BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns.

Thank you for putting this debate up. "Barack Obama clearly does not like the idea of Americans wielding guns. However, there are three reasons why this should not be done." First off, your source is a campaign video, they emphasize the bad things. Second, he wants gun CONTROL not a gun ban. I am asssuming this is what we are to debate. "1. It is unconstitutional." The second Bill of Rights amendment: "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." Gun control doesn't violate our second ammendment right. It makes it harder to get a gun, but not illegal. Barack Obama wants to make it so you cannot go to K-Mart, buy a gun, and shoot someone. "2. It hurts the innocent more than the criminals." I beg to differ. "People go hunting with guns all of the time" You still can get a gun, it is just harder to. "People protect themselves with guns all of the time" There are other methods one can use to protect themselves. "People also rob others with guns all of the time. The former two groups are innocent. The latter group is criminal. The innocent people would be hurt by any sort of gun control, and would not to wish to have to break a law just to enjoy a hunting trip, or feel more safe. Criminals, on the other hand, are already breaking the law, so they would just obtain and hold guns illegally." It is not breaking the law unless there is a gun ban. "3. Gun freedom lowers crime rates. http://www.nytimes.com...... Robbers are less likely to charge into a building and rob it if he fears that a number of bystanders may be concealing a gun that could shoot him in the head. Take this poor fellow, for example: http://www.darwinawards.com...; Actually the homcide rate is much lower in countries that have gun control (United Kingdom 2.1, Japan .5, Germany 1, Italy 1.2)(http://www.photius.com...) (http://www.allcountries.org...) Thank you for reading
Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns.

http://www.youtube.com... Barack Obama clearly does not like the idea of Americans wielding guns. However, there are three reasons why this should not be done. 1. It is unconstitutional. The second Bill of Rights amendment: "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." http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. It hurts the innocent more than the criminals. People go hunting with guns all of the time. People protect themselves with guns all of the time. People also rob others with guns all of the time. The former two groups are innocent. The latter group is criminal. The innocent people would be hurt by any sort of gun control, and would not to wish to have to break a law just to enjoy a hunting trip, or feel more safe. Criminals, on the other hand, are already breaking the law, so they would just obtain and hold guns illegally. 3. Gun freedom lowers crime rates. http://www.nytimes.com... Robbers are less likely to charge into a building and rob it if he fears that a number of bystanders may be concealing a gun that could shoot him in the head. Take this poor fellow, for example: http://www.darwinawards.com... Thank you for reading, and good luck to whoever accepts this.
Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns.

Thank you for all voters, my opponent, and those who are reading. I will not bring up new arguments, but only refute my opponent's points. "Obama can argue all he wants; he just shouldn't actually disarm us, for the reasons I have listed." I disagree. "And it should not happen, because the states are against Obama on this issue, and this debate is about whether Obama should remove our guns or not." Again, just because it is not popular does not mean it will not be effective and shouldn't be implemented. "One shot kills a dog. Pepper spray is harder to hit long-distance, and needs better aim. Martial arts is close-range. A gun can kill you before you can punch him." Those were just examples, and if you look at the stats, having a gun on you makes it more likely for you to kill someone over a argument rather than in self defense. "Again, this source does not identify which countries support gun control. It would help if the source marked the countries that banned or highly regulated guns" http://www.time.com... "Comparing international crime statistics must be done with great caution. Statistics compiled by the United Nations are based on surveys that specify that crimes be counted based on each country's legislated definition of what constitute a 'crime'. Some countries may include misdemeanor offences, where a fine is issued while others may only count imprisionable offences. Also, counting the crime takes place at different places in the law-enforcement process. Consequently, some countries may count every reported breach of the law, while others may only count cases that make it to court, and even then only the most serious of several charges laid. Because there is so much inconsistency in these statistics, they might also be a quality measure of the standard and efficiency of law enforcement and the criminal justice system of a country, rather than having anything to do with actual prevalence of crime." Comparing specific crimes negates this. RAPE (http://www.nationmaster.com...) US: .3 UK: .15 SPAIN: .14 JAPAN: .01 MURDER (http://www.nationmaster.com...) US: .042 UK: .014 SPAIN: .012 JAPAN: .004 ASSAULTS (http://www.nationmaster.com...) US: 7.56 UK: 7.45 SPAIN: 2.2 JAPAN: .33 NOTE: All stats given were per capita "Nuclear bombs are more deadly and more dangerous. But they aren't nearly as efficient for defense against a home invasion. "Oh, no! A robber! I'm going to throw a nuke at him!" *throws* BOOOOOOOOOOM! Everything within a ten-mile radius explodes" I don't understand the point he's making here. "What, so instead of shooting, you think that they should have strangled each other? Drowned each other? Guns don't kill people. People kill people." Guns make it easier to kill people. Thank you.
Barack Obama should not disarm the general American public of their guns.

