BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mental health evaluations should be required in order to buy a firearm

Have you ever seen a mentally ill person and said, "Gosh, I really hope s/he can get a gun"? That wouldn't really make much sense. That would be an impediment to your safety. Well, by legally allowing mentally unstable people to get guns, we are impeding everyone's safety. Clearly, there are a lot of things the government could do to make America a safer place that don't fall within the realm of sanity, but forcing people to get mental health evaluations before buying a gun certainly does fall within the realm of sanity. What do the shootings at Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, and Tucson have to do with each other (besides being terrible shootings that made a lot of people dead)? The perpetrators all bought their guns legally. We know that Seung-Hui Cho (the VA Tech shooter) was mentally unstable, and it would be surprising if Nidal Hasan and Jared Loughner weren't. Loughner even refused to take a mental health evaluation at some point. If he had been required to take a mental health evaluation before getting a gun, he probably never would have gotten his gun in the first place. If he didn't have a gun, Christina-Taylor Green would still be alive today, as would all of the other victims of that shooting. Gabby Giffords would still be legislating. People did not need to die.
Resolved: In the forum game mafia, it is justified to bus an unwilling mafia teammate.

Framework Observation: It would be best to restrict the resolution tocases in which there is little to no suspicion on a member of the mafia. Thisis because in the vast majority of cases in which someone is resisting beingbussed, he or she is not likely to be caught otherwise/has not already beencaught. Since the resolution should focus on "on balance" scenarios, it is morefair for both sides to assume that the person would not be lynched anyways. Negative Case The crux of the affirmative case centers around the philosophyof utilitarianism. Utilitarianism stipulates that the most moral or justifiedoutcome is the one that favors the greatest number of people. Thus, my burdenin this round is to demonstrate that bussing an unwilling mafia buddy is a pooroutcome for the greatest number of people. First, bussing an unwilling teammate may lead one to bedeemed suspicious. The problem with bussing strategies is that they are so commonplacein Mafia games that it is essentially expected that the Mafia will bus ateammate in order to be confirmed at some point. In the Inheritance game, forexample, I was suspected of being mafia even after I vigkilled socialpinko, whohad been converted. In fact, some townies continued to accuse me of being mafiaeven AFTER I had vigkilled three mafia players, which indicates that bussinghas become very common in the DDO community. In fact, not only is bussingcommon, but it may also lead one to become suspicious. In the Illumnati game,for example, F_16 pretended that Andro had bussed him by cleverly devising astrategy by which he hammered on himself immediately after she voted to lynchhim. This caused Andro to be killed in the next round because everyone believedthat she had, in fact, bussed him to become confirmed. Second, bussing an unwilling teammate may cause resentmentand grudges. Since we are a relatively small community, most of the players ina given game are the same. Bussing an unwilling player can thus causeresentment and spoil games for the busser later on. For example, if the bussedplayer is ever mafia while the busser is town, the bussed player may advocatehaving the busser lynched in NP1. Grudges do exist in DDO Mafia. Socialpinko,for example, has killed F_16 consistently in three separate games: The No DayPhase game (as the vig even though there was a confirmed mafia player out) asmafia in Beginner 4.2 on Night Phase 1, and in the C'ACIT game. Thus,ultimately bussing an unwilling player may be a poor choice from the standpointof the community. Finally, alternatives do exist. If the busser actuallybelieves that a bus is necessary, he could simply offer himself to be bussed byhis teammate. This could potentially get his teammate confirmed whilepermitting the team to win overall while avoiding the second negative impact. Thismeans that bussing an unwilling teammate is not the most effective option forwinning mafia games, so this still fills the teleological requirements ofutilitarianism. Thus, overall bussing is not the best solution possible, soyou should negate.
Resolved: In the forum game mafia, it is justified to bus an unwilling mafia teammate.

This debate is part of lannan's round-robin debate tournament. Definitions 1. Mafia: a forum game in which an uninformed majority is pitted against an informed minority. The majority must weed out and eliminate the minority from the game, while the minority must attempt to gain equal numbers as the minority. 2. justified (Merriam Webster Unabridged): to prove to be right or just 3. bus: A mafia tactic in which a member of the informed minority initiates and pushes for a lynch of a teammate in order to be confirmed as a member of the town. Two quick observations/parameters 1. In this debate, philosophy can and should be used. 2. My opponent and I are most familiar with DDO Mafia, so we should argue this debate in the context of the DDO mafia community.
Chess is the best board game

