BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control

I am just going to rebut the ignorance you just spewed to the Internet: I didn't say that guns were the number on cause of death for everyone, just children. They are the number one cause of homicide for everyone in the world, but you don't really seem to care that millions of people die every year. That 30,000 statistic was just the US! I have heard of one bombing in America and about one hundred shootings in America in the past ten years. Guns are just more common and if we take them away then all will be well. Just because someone votes for Obama (and I'm not saying I do) doesn't mean they are stupid and ignorant. Rather, you are the one who is stupid and ignorant. Your entire paragraph had one fact and that was about heart disease. You just made up numbers. That is not an argument. Your prediction that public shootings would increase 10% has no factual basis; you simply pulled it off a whim. You cannot bring a gun into WalMart to protect yourself. Someone will call the police. Taking away guns is not taking away everything as you stated in your semi-dramatic exit at the end. George Washington said that while a war was happening in the next town over and he was fighting in it. It was a different time and people need to realize that. Death is not imminent. We haven't had an attack on the continental United States since 1865. You are not some brave soldier fighting in Afghanistan you are a normal American who has every right to sit and let the police do their job. A security system or a community watch system will be much more effective than a gun and will attract a lot less law suits. As this is my final argument, I would like to conclude by saying that my opponent offered no factual information just opinions. I have made legitimate contradictions to his baseless statements and therefore should be claimed as winner of this debate. Gun control is a way to raise gun safety not lower it and should be supported as a way to have the law on our side if ever we needed it to be.
Gun Control

Yes and No. guns are A reason for deaths in the United states, but it is not the only one. actually from 2003-2010 the number one reason for deaths in the United states was heart disease, and homicide was fifteenth on the list. And if you didn't want to hear that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." then why did you start this debate? it is true that people do kill people, the gun is just the tool. Guns are not the only way that people are being killed. There are MANY different causes, such as bombing. Also, if homicide is such a huge problem it wouldn't matter if all guns were destroyed or illegal, there are MANY different ways to cause death. you better believe that its are right! only someone who is naive would say that gun control is a good thing.. whoever says that is probably some Obama voter who has NO clue what they are talking about!!! we do want to protect ourselves! even if there was gun control you honestly believe that if someone wanted they couldn't get whatever gun they wanted? there would be a black market for guns! if gun control did pass, there would most likely be a 10% increase on public shootings! Guns are a VERY good thing to have! if someone walked into Walmart and pointed a gun at someone, and you had a gun, you could just shoot the guy then! you would probably save many peoples lives! Owning a gun is our right through the Second Amendment!!! If someone broke into your house and they had a gun pointed at your family, you have every right to shoot them! so if you Truly want to protect you family and your country, then you would vote against gun control! Also, if we let the government take away our right to keep and bear arms, just imagine what else they might try to take away from us!!! Thank you. "A free people ought to be armed!" - George Washington
Gun Control

Guns are the number one reason for death in children and teenagers and are the number one cause of homicide in all age categories. Now I don't want to hear the crap about how "Guns don't kill people! People kill people!" Yeah, well bad people use guns to kill over 30,000 people every year. This statistic is growing at a steep incline. People will say how they want to protect themselves as is their right through the second amendment. If you really wanted to protect yourself, your family, and your country overall from our own gun-owning citizens, then you would support gun control like so many other sensible Americans do. The video attached shows what guns have caused innocent people. Watch this video and see if you are still against gun control. Pray for Newtown.
Native Americans were, in some ways, responsible for their own demise.