"Barack Obama is slowly moving towards wanting gun bans. Also, I think you just conceded the resolution, which basically means that you conceded the entire debate." I made a grammatical error. I meant to say " I am assuming you are saying he shouldn't argue for it" "Well, I'm just going to come out and say that it CAN'T happen. 38 states are required to undo the second amendment. 13 are necessary to disagree. Forty-four states, however, like their gun rights. I can guarantee that it will take more than eight years for them to want to change their ways to not include gun rights, and by then, Obama will have no presidential power. I know that Texas will not give up its guns in the near future." Just because it cannot happen does not make it wrong. We are debating if a gun ban should happen, not if it is possible. "If you're under eighteen, you are not allowed to have a gun. But that doesn't apply to the "general American public". Also, criminals will have guns, whether there is a gun ban or not." I disagree. If you make it extremely hard to get a gun, you will be able to easier track suspicious activity. "If a robber breaks into your house, and you have a gun, and you manage to point your gun at him before he draws his gun, you're safe." Or use a dog or pepper spray or martial arts. "If you're unarmed, however, you're either dead or robbed." Crime rates are lower in countries with gun control. The US crtime rate is 80 (Italy is 30, Japan 19, Spain 22) (http://www.nationmaster.com...) "Guns are THE best protection method to use in a home invasion. They're quick and long range, all you have to do is point and hold a finger on the trigger, and it doesn't take too much skill to use. No other weapon is so efficient." Or deadly, they are extremely dangerous "The criminal will always have a gun. He could import one, he could build one himself, I don't care. The point is, the criminal will get his dirty hands on a gun and use it. Also, the police can't get to every robbery, especially if the robber doesn't let anyone call 911. It is so much more efficient for a civilian to just shoot the robber then and there." The majority of murders in the US were from arguments in 2007. Not robbery. By having the gun, that allowed someone angry to just kill someone else. The majority of murder is not planned out. By taking away the gun, you nearly completely eliminate that. "Yeah, I think that the entire misunderstanding thing killed the debate." Yep, but I hope we will understand eachother now. Thank you.
the government did not attack America on 911

I apologize for 'forfeiting', I wasn't aware that my opponent would still continue to debate. But now, I'll continue to defend my case. Before 9/11, the government was heavily, yet secretly working on how to successfully execute the attack. There are too many evidences to just ignore it as a mere terrorist attack. Few days before 9/11, people involved with the towers and government put insurance on the tower, especially in case of terrorist attack. Usually, insurance policy wont compensate for the loss if they had insurance for only short time, because it could result in fraud. The day of 9/11, they stopped all the aircraft from flying on the day (Before the towers were hit) with exception of few military craft that had permission to. Why would they stop the flow of the aircraft on the day where they'd be hit with, say terrorist attack? Maybe they knew it'd occur. The days after 9/11, people who theorized against what government claimed the incident was, (plane fuel and engine incinerated the body of plane which resulted in only parts of it left in the scene), were soon to be found out that they were either 'accidentally' dead after their public speech about this incident, or they changed their mind and announced their agreements with the government. Why would they agree or change their mind so soon? This should be enough evidences to prove that 9/11 was indeed an inside job. There are no solid evidences that I've heard of that supports that it was really a terrorist job.
the government did not attack America on 911

I believed it was a terrorist act, but after i've watched "loose change", a well formed video of 9/11 conspiracy with numerous evidences and historical evidences. http://video.google.com... Some of surprising evidences are: -World Trade Center's owner (i guess of it's property) leased it 6 weeks before 9/11/01, with an insurance of $3.5 billion in act of terrorism. -The FAA HQ and Command center's dialogues right when the plane hits... "oh, i don't know, everyone just left the room" I highly recommend you to watch this documentary video, and post your comment on the next round.
the government did not attack America on 911

I believe the 9-11 conspiracy is not only false but ridicules to believe that our own government would attack us with our planes sending two into the twin towers. Then destroy our own national defence system and then send one spiraling into the ground it is ridicules. Then blame it on a baron waist land like Afghanistan so we could invade Iraq giving it no credibility for the Iraq invasion for oil and attacking a worthless piece of land with few trees no mines or oil that is ruled by a group of crazy Muslims. This conspiracy makes no since and I believe that the nine eleven conspiracy is a joke.
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