"There is risk involved in Chess. Playing aggressively is filled with danger." Do you want to tell me that chess has everything ? "Of course there is SOME skill to Monopoly (it’s not chutes and ladders after all), but the large amount of chance is my key point." Same "Do you disagree that even the best laid plans can be demolished by a bit of bad luck in Monopoly?" Nope, you also need luck. "And how does one put houses on a property? By getting all the squares of one particular colour." Most likely you'll have to do trading for this. " However, it would be impossible to teach someone to play Monopoly if they didn’t speak English." No. One only needs to know how to count and roll the dice. "How quick a game?" 4 minutes if you want. "What could you achieve, even playing high-speed, in 10 minutes in Monopoly?" If you begin with random properties, two dices, instead of jail you get game over, some experience. Then you can have a fast and wild monopoly game. "The ‘skill’ elements of Poker involve bluff and reading your opponents. How do these elements apply to Monopoly?" You have to know how, when and for how much to trade. While knowing that with some bad luck you may end up with a terrible trade yourself . "I think this applies far more to Chess than Monopoly. You can’t adapt yourself to a situation when you’re restricted to the roll of the dice." Yes you can. Lets say you're bankrupt, what property do you sell ? Let say someone wants to have a trade, what do you do ? "In our age of online gaming, I can’t see children playing Monopoly for ‘adrenalin’." Video games lack interaction with friends in real life and they also lack realism. Yes the graphics are getting better and better but its ultimately not you who is in the video game. Monopoly is different and better in that way. "Who wants to be beaten by a player significantly inferior to them?" Who wants to know how the game will end ?
Chess is the best board game

﻿ REBUTTALS “…which is more of a negative because risk is a great producer of adrenaline.” There is risk involved in Chess. Playing aggressively is filled with danger. “…Furthermore monopoly does encourage skill: the skill of knowing when and what to buy and the skill of effective trading (communication)…” Of course there is SOME skill to Monopoly (it’s not chutes and ladders after all), but the large amount of chance is my key point. Do you disagree that even the best laid plans can be demolished by a bit of bad luck in Monopoly? “Whoever gets houses on the most expensive properties almost inevitably wins." This is laughably untrue. The person who gets all squares of one particular color is more likely to win but first you have to pay for the hotels and there's a good chance that there will be a second person with the same fortune and skill.” And how does one put houses on a property? By getting all the squares of one particular colour. “How can you explain the rules in a unheard language ? Furthermore, it takes effort for one to get used to it ; most young people aren't willing since they've video games.” I concede that it would be difficult (though not impossible) to teach someone chess if they didn’t speak the same language. However, it would be impossible to teach someone to play Monopoly if they didn’t speak English. As for the video games point, it equally applies to Monopoly. “If you want a quick game then put a time limit. After the time limit is up the person with most money wins (property counted).” How quick a game? I can’t see the game taking less than half-an-hour. What could you achieve, even playing high-speed, in 10 minutes in Monopoly? A complete game of chess can easily be played in that time. My opponent compared Monopoly to Poker. This is very inaccurate. The ‘skill’ elements of Poker involve bluff and reading your opponents. How do these elements apply to Monopoly? “...one must adapt to the situation they're in and make the best of it.” I think this applies far more to Chess than Monopoly. You can’t adapt yourself to a situation when you’re restricted to the roll of the dice. “And even more for him to get used to it. Chances are the ten year old will get bored and choose a game with more people and a game which produces more adrenalin. The game is monopoly !” In our age of online gaming, I can’t see children playing Monopoly for ‘adrenalin’. However, the appeal of chess is strategy. Starcraft 2 wishes it was as perfectly balanced as chess. “Anyhow, this is a positive. You see even bad players have a chance to win and even good players take chances. Moreover, this is rather uncommon but common enough for my opponent to mention h
Chess is the best board game

::Introduction to Monopoly:: Monopoly appeals to the competitive nature of every individual in a way no other board game does hence the popularity. That doesn't mean that people who don't win don't have fun. No, everybody has fun because monopoly is a representation of real life ; a different life that only few people in reality live in. This aspect of the game makes it easy and very tempting to get passionate about the game. Monopoly is an interactive game and humans love that. Ever heard of facebook ? http://www.facebook.com... Now what does facebook provide ? Interaction with human beings. People love to communicate and monopoly players will do that when the players begin to trade. The more the merrier hence monopoly is best played with around 5 players while chess is limited to two and even then there's not much interaction. Monopoly is a lighthearted game and it appeals to all ages due to its simplicity. Honestly, a ten year old could learn it and play it in minutes. Wherefore, monopoly can very easily be played for fun ,nevertheless, it can very easily become a serious game due to its competitive nature. Monopoly welcomes change with open hands. One can change the amount of dice one roles, whatever or not one begins with owning property, the amount of money one has at the start, one can create teams (encouraging communication), one can have a time limit to shorten the game, one can change the meaning of cards and etcetera. In this way monopoly can be considered many games. In any case monopoly has a wide appeal. ::Last words:: Ill address chess in the next round.
Chess is the best board game

