BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Firearms should be banned from possession by civilians.

== Regarding Spelling == I have noticed that a block quote has not copied correctly due to this site's text formatting. "murder rates are determined by socio‐economic and cultural factors" should read "murder rates are determined by socio-economic and cultural factors." == Regarding Conduct == I would like to apologize to my opponent for presenting my case in the first round, as I interpreted his opening statement to mean that we would avoid debating definitions outside of the first round and the comments section. I was obviously incorrect. == Regarding the Affirmative Case == My opponent has argued that murder is more achievable with firearms legal. However, as I have already presented, with agreement from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, those interested in homocide will either find an illegal firearm or use another means. The law, therefore does not hinder murder. Instead, such a law will make murder easier due to the reduced chance that the target will be able to defend themselves. My opponent has also introduced the concept of impulsive murder, which he has not introduced any statistical significance for or given any reason to believe would occur less often with a gun than with a knife, which has no "Safety" switch. == Regarding the Negative Case == My opponent objects that there can be no right to property that can be used to take lives. This idea extends to knives, scissors, baseball bats, A/C current, pillows, poisons, and every limb of the human body. To deny property on potential capability is foolish and shortsighted. My opponent objects that no happiness can be achieved through a firearm outside of hunting. Here is a short list: - hunting (for sport and food) - skeet shooting - gun collecting - pest control - gun shows - target shooting My opponent has also suggested that hunting can be achieved with other tools besides the firearm, but bow-hunting results in a far less ethical kill [1]. The animal is less likely to die on the first shot, due to less killing power and less accuracy. Additionally, trapping and tranquilizing animals is a violation of fair chase ethics [2]. I do not see the relevancy of my opponent's objection regarding the fact that a handful of murder cases involved first time shooters. Every criminal was at one time a first-time criminal; this does not make the entire population criminal. My opponent says that banning firearms is a matter of principle without any substantial reason. Rather, firearms should be allowed on the principles of liberty, property, and universal human rights, as outlined in my first contention. It is unethical and harmful to ban civilian firearm ownership. Therefore, resolution is negated. == Sources == [1] http://trailcameras.net... [2] http://www.matlabas.co.za...
Firearms should be banned from possession by civilians.

Also, I acknowledge the burden of proof. 1. Guns may be property, but they happen to be property capable of depriving someone of something greater than their property: their life. 2. I don't see how one would gain happiness through a firearm, except through hunting, and hunting can be achieved with other tools. 3. A lot of high profile crimes were committed by people who were committing their first crime. See the fort hood shootings, and the kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard. 4. We should ban possession of firearms as a matter of principle. Why do we ban suicide, when we know we can't enforce it? It's because we don't want people committing suicide, and want them to understand that it is a violation of the law, and a poor choice indeed. My case is based on two contentions. 1. Legal possession of firearms makes homicide simple to achieve. One could legally walk with a gun into firing range within the current laws. They would only step out of the boundaries when they aim and pull the trigger. Criminals may be capable of committing murder even when guns are banned, but when they are legal, it becomes easy. 2. One might fire impulsively. Perfectly well-meaning, normally law abiding citizens who carry firearms for defense might kill with the weapon on an impulse, without realizing the consequences of their actions. They would probably regret their actions, but they couldn't take them back. Resolution affirmed.
Can this work be considered pornography