1. Rational reasoning involves using the laws of logic. Therefore, A rational worldview must be able to account for the existence of such laws. As an example, Let"s just consider one of the laws of logic: the law of non-contradiction. This law states that any contradiction is false: you can"t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship (where the letter A represents any claim). For example, The statement "My car is in the garage and it is not the case that my car is in the garage" is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. "Why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, Or for that matter, Any laws of reasoning? " 2. Apart from the Bible, How could we know that contradictions are always false? We could only say that they have been false in our experience. But our experiences are very limited, And no one has experienced the future. So if someone asserted that he or she has @257;nally discovered two contradictory claims that are both true, The non-Christian has no basis for dismissing such an assertion. Only in a biblical worldview can we know that contradictions cannot occur in reality; only the Christian has a basis for the law of non-contradiction, Or laws of logic in general. My view is that Laws of logic are God"s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, Sovereign, Immaterial Being, His thoughts would necessarily be abstract, Universal, Invariant entities. In other words, They are not made of matter, They apply everywhere, And at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God"s unchanging nature. And they are a prerequisite for logical reasoning. Thus, Rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

"How did we acquire these laws which are truth? I have a good origin for the laws of logic - God. ""=======we didn't acquire truths. We evolve to believe that they are TRUE and SHOULD BE Followed. "Polytheistic religions didn't just follow one god. Which is why polytheistic religions cannot not give a good reason for the origin of the laws of logic" ===== there are monotheistic religions before christianity. I dont know why you should fixate on only the polytheistic one. "Again, If laws of logic are a reaction of the way God thinks, Then which of the gods thoughts should we follow? " ==== well, There are about 5000 religions. Each gods have their own way of thinking. Then why do you stick to christianity's god way of thinking and not other gods?
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

I am with you on the idea that logic is good for survival purposes, But this does not explain the origin of the laws of logic. How did we acquire these laws which are truth? I have a good origin for the laws of logic - God. Since Christianity is true therefore the story of Creation and Noah are true and the Chinese are created in God's image with the ability to use His laws of logic. Polytheistic religions didn't just follow one god. Which is why polytheistic religions cannot not give a good reason for the origin of the laws of logic. Again, If laws of logic are a reaction of the way God thinks, Then which of the gods thoughts should we follow? The Bible has no contradictions because it is logical and it is in the pattern of the way God thinks.
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

"Why should there be the law of non-contradiction? For survival purposes of course. " - Survival value does not equate to truth. My left arm has survival value, But we wouldn"t say that it is "true" or "false"; it simply is. So we would have no reason to think that the law of non-contradiction (or any law of logic) is true, If it is simply for survival purpose. "the chinese discovered pascal's triangle long before pascal ever did. You think the chinese progressed that far in mathematics without knowing the law of contradiction? And consider at that time, There's no concept of Christianity in china. " - This fits in a Biblical worldview. The Chinese are from Noah who believed in the God of the Bible who is the source of logic. "Where did the bible lay down the 3 laws of logic? " - The laws of logic do not have to be spelled out in the Bible for it to be Biblical. God is the source of logic and His Word is logical. The book of Proverbs shows that God is the source of knowledge. "There are religions older than christianity and yet their texts still reflect rational thinking. " - Consider the polytheistic religions. If laws of logic are a re@258;ection of the way God thinks, Then which of the gods" thoughts should we follow? There cannot be a single universal set of laws of logic if there is more than one god. Therefore, No polytheistic religion can account for laws of logic. Consider Allah, The god of Islam. Could laws of logic be a re@258;ection of the way Allah thinks? According to the Islamic doctrine of tanzih, Allah is so superior that nothing in human experience is comparable to him (Sura 42:11). But laws of logic are part of human experience " we use them all the time. Therefore, Laws of logic cannot relate to Allah and cannot be a re@258;ection of the way he thinks. So Islam also fails to provide a basis for the preconditions of intelligibility. Actually God can interact with our senses. When I pray He listens and answers. Of course this requires one to be saved and to be right with Him in obedience to His laws. However, Now we are dealing with the spiritual part of man. We can know and understand God because of the Bible He has left us. God's thoughts are immaterial just like yours. God is not only a spirit, But He also became man therefore He is also material. However, This leads down a long path of explaining the Bible historically and spiritually.
Laws of Logic prove Biblical Creation

1. Why should there be the law of non-contradiction? For survival purposes of course. Imagine if it is simultaneously true that there's a hungry lion behind you and there isn't a hungry lion behind you, What should you do? Should you run or should you not? You see, For A and ~A to be true at the same time would cause uncertainty in reasoning and a lot of times the ability to reason draws the line between life and dead. 2. "Apart from the Bible, How could we know that contradictions are always false? " === the chinese discovered pascal's triangle long before pascal ever did. You think the chinese progressed that far in mathematics without knowing the law of contradiction? And consider at that time, There's no concept of christianity in china. And also, Where did the bible lay down the 3 laws of logic? There are religions older than christianity and yet their texts still reflect rational thinking. 3. ". Since God is an unchanging, Sovereign, Immaterial Being, His thoughts would necessarily be abstract, Universal, Invariant entities. In other words, They are not made of matter, They apply everywhere, And at all times" === the thing is those claims about the nature of god are unverifiable. God, By the very definition, Cannot interact with our senses. There's no way we can measure or know anything about his property. We hardly know anything about what lies beyond the universe that we can observe and yet you think some misguided aristotelien analysis can reveal the nature of god? What lies beyond our MATERIAL universe? We dont know. Its not necessarily immaterial. What if its a different kind of material? The point being every claim you make about the nature of god is by nature unverifiable. But an unverifiable statement is just nonsense, I can claim theres an undetectable ghost hovering above your head, Causing headache. As long as theres no way to verify it, People won't give it a second thought since you challenged me to this one, I expect you have some really stunning arguments
Fortnite is better than Minecraft