I had a feeling whoever it was would chose Monopoly. First of all, I'm going to use Chess and Monopoly related terms in this debate. Please familiarise yourself with the games, if you aren't already: CHESS: . http://www.chess.com... MONOPOLY: . http://www.ehow.com... ARGUMENT ONE: Stimulation Chess is completely skill based. Monopoly is largely chance based. This means that Chess is constantly stimulating, allowing for game after game to be played in a row (even against the same person) and have different games every single time. Monopoly is stagnant in this way. Whoever gets houses on the most expensive properties almost inevitably wins. ARGUMENT TWO: Language barrier One doesn't have to speak the same language as their opponent to play against them in Chess. Essentially anyone can play anyone. ARGUMENT THREE: Time Both games have the same basic goal: To put your opponent in a position where they cannot win. In Monopoly, this is done by bankrupting all your opponents; in Chess, by ‘mating' your opponent (either by stalemate or checkmate. ) The difference is how long it takes to do this. In chess, you can apply time limits, depending on the taste of the players. This allows for a quick game, perhaps taking less than a few minutes. Even played normally, chess only takes 15-45 minutes. The same can't be said of Monopoly, which is a significant investment of time, often taking hours to complete. One could put time constraints on it, but I fail to see how the will reduce the playing time of the game. SUMMARY Chess is a skilful game that can be played by anyone without the barrier of language. One never stops improving their chess game, meaning there is infinite replayability. With the use of a timer, the game can be quick or slow, depending of the preference of the players. Monopoly on the other hand, is a slow game that can only be played by people who can verbally communicate. It is fun, but players can't really improve their game past a certain point, given that it's almost entirely chance. This gives it limited replayability.
Chess is the best board game

Hello everyone, Today's resolution will be "that chess is the best board game". I will be arguing in support of this resolution. My opponent, good luck to whoever it is, will select one board game and post it in round one, without any arguments. It will be their burdon of prove that that game is superior to chess and mine to prove that chess is the better game. I would rather we didn't vote for ourselves, except in the event that the other person flakes out in the last round and the debate doesn't show up on the main page. That would be acceptable. By accepting this debate, you accept these terms, which I think are reasonable and fair. The debate will begin in round two.
most self identified political labels are meaningless

most self identified political labels are meaningless for most people, they are more a tool for psychological self identification than anything, more an indicator of the biases you've grown up with than a thought out label. i would bet if you did a study, you would find that there's a significant or even most people, who actually agree with each other more in actual substance than just their self proclaimed label. for example. if you tested this hypothesis. what i would suppose you would find. if you asked people "what should a person on welfare be able to get...." and then list some things, or ask "should food be a necessity for those who are trying their best and aren't lazy" or "which of the following environmental situations do you most support for environmental purposes... water, air, saving natural parks, etc". and continue giving more concrete specific scenarios. i would guess there would be a great number of people who say they are conservative when in reality, they agree on just as much or more things than the liberals.... and vise versa. they only disagree with each other in the abstract, where often the ideologies are so basically vague they are meaningless.
Israel is justified in attacking Gaza

Israel is completely justified in attacking Gaza. This is done to protect it's citizens and it's borders. All Hamas needs to do to end the fighting is agree to halt all bombings and halt the smuggling of rockets into Gaza. After a certain amount of time has passed that ensures the rockets and attempts to acquire rockets have stopped Israel will lift any remaining blockade. The fault is squarely on Hamas, and it is only Hamas that can end this fight.
Deontology (pro) v. Utilitarianism (con)

I am the con, so I am defending utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a better ethical system than deontology for three reasons. 1. Utilitarianism requires people to take action, whereas deontology only prevents certain actions. For example, deontology prevents people from killing each other but utilitarianism actively requires people to be kind. Thus, deontology stops people from being actively bad, but utilitarianism requires them to be actively good. 2. Deontology requires people to have "good intentions," and doesn't care what results from them. So under a deontological system, someone could say that it would be good to eliminate racism and so they would burn down civil society, which would actually be worse than the potential racism. But under utilitarianism, actions are judged on consequences, so the right action would necessarily be the one that would result in what would be better. 3. Under utilitarianism, it is easy to judge whether someone has chosen the morally right action. But under deontology, that is very difficult to find out. So utilitarianism is a better system for policymakers because their constituents only care about the results, not the intentions behind them.
Ban islam