Ok. I am fully prepared to defend my point. First, I suppose you'll say something about the white people coming and stealing their land from them. But, before we talk about them, let's talk about the time before they came. Native American history doesn't only have to do with white people. this is an ignorant state of mind. Let's discuss, first of all, the TEN THOUSAND YEARS or so before Columbus landed. At this time, they were alone on the continent. No diseases, no guns, no other people at all. Why, then, after TEN THOUSAND YEARS, did we have art, paintings, sculptures, architecture, writing, and all the other things, while they were drawing on cave walls and living in tents? It's inconceivable. Why, when they found this wonderful, amazing new continent, didn't they try to make something out of it? No. They didn't do anything to it. They weren't even really a civilization. They were a few nomadic tribes, scattered all over, gnawing on bones and the like. now, keep in mind, I'm not including anyone from Mesoamerica here. I'm only talking about the Native Americans here where the United States is today. the people down in Mesoamerica actually did things. they built ziggurats, irrigation systems, a complex religion with several different deities. they invented the concept of zero and predicted eclipses. Those native Americans, they actually did things that could improve their lives. So I'm not including them in this debate. I'm talking about the Native Americans here. Why didn't they build anything up? TEN THOUSAND YEARS of isolation, alone, on this continent, with no interference from Europeans whatsoever. that's a long time. It's five times from the birth of Christ till now? what the hell did they even DO? have they left any lasting impacts on our culture? do they hold any respectable positions in any public office? No. It's all because, when they got here, over the Bering strait, ten thousand years ago, they didn't do doodley squat. They just hung around, doing random things. But WHY? I couldn't find any kind of reasonable explanation. I just can't fathom why, in that time, they didn't do anything. It makes no sense. Why couldn't they build something that even somewhat resembled a civilization? Go ahead, Fish, and try to come up with some kind of reasonable explanation. There is no reasonable explanation as to why they couldn't have done anything with the land they found. Go ahead. I can wait.
Native Americans were, in some ways, responsible for their own demise.

Ladies and gentlemen, i present to you, a race of people who crossed the Bering Strait twenty thousand years ago or so, discovered a new and wonderful continent, and then... did nothing for ten thousand years. For this debate, I will tell you why Native Americans were responsible for their near extinction. this debate is open to anybody. I have some Native American blood, so I am entitled to make this claim. Let the battle begin.
Why socialism is bad

Therefore I will state a few key points on the legitamacy of my opponents argument. -First, he uses hipocrisy with his statements as he accuses me of not "warranting" my information when he goes about stating his opinions without any evidence whatsoever. -Second, he then tries to discard my arguments by saying that they are not relevant, although that is based on his opinion. -Third, he points out various sections of my paragraphs as they are useful to him and conveniently leaves out the challenges that would disprove his arguments. -Fourth, he likes to state that I do not have evidence, though my evidence that I have given comes from the book "Socialism: Opposing Viewpoints" that is non biased. Along with that there is overwhelming evidence of the unsuccessfulness of socialism throughout the world. Just look at the countries I have mentioned in my previous post along with the fact that many countries are reverting from socialism to install capitalism. Europe is finally catching on to the practical success that capitalism has had in America. Because my posting page would not respond and crashed i do not have time to repost and dissect his arguments. With that I have provided non biased evidence in my book that I have provided and the obvious fact that socialism has not had any success anywhere throught the world. Also France having good healthcare does not count as success with socialism in that country as it is one minor part of an economy. My opponent fails to mention that France's economy is in a tailspin and just released a devastating 75% tax rate on the rich which will devastate their economy even further. If that is the only success my opponent can find for his cause then that is not going to cut it when capitalism has made the U. S the fastest growing and most successful country in almost every facet in over 200 years. My opponent's evidence with ". http://politicsreport.com...; only provides a biased view on what one individual believes socialism would do, which has been proven wrong throughout history and you just can "refute" the facts. So although it was very unfortunate that I was restrained with time and could not provide further detail, I hope that I can get your vote. Thank you for your time
Why socialism is bad

Socialism is detrimental to society for a variety of reasons. Most people get caught up in socialism because of the good nature of it. It sounds appealing and in theory should solve poverty, unequal pay, and much more. It is also affective because it takes advantage of people's greed and covetness. People that have not been successful throughout life are most likely to favor socialism. Their greed and envy of the successful and wealthy is what pits them against those individuals. They then fall into the trap of socialism. The main reason socialism is not effective is because it involves a lot of government and bureacracy and spread out the wealth. It removes the incentive of a worker to work hard for a promotion or higher pay. If someone gets paid the same as someone else even though one of them works harder and has more talent, that person is not going to want to work as hard. Socialism removes the essential trait that pushes people to make something out of their lives and that trait is "will". The fact that socialism removes incentive not only stagnates an economy but also lowers the rate of innovation. Socialism not only does not solve poverty and the seperation of classes but makes them worse. People become much more dependent on the government through welfare and food stamps because of socialism. This causes more and more people to fall into poverty. Socialism also causes a war on the classes. It pits the lower classes against the upper classes which will divide a country. For evidence check out the book "Socialism: Opposing Viewpoints" for a great case on the evil of socialism. If you need any proof that socialism does not work, take a look at all of the unsuccessful european countries that use socialism. Nigeria, Yugoslavia, Sweden and many more are great examples of the unsuccessfulness of socialsim. Sweden for example, used to be extremely successful when it had a free market economy. It then adopted socialist policies and has now had lower rates of growth, year after year. Capitalism is much more effective and the U.S is a great example of that. Socialism might sound good but it is in a sense a dreamland that just does not work as a real world economy.
The Ontological Argument is sound.