Now you have to be careful with your choice of words. You asked 'can this work be CONSIDERED pornography' Pornography by definition is a PRINTED or visual material containing the explicit DESCRIPTION or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual excitement. Do does this piece of poetry that you put to us contain printed material describing or mentioning sexual organs? Yes it does. I quote 'smooth like lovers lips to each other those c*** lips seek each other to embrace ah those curving lips softer than incenses fragrant smoke' Now I am not going to comment on the appalling sentence structure, language and all round ability of this poem to keep me engaged (and certainly give me an erection, that didn't happen, unfortunately). I mean I am no poem lover but talk about bizarre. HOWEVER, what we do see here from the quotation above and from several other passages in the poem is a clear description (albeit subtle) of what I can only assume be be, lesbian sex, (c*** lips seek each other) and at the very least a clear mention of a female sex organ. This of course reverberates the definition that I provided above for what is considered to be pornography. I can only assume that by including these certain erotic descriptions that the author intended to elicit some amount of sexual response from the reader. I mean why else include such thing. This further enforces the fact that this poem is living up to the very definition of what pornography is. This poem DOES include the description and mention of a sexual organ, MULTIPLE times. This poem DOES include what I believe to be sexual activity (not matter how subtly or hidden among terrible language) This poem WAS I believe written to induce a sexual response from the reader (granted to a minor extent, but none the less, the sexual descriptions are there) I don't know how my opponent is going to argue his case. I suspect he will insist that the language used in the book was not intended to be used in a sexual way and that I am misinterpreting the nature of what is going on in the poem. HOWEVER, I am not the author, I am a reader, and I will respond according to what I can see of the poem and what I understand of certain words and phrases, and I see such phrases as pornographic in nature. I mean Ron Jeremy could come up to you and say 'No this video where I am f****** a girl up the a** is not pornographic, it is art, you are misinterpreting it' - Uhm no, I am sorry Ron, saying it's art does not subtract from the fact that it is also in fact pornography. And remember, my opponent asked, can this work be CONSIDERED pornography. It can indeed, whether the author intended so or not. This poems content IS congruent with the definition of pornography. It is therefore, just that, pornography. Simple as that. I am not saying that the poem is as hardcore or as hot as Lexi Belle's latest video, that it is certainly not. But it can definitely be considered pornographic albeit in it's most minor form. Thanks.
Can this work be considered pornography

Con says so I ask which is it erotic or pornographic Con also says what we get from pro is that deans work is erotic and pornographic simultaneously There is your answer. I don't understand why you find it SO hard to grasp that a piece of poetry can be both erotic AND pornographic. The two are not synonyms as you try to imply, they are simply related and can coincide with each other in a piece of poem or a movie. Why can't you understand that? Further more Con says: if erotic is different to pornographic then I must win the debate as pro admits the work is erotic Well how pathetic, we can easily swap this around and proclaim that I win because I also admit that the work is pornographic, therefore (in your own mind it cannot also be erotic) BUT, this stuff isn't even important. We must all remember the essence of the debate and in particular the wording used. Con asked 'Can this work be CONSIDERED' pornography. Note the word considered. Con is asking if somewhere, someone out there could possibly CONSIDER this piece to be pornographic. I would agree that perhaps many would prefer to call the poem 'erotic' but by the simple fact that the definition of pornography in in fact synonymous with the poems content the likelihood of there being people out there who might consider this poem pornographic is undebatable. Can this poem be CONSIDERED pornographic? Of course it bloody well can, by some. Con is not asking if this piece of work would be CATEGORIZED in the industry as 'erotic' or 'pornographic' - He/she is asking if it could possibly be CONSIDERED pornographic, he has not defined by whom and thus this remains open to people in general. And indeed, obviously, anyone with an iota of intelligence can see that the poem could indeed be considered pornographic purely as a result of the link between definition and content. Essentially Con has shot him/herself in the foot as a result of his/her poor choice of wording when creating the debate. If con was alluding to categorization of such a poem he should have said so. There are some people out there who would indeed CONSIDER this work pornography. It is that simple. Debate over.
Can this work be considered pornography

pro says "You are right in that the definition given to 'erotic' is indeed synonymous with the content of the poem, just as is the definition of 'pornography' - Therefore this poem is indeed erotic, as it is also 'pornographic' - This poem therefore could be CONSIDERED pornography. Simple as that." so pro admits that this work by Australias leading erotic poet colin leslie dean is erotic "Therefore this poem is indeed erotic" but he also admits could be called pornographic but says any way it " CONSIDERED pornography. Simple as that." so I ask which is it erotic or pornographic is pro saying that a pornographic work is erotic and an erotic work is pornographic is pro saying that erotic is a synonym for pornography and vice versa what we get from pro is that deans work is erotic and pornographic simultaneously so voter it is up to you is a pornographic work is erotic and an erotic work is pornographic is erotic a synonym for pornography and vice versa if erotic is different to pornographic then I must win the debate as pro admits the work is erotic
Can this work be considered pornography