I'd like to address your two pieces of evidence. Both, make the claim that Muslims (specifically immigrant Muslims) are the instigators of violent crime, namely rape. But what you don't show the context to this entire situation. Many of these immigrants are refugees coming from war-torn areas and are doing this to rebuild their lives. The reason behind high violence rates isn't if they're Muslim. Many more factors need to be thought of before making this conclusion. Education level, income, etc. shouldn't be ignored. A native Swede from the same low-income demographic is just as likely to commit the same crimes. Citing a document by the Swedish government, the point you may make of immigrant-inflicted crime affecting citizens is true. But the crime rate is roughly the same as in 2005, several years before the latest Muslim refugee crisis: 13%. I understand the crime rate has increased in other places, such as Germany, but barring more immigrants would just put astronomical strain on foreign aid, and may even just increase violence there and intolerance towards immigrants. Europe could even use the new influx of immigrants to benefit economically. Moving on, but once again referring to your previous "argument" again, how are two videos supposed to justify "banning" a religion. A KKK cross-burning video won't make us "ban" Christianity and one on Extremist Jews won't make us "ban" Judaism. The logistics of "banning" a religion wouldn't make sense, anyway. Would "banning" a religion be ethnic cleansing? Or would we need to deny giving a better future to people and discriminate them simply because of their religion and not take anything else into consideration? No matter what it may mean, it violates the foundation many nations have been built off of. Your argument and this debate itself has had very little thought put into it, so please look at it with an open mind and look at some evidence-based research. Thank you. Source: http://www.riksdagen.se... https://globalriskinsights.com... https://www.weforum.org... https://www.nps.gov...
muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity

"'those who confess with their mouth that Jesus is lord, and believe in their heart that he was raised from the dead, will be saved'. so they probably fulfill this requirement too."Muslims don't believe Jesus was raised from the dead. They don't fulfill this requirement, so they are not saved. "Muslims believe he [Jesus] was raised to Heaven without being put on the cross and God transformed another person to appear exactly likeJesus who was crucified instead of Jesus."http://en.wikipedia.org...'_deathPro fails to meet the burden of proof that Muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved. We see the Bible teaches believing is not enough; even the demons believe. And Muslims don't even believe Jesus was raised from the dead, which is one of Pro's argument. For these reasons, I urge the voters to vote Con. Thank you.
muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity

"those who confess with their mouth that Jesus is lord, and believe in their heart that he was raised from the dead, will be saved". so they probably fulfill this requirement too. con inserts more to the word of God. the muslims believe enough. con adds 'son of God' and 'died for our sins'. it's notable, con didn't even mention these in his first post. they are so central yet weren't even mentioned. con is all over the place. we have to go back ot the basics, and a holistic approach. (though i guess i admit a holistic approach doesn't really necessarily mean they are saved, i might concede really but i will just let it go with this)
muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity

Pro seems to think there are different "formulas" in the Bible to be saved. But really, there is only one.Ephesians 2:8, 9 says: “By grace [or undeserved kindness] you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast.”However, Hebrews 5:9 says: " “He [Jesus] became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him.” Do these statements conflict? Not at all. Obedience simply demonstrates one's faith is genuine. James 2:14, 26 - “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.” One does not earn salvation by his works. But anyone with genuine faith will have works to go with it, works of obedience to the commands of Jehovah God and his Son Jesus Christ.Acts 16:30, 31 - “‘Men, what must I do to be saved?’ And they [Paul and Silas] said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’”If that man and his household truly believed, would they not act in harmony with their belief? Yes, they would.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________As you can see, there are no multiple formulas. Faith without works is dead like a body apart from the spirit. To conclude, let's consider John 17:3.John 17:3 - This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.Can it really be said that Muslims have come to known Jesus Christ if they reject that he was the Son of God and that he died for our sins? No. They can not receive salvation if they reject such essential truths.Thank you. I once again await Pro's response.
muslims believe enough about Jesus to be saved by christianity

con says a person is saved by enduring till the end, and believing the bible is the word of God. but we see many who believe a simpler formula and are saved. those who 'endure to the end' as con posits, encompass some who don't ebleieve the bible and who don't fully obey. muslims obey many rules of christianity and they endure to the end. we can't take a set stone to what the requirements are to be saved, cause there's always someone else who wouldn't necessarily make the cut with that, but are saved. when we look at things holistically, we see that perhaps muslims should be included. muslims believed Jesus was the messiah, and had a special place in salvation history. they believe he rose from the dead. "those who confess with their mouth that Jesus is lord, and believe in their heart that he was raised from the dead, will be saved". so they probably fulfill this requirement too.