I will be making a rebuttal and conclusion as those are the rules of the debate. My opponent merely asserts he proved the ontological argument sound. He keeps looking at the possibility that a maximally great being exists. If the ontological argument is valid and sound after the first premise like he is first claiming, then it is impossible that no maximality exists, where as if it is possible that no maximality exists then it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist. My opponent has blatantly asserted that a maximally great being is possible. My opponents argument about rape is off base as well. He says nothing about rape until the conclusion, it plainly is non-sequitur to say that if a being wants x,y, and unlustful sex to exist, he must allow rape(lustful sex). This in no way forms any type of contradiction. In conclusion, we are left with this, it is either true that it is possible that no maximality exists or it is possible that a maximally great being exists. Only one can be true. My opponent has only started with the assumption that the first is possible, when we don't know that it is. He has failed to demonstrate that it is possible. Of course this is all assuming the ontological arguments form is valid( it does not appear to be). To state this another way we have this; 1. it is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2. it is possible that no maximality exists. If 1 is true then 2 cannot be true. If 2 is true then 1 cannot be true. My opponent starts with the assumption 1 is true, and has not set out to prove this. So, therefore at best we are left thinking 1 is true is 50/50 proposition as well as it is 50/50 that 2 is true. Therefore we cannot say that the ontological argument is sound being premise 1 is still in dispute.
The Ontological Argument is sound.

Izbo, the burden of proof was shifted to you at your round 2. I "proved" the Ontological Argument is sound, and it is up to you to disprove it. If you don't believe you need to provide any proof to why it cannot be true, I urge you not to, and I will accept this free win.It is not up to me to "prove" P1 is true. Even if I suggest something is true, such as a maximally great being exists, it becomes possibly true. And thats what P1 says, "It is possible that a maximally great being exists." It is still up to you to prove that it is not possible for a maximally great being to exist. Notice how you phrased your counter argument, "It is possible that a "no maximality" exists." This is suggesting the opposite is possible as well, thus you stated "It is possible that a maximally great being exists." P1 remains entact.However, if I assert something is necessary or impossible, I have to use logic to assert that position, thus the Ontological Argument.Izbo's rant about my P3 is absurd."there would be possible worlds where by default this [maximally great] being would be less great."This is utterly wrong. A maximally great being doesn't exist in finite terms. Maximality IS maximality. Lesser maximality is just a contradiction of terms.For the child rape argument, I provide this:MGB desires: x, y, and unlustful sex to occur.MGB cannot contradict himself.MGB must allow: -x, -y, and rape to not contradict himself.My opponent might argue "What if I can imagine a more maximal being who can contradict himself?" Well, then the being is a contradiction of terms, and is not logically applicable to the argument. (Much like, say, the pinland?)Conclusion I have defended the Ontological Argument and debunked every argument my opponent has so far shown, so I don't think losing this debate is a realistic possiblity. If Con presents arguments in his next round, he shows bad conduct, and the argument should be thrown out, giving me +4 points (Conduct + Arguments) from each voter. If not, I still win probably. And then there is spelling and grammar if a voter sees fit. I don't know what else to say.Haikus are easyBut they don't always make senseRefridgorator
The Ontological Argument is sound.

My opponent is blatantly attempting to shift the burden of proof here. I don't have to prove that no maximality exists, I only have to bring it up as an equal option as a maximality existing. He is the one making the claim that his argument is sound. It is his burden to show that the first premise of his argument is true. The default position is to with hold belief. He has yet to prove that his first premise is true. Instead my opponent wasted the last round trying to break down every other part of the opposing argument instead of dealing with the important premise, that it is possible that no maximality exists. The problem really also comes back to premise 3 in his argument. The argument claims that a maximally great being must exist in all possible worlds. Yet, this seems odd, based on there would be possible worlds where by default this being would be less great. For instance, this maximally great being would be less in this world where he has not stopped child rape, then in a possible world where he has. The maximally great being would have hard time in some worlds seeming all that great.
The Ontological Argument is sound.