Well I am saddened to see that you have not even bothered rebutting many of the points that I made supporting this poem to be indeed pornography, which leads me to believe that you concede these points in argument. The only rebuttal you gave was concerning the definition of erotic, in which you stated is the same definition as the one I provided for 'pornography' bringing you to your rather tenuous conclusion that this poem is therefore 'erotic' rather than 'pornographic' in nature - It is a shame to see that you have totally either failed to fully understand the definition that I provided, misinterpreted it or are being purposely obstinate to proliferate you own argument which I have already fully debunked. The definition which I gave regarding 'pornography' was indeed different to the one which you provided for 'erotic' because it entails the 'PRINTED or visual material containing the explicit DESCRIPTION or display of SEXUAL ORGANS OR ACTIVITY' - This is the bit that you so conveniently disregarded. You are right in that the definition given to 'erotic' is indeed synonymous with the content of the poem, just as is the definition of 'pornography' - Therefore this poem is indeed erotic, as it is also 'pornographic' - This poem therefore could be CONSIDERED pornography. Simple as that. Your feeble argument that because the poem is erotic it cannot therefore be pornographic in nature is laughable. Tell me is a porn film not erotic but also pornographic at the same time?
Can this work be considered pornography

I will show-giving a definition of erotic-that this poem is not pornography but it is erotic pro says "Pornography by definition is a PRINTED or visual material containing the explicit DESCRIPTION or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate sexual " but that is the definition of erotic http://www.thefreedictionary.com... "erotic (=8;G2;r;4;t=8;k) adj 1. of, concerning, or arousing sexual desire or giving sexual pleasure 2. marked by strong sexual desire or being especially sensitive to sexual stimulation" so I say the poem is not pornography but it is erotic
Pewdiepie sucks

Hello guys, today I'm going to be talking about well, as you guessed, Pewdiepie sucks. As we all know, Pewdiepie is the most subscribed and well known channel on youtube. I believe that Pewdiepie sucks because one, is commentary is HORRIBLE. Two, he does a lot of games other youtubers have already done even BETTER. Also Pewdiepie honestly only cares about the money now more than anything now. Also, like most other youtubers, Pewdiepie did youtube because he wanted attention, fame, and views. There are RARELY any youtubers that actually do youtube just for the sake of entertaining others. It's very rare. Thus, this leads me to the conclusion that Pewdiepie sucks. And DO NOT go FANBOYING all over me. At least come up with a valid argument.
Rain is better than snow

I'd first like to congradulate my opponent on his epic case. I enjoyed reading it a lot. Now, to begin attacking my opponents case. First off, most people are beging to believe that global warming dosent exsist. All over the country, its been colder than most winters in the past. In my town, it has snowed more this year than the last ten years. California maybe, but in other states not very likely. Moving on to my opponents next contention, saying that only male children enjoy the snow is not true in the least. I, as a little girl, loved playing in puddles. And most people find it very romantic, to kiss in the rain. There fore rain is not only enjoyed by male children. There are plenty of activites that involve water that rain gives us. Yes, snow has many fun activities, but I would like to point out that getting hit in the face with a snowball isn't all that fun. Even now as a teenager, walking home in the rain just relaxes me, after a long day at school. Also Plenty people love the sound of rain, it's calming. Snow dosen't make a sound as it falls. Next, there are plenty of things you can do with rain too. Id like to point out that plenty of the lakes around have been helped greatly by rain. There are more water activites to do with that. Lastly, Snow causes many health issues for people. It lingers, unlike rain. You can slip and fall on frozen snow and break your leg. Rain dosent do that. Snow causes many car accidents also. Rain causes far less. The cold is the worst part of snow. It sends a cold chill through your bodie that you most of the time cant shake off, making you terribly ill at times.
Eugenics

By Practicing eugenics, humans will have a decrease in genetic diseases. Science will be able to remove any genetic diseases from DNA. This means medical histories will no long be necessary. Furthermore, people who have diseases that run in the family blood-line wont have to worry about the increased chance for those diseases because they will already been removed. Souses: http://knowgenetics.org... http://www.ehow.com... http://cct.wikispaces.umb.edu...
Eugenics

Eugenics is Greek for "well-born." Eugenics improves generations by allowing people to be the best they can be. Eugenics is a movement that is aimed at improving the genetic composition of the human race. Eugenics will allow people the opportunity to live longer happier lives. By "removing" unwanted genes, parents will be able to have the best child they can have. Eugenics has been used since the 1800's used for removing any and all unwanted genes from humans. Souses: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.faqs.org... http://knowgenetics.org...
Eugenics

Re: Eugenics is all about improving humans. It makes people smarter, stronger and happier. It is almost like spring cleaning: remove everything that is not wanted and replace them for what is. Replacing a gene coding for shortness and replacing it with tall, changing eye-color, etc. This way a child is not limited by his/her parents while still being their child. It is still their child, but the best it can be. Souses: http://helix.northwestern.edu... http://www.nytimes.com... http://beforeitsnews.com...
This house require people to work in return for welfare payments

