website even worse. With ReganFan's slandering, he has made conservatives in general appear vicious, cruel, and ignorant; therefore, making other conservatives look worse. The resolution is affirmed. I thank the readers for the opportunity.
ReganFan is a failure on this website.

In the light of your ridiculous opposition to the ADDITION I made to your definition, allow me to provide an entirely new one that you neglected to provide: Success: an event that accomplishes its intended purpose; opposite of failure (http://www.google.ca...) Successful: having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome (http://www.google.ca...=) My argument therefore is still valid seeing as my opponent has yet to refute it: I have not been unsuccessful because my intention on this website was to be so far-right and ignorant that I make other conservatives look better by comparison. In R2 the only counter argument my opponent put forth was "He still has not refuted my argumentation, as I proved that ReganFan is a failure not only in debating but also on commenting and thread posts." The problem with this however(besides the fact that it was a very blatant attempt to make the debate about semantics) was that both of his points of evidence do nothing to prove I am a failure on this website. Thank You.
ReganFan is a failure on this website.

ReganFan's entire argument is based off his own definition of the world "failure. " I provided a definition of the word "failure" in round one, and that was not meant to be changed. My definitions hold water above my opponent's definition, for I presented the definitions first and used them as a guideline for the debate. Therefore, ReganFan's entire argument is pointless and irrevelant. He still has not refuted my argumentation, as I proved that ReganFan is a failure not only in debating but also on commenting and thread posts. My apologies for posting the same link twice. Here is another one of ReganFan's threads that failed: . http://www.debate.org...
ReganFan is a failure on this website.

I would like to point out my opponents failure to provide a complete definition of the word "failure". Allow me to contribute to the definition: Failure - To not achieve a particular goal (http://www.google.ca...) Now to determine whether or not I am a failure one must understand my end goal or the reasoning behind my behavior on Debate.org: My end goal was to be so radically ignorant and to the right that I would make even the most hard-boiled and uninformed conservative on this site look very astute and moderate. Seeing as my intent was not to be a successful debater it makes my opponent's statement that I am a failure due to the fact that I have not won any debates irrelevant to this debate. This all adds up to the conclusion that I am in fact not a failure. Note: My opponent made a small error in R1, he stated "ReganFan is a failure on this website. He has been in over twenty-five debates, and has failed to win any of them. On the forums, he has created uselss threads and has turned into a troll. Here are several examples:" however he provided two links to the same thread post I would like to thank my opponent and the readers at this point. Thank You.
ReganFan is a failure on this website.

I affirm the resolution, "ReganFan is a failure on this website. " I am creating this debate topic in response to ReganFan's debate, displayed here: . http://www.debate.org... Definitions: ReganFan- the user known as ReganFan on this site. . http://www.debate.org... failure- a person or thing that proves unsuccessful. this website- www. debate. org. ReganFan is a failure on this website. He has been in over twenty-five debates, and has failed to win any of them. On the forums, he has created uselss threads and has turned into a troll. Here are several examples: . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... That is all for the argumentation.
Creationism is true. Evolution is false. Evolution and science only go back so far.

Antibiotic resistant microbes (better known as "superbugs) is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics. Here's the definition of "superbug" 1. a pathogenic bacterium that has developed immunity to antibiotics, or an insect that has developed immunity to insecticides. Note the definition uses "has developed"? And guess what? That means "evolution". Now here's some vidies to further prove that evolution is taking place in the here and now. Have fun! . http://www.youtube.com... - Frontline - The Trouble with Antibiotics Documentary . http://www.youtube.com... - Frontline - Hunting the Nightmare Bactiria . http://www.youtube.com... - Rise Of Superbugs Resistant To Antibiotics | Full Documentary . http://www.youtube.com... - Antibiotics Resistance My opponent cannot win the evolution argument in which was just listed and proved. So only creationism is left to argue in this debate. And my opponent cannot prove creationism. Thus this debate has come to a very quick close. My that was easy. Bye.
Some cultures are better than others.

There’s no way I could defend the argument with extremes. No one can say that killing, suppression, slavery, etc., isn’t bad. So let’s bring it back down to the less extremes. Take America’s and England’s cultures for an example. If you asked someone who was not from either culture (someone without a biased opinion) to rank one over the other, they’re likely going to tell you that they think the two cultures are too similar to rank. However, someone from England’s culture would think American culture was very different from their own, and vice versa. When you get down to the small details, it’s clear that this is all about perspective and opinion. How people act, what they wear, what music they listen to, the kind of art they like is not something that can be ranked with statistics. To conclude my debate, it can’t be fair to rank a culture as better or worse then another. The words 'bad' and 'good' are words of opinion and you can’t base a valid argument off of this. Personal values and beliefs vary from culture to culture as well as from person to person. Culture is not just defined by political influence and economic influence but also by art and music. Culture as a whole just can't be ranked. Thank you for debating with me, Crostesh!