Thanks to Izbo for his reply!First off, his counter argument isn't really a counter argument. The first 3 premises:1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists.2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world.3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.With P1 unchallenged, this looks seemingly alright at first glance, but with just a few seconds of thought, we can deduce there is absolutly no reason to trasition from P2 to P3. There is nothing powering "no maximality" to assert itself from one world to every world.With P3 debunked, The logic we are left with is:1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists.2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world.P2 simply stems from P1, so we are left with this:1. It is possible a "no maximality" exists.Voters, this isn't an argument. This is a simple claim, which the Ontological Argument makes false. There is a failure to understand by some end that asserting something similar (i.e. the cheese is gray, unicorns exist, we don't really exist) to this argument is not like this argument at all, because there is (so far) sound logic behind the argument that makes P1 impossible, which is the Ontological Argument.ConclusionAll my opponent is required to do is logically prove that it is possible for "no maximality" to exist (thereby proving his P1), logically prove it impossible for a maximality to exist (thereby falsifying my P1,), or find a logical fallacy in the Ontological Argument (thereby making it unsound) he can effectively prove his arguments. He has yet to do so, and I now give him the opprotunity.
The Ontological Argument is sound.

My opponent has presented the ontological argument for god. He is yet to understand my rebuttal. Even if the ontological argument was valid, I have a problem with premise 3, but for this debate we will assume it is valid. There still is a big problem. When Plantinga started his discussion on this, he brought up a no maximality. Define: No Maximality: This is the property of being such that there is no maximally great being. So we have a second syllogism: 1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists. 2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world. 3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a "no maximality" exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. If a "no maximality" exists in the actual world, then no maximality exists. 6. Therefore, a "no maximality" exists. Ok, so now that we have the second syllogism, we can look at things. With no further investigation it would look like at best either possibility is 50/50. As neither of us has proven that our first premises is true or more likely true. Again assuming the argument is valid, only 1 of our first premises can be true. I have present J.L. Mackies argument as t why it is possible that a no maximality exists is more likely then it is possible that a maximally great being exists. Here it is: The no maximality premise is less restrictive and hence preferred. Even if we don't buy that, my opponent is the one making the claim and at best right now we are 50/50 that his argument is sound. He seems to be confused thinking that since he heard it for god first, that makes it sound for god, the maximally great being. He does not understand that I am contending premise 1, is in no way proven true. Therefore it is not proven sound, since being sound is to say that all the premises are true
The Ontological Argument is sound.

Getting to it:1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world.4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.6) Therefore maximally great being exists. Breakdown: 1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists. This is pretty simple, saying that it is possible that a maximal being exists. To make this assertion false, you need to show that it is impossible for a maximally great being to exist.2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. The basis of this premise asserts that if something is possible, then it is possibly true. Following that, if something is possibly true it must exist in at least one of an infinite series of worlds. I see no reason why being "maximally great" imposes on this premise, so as long as P1 is true, then P2 must also be true.3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world. Let it be noted that if a maximal being is possible, it is also possibly neccessary. Following modal logic, if something is possible necessary, then it is necessary. That is what P3 asserts.4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, a maximaly great being exists in the actual world. Our world is apart of all possible worlds. Therefore, if something exists in all possible worlds, then it must exist in ours.5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. Simplified, this states "If it exists, it exists. " This is true.6) Therefore a maximaly great being exists. This is what we conclude. Given the premises, it holds true. Breakdown #2 If we do not transition from possibly to neccessary, then the maximally great being is no longer maximal. So for the being to be maximal, we must conclude that a maximally great being must have all the qualities of a maximally great being. More simply put, if a maximally great being is restricted in any ways, it is not maximally great. So for a maximally great being to be maximally great, it cannot be held back by restrictions. So a maximally great being must not only exist in a handful of possible worlds, but every possible world to maintain its maximality. Aditional StatmentsI would like to put forth a simple assertion, that if a Maximally great being exists, then it is impossible for no miaximally great being exists.