Contention 1: Workfare displaces jobs. Many of the success that workfare claims to have is that it lead to the increase of people finding actual jobs as people leave the JSA (a workfare program in the UK), but we have seen that out of 1,400 DWP work expierence workers that left, only 250 found jobs, which give you only a 20% success rate while the others didn't find jobs and left workfare to leave it. (http://falseeconomy.org.uk...) The Center for Economic and Social Inclusion did a survey in 2011, and found the fallowing conclusion: “This [graph] appears to show that the youth work experience scheme has had no additional impact on the speed at which young people leave benefit, and may have actually led to them spending longer on benefit than they would have done. However, these figures require some caution – the stated intent of the Department has been to target work experience at those with the biggest barriers to work, who would likely have had rates below the average for all claimants.” (http://falseeconomy.org.uk...) Here we can see that spending time in workfare is actually counterproductive and harmful to actually use. They have also found that there are countless failures in workfare. A total of $1.5 billion has been spent over the last 7 years on workfare and they have found that only 1/5 who enter and leave the workfare program end up actually finding a job above the poverty line. (http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com...)
This house require people to work in return for welfare payments

Receiving welfare is not a long term solution. Only people who really have serious physical disabilities can be excepted. Even people with mental disabilities can work, for example, a factory worker, which is not highly- skilled. Welfare system is used to help people in finding jobs and support them in a short term aspect. They should find jobs as soon as possible so as to have an income and really solve their problems, such as the lack of money and jobless. Welfare payments which do not require people to work may encourage people to abuse the use of this system. It might make them feel in a way that even they do not have to work, they can still receive money. So what's the point to work. This leads to the increase laziness of people and they will be more unwilling to work as they can enjoy the welfare system freely. It will lead to declination of society, for example, economic and social as more and more people relies on a welfare payment that does not require people to work in return.
You pick

A. Everyone is in for the money because everyone in the world works for money. Money is what operates the world. That is why EVERY country in the world has a currency in their country. The world revolves around money. The only people who would not have money would be slaves. So that is almost 8 billion people. Out of the 8 billion I would say 6 billion or clearly 3/4 of the population is looking to get rich somehow. That is why most people gamble, play lotteries, work do whatever for money. Money is the life line of civilization. Anyone denying that fact is just full of it. People all work for money, nobody goes to work for pleasure, everyone has bills and needs to eat and guess what that costs money. So your logic is flawed. B. I'm on this website because I'm bored right now and I get a chance to have these wonderful debates and discussions on here in between big jobs I have to do. Money and wealth gives me the freedom to have free time between big heists and it's nice to have a friendly debate once in a while. I mean why are you here, not even picking a subject to debate but simply saying "You pick", that is a pretty general question and not picking a specific topic shows me that you are on here also to just debate because you didn't present a specific debate topic. So why are you on here wasting your time on like you say "amateur debate forum" my point exactly. C. The problem with being a Kingpin is that you need loyal dependable staff, just like any work place you need to hire dependable people that know who is the boss. I make sure to hire staff that is loyal but I also let them know they could be gone and lose that money train that they need. I hire staff that is down and out of their luck, people who are in the dumps and need a helping hand. This way I provide their income, I reward them for good jobs done but I also let them know, they fvckup and they will be back in the gutter from where I got them from. I don't necessarily hire overachievers who think they can stab me in the back and take over my position. I don't need people like that, I need loyal men who had sh!tty breaks in life and need a hand in exchange for services done on my behalf. There are no rebellions, I quash any form of discontent right away. You work for me or you will be shoveling crap out of dumpsters if you cross me. My staff do not need constant pay raises, this is not an office. They get other things, women, coke, time to kick back, they don't have to deal with a shitty work schedule, a boss, meetings and boring office jobs. We are more like the group in Oceans 11, 12 or 13, everyone has their place and job, and in the end we score big and we are gone for a few years. I don't get your final paragraph about moral alignments and gaming nerds??? I don't know what you are talking about there. If you are referring to the fact that being a criminal is not moral, I would like to just say that every person that I talk to that is not a criminal always says "Some day you will be caught and put in jail" To which I say "Every loser says that, while they stare at my hot women and fast cars with glee while wishing they had a mansion like mine" LOL