Minecraft consist of many minigames such as survival games, A classical gamemode. Fornite? It consist of the same concept over and over again. The only difference? Cosmetics. That's right. A cash grab game. The only additions they add are new weapons, Map redo, And skins. I would continue this 'argument' but I feel a bit dozy and honestly is jus- residentsleeper. "Had to give you a career to destroy eat" - M&M
Fortnite is better than Minecraft

You can't hear me? I can't hear you with that dick in your mouth. Which bring me to my next topic, Minecraft Youtubers have either been accused, Or convicted of messaging underage females. As of October of 2018, There has been several mods coming out, Although they're not game breaking, They are indeed simply cosmetics. You might be right about the rate drop, But Minecraft has been dead, Especially with the new owner Microsoft, I can't wait to see the day where you have to pay to see textures on blocks.
Fortnite is better than Minecraft

Alright buddy, I didn't realize my previous message was my "opening". I would've put more detail to it before doing so. That being said, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Minecraft isn't as popular as it was once, Fortnite isn't a cash crab, It's not a pay to win game. I wouldn't expect someone like yourself to understand. Since all you Minecraft-ers do is yell, "POT ME POT ME". Fortnite requires more thinking than a normal survival games would. There's many ways to eliminate an opponent, We don't rely on a sword. What is this? The medieval ages? You're probably going to say something among the line of "You mad? ", And to that, I say, "Na, You banned"
Fortnite is better than Minecraft

Let me give it to you real chief. As an intellectual, I will try to word it in such a way you're tiny brain is able to comprehend. We all know Fornite is a cash grab game. However, It only needs the press of 14 buttons or so. Minecraft on the other hand, Requires more than that. If I haven't lost you yet, You will understand that Minecraft consist of egirls where as Fornite consist of overweight prepubescent nibbas. If you wish to see my resources, I'll list them here. www. Pornhub. Com/minecraft-sex. Com
Tuvix Was Murdered

Preamble The 24th episode of the 2nd series of Star Trek: Voyager is entitled ‘Tuvix' in this episode the crewmembers Tuvok, and Neelix are ‘merged' into a single being by a transporter accident. The resulting being subsequently takes the name of Tuvix. A method of separating the two is later developed and Captain Janeway performs the process resulting in the demise or destruction of Tuvix and the restoration of Tuvok and Neelix. http://en.wikipedia.org... Resolution Within the context of the story the destruction of Tuvix was murder. Definition of Murder: Killing that is unlawful and/or immoral. Contentions 1: Tuvix was a living, rational, sentient entity and as a result had a right to life. 2: Tuvix chose to live, and had the right to make this decision. 3: In choosing to separate Tuvix back into Tuvok and Neelix Captain Janeway assumes that she is protecting the rights of Tuvok and Neelix. However she assumes without evidence that this would be their desire, nor does she have the right to make such decisions. 4: Tuvix, is Tuvix and is Tuvok and is Neelix. As a result in the absence of a separate opinion from Tuvok and Neelix only Tuvok has the right to make life or death decisions concerning any of them. 5: Tuvix combined the abilities of both crew members, but would only require the resources and living space of one crew member in doing so he was far more efficient and useful than Tuvok and Neelix. 6: Though Tuvix was created by the ‘deaths' of Tuvoc and Neelix he was not responsible for them, his death was therefore undeserved. 7: It is not morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save or restore to life two innocent people. If the killing of Tuvix was morally permissible, then it would be morally permissible to kill a single innocent person against their will to harvest their organs for a number of terminally ill patients. If the latter is immoral then so too is the former. 8: The ships Doctor refuses to perform the procedure as it is a violation of the Hippocratic oath and his ethical programming, thus it is clear that by the standards of the Federation this act is murder. NB: This debate purely concerns the moral dilemma within the context of the fictional story, rebuttals based on the massive plot holes and inconsistencies rife within Star Trek are not permissible. Thus it is not valid to point out discrepancies in the biology of Tuvix, the fact that Tuvix would not have been created, or the fact that it would have been possible, indeed far easier to restore Tuvok and Neelix without the destruction of Tuvix.