BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Restricting people's 2nd Amendment Right will reduce American violence

It is quite interesting that you claim to be a moderate centrist, because I am a moderate democrat who, consequently, believes in constitutional civil liberties. The 2nd Amendment, and the ability to posses firearms under legal standings, is a fundamental necessity to any civilized society. In many instances, governments have turned tyrannical on their own people. Prior to the formation of the Third Reich, Germany had among the strictest gun laws and restrictions in the entire world. Their centralized government believed it would prevent violence, as you so claim. However, when the government was overtaken and Germany was transformed into a socialist state, the people had no means to defend themselves against the impending violence and possibly form a revolution to defend themselves. As a result, millions upon millions were gassed, burned alive, and massacred. Additionally had the 13 colonies not had the proper access to guns and weaponry, they would have never been able to revolt against Great Britain, and at this particular moment in time, you might not be debating me had history gone the other way. Evidently, while the objective is to prevent violence, without proper access to guns, violence is what follows from oppressive governments. I could go on about current contemporary examples such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and a multitude of other countries that are unable to fight back, but assuming you watch the news and keep up with current events, that should speak for itself. I'd next like to make a point regarding the easy access to guns illegally. If someone is dedicated to causing violence and massacring innocent people, they will attempt to do so regardless of any restrictions we place on them. By accessing a free program downloadable from the internet called Tor, anyone can access the "Deep Web" and purchase a variety of different illegal firearms from the website "Silk Road". If we make purchasing guns illegal, or restrict access to them, if someone really wants a gun, they can do so by going through these illegal channels. However, firearms are not the only things available for purchase on the Silk Road. Other things include RPGs, Grenades, flamethrowers, and chemical weapons. By promoting usage through back-channels, we are possibly encouraging some to purchase even more deadly weapons. Prohibition, the ban of alcohol, did not stop the majority of America from purchasing it illegally, and in fact, actually accelerated the trade. Drug laws currently in place do not stop a significant percentage of America who still purchase and consume them illegally. In fact, we have the biggest drug crisis in history, despite the restrictions imposed by the government. If someone wants to buy guns, they will do so with or without our consent. Conclusively, restraining a constitutional liberty is harmful to maintaining a civilized and peaceful society for which the people maintain equality with their government.
Restricting people's 2nd Amendment Right will reduce American violence

You have interesting timing considering that school children are afraid to go to school. I should specify that I am a moderate centrist, and accross the boasrd prolifer, and so on. I see gun users as a threat to human life. I find it ironic that allegedly prolife conservatives will say "it's a human life" in refererence to abortion, but not gun homicide. Hypocritical maybe? What I don't want to do: Take your guns if you are a mentally healthy 20 plus law abiding citizen. What I do want: People with mental illnesses, addictictions, felony records, and people with restrainining orders to have guns. I know that my right to live outweighs your right to shoot me.
Restricting people's 2nd Amendment Right will reduce American violence

I don't care if you think I am this or that, I am here to debate gun control. Focus. You claim that countries turn tyranical when they take everyone's guns away, but I am wiuth Bernie Sanders on guns, and I have 0% desire to abolish guns. I want mentally healthy adult law abiders to own a gun if they want, BUT if they don't fiy yjat criteria, I don't. I don't believe I have gun rights because I have 4 mental illnesses, and one drug addiction in recovery. Do you really think I should have a gun? My first and second rapists both had a history with guns. I don't want YOUR guns, but I want people with my issues to be banned from owning guns. THAT IS ALL, sir!
Incest should not be considered in the legality of abortion.

"Incest should not be considered in the legality of abortion." That's the title of this debate. Legality. This is about the legality of it all, being able to look past the superficial social taboo to see if conception in incest is different than a regular conception in respect to abortion and law. You make a generalization that incest is purely for pleasure. Personal fact: A close friend of mine has been in a healthy relationship with her first cousin for about fifteen years. You have no statistics or logic to back up that a higher percent of incestuous relationships are purely sexual than standard relationships. As for the defects, that's a different argument. Should babies that have genetic defects in general be aborted? That's an entirely different debate. Incest does not guarantee defects. That's like giving anyone with any genetic deficiencies permission to abort their child which is, again, not the aim of this debate. I don't know how every single one of my arguments are invalid because incest babies are neither common nor socially acceptable. That doesn't change that they do exist and should NOT be given special treatment. The idea behind this was that you take two women who both became pregnant. Woman A was consensually impregnated by a non-family member. Woman B was consensually impregnated by her brother. Woman A is denied an abortion while woman B is granted an abortion. This is not right.
Incest should not be considered in the legality of abortion.

Well no it is a question of morality, why else would it frowned upon socially. Only reclusive folk and Muslims marrying their cousins for culture n gene retainment today, otherwise incest is purely for pleasure . Secondly if a women wanted to abort the incest baby, your argument becomes invalid bc youre acting like its normal! The chances of the effects i mentioned, whether low or not, are still significantly higher in comparison to a normal baby. And yes, it will be treated differently, i mean imagine telling yr kid that You're his brother. Urghh puke puke, vomit die...
Incest should not be considered in the legality of abortion.

It being a disgusting and immoral act is purely from a societal standpoint and has only been considered a taboo recently. Historically, it has been entirely acceptable behavior. Do something merely being a social taboo constitute it being used solely as reasoning for something so controversial and important as abortion? My point is that a child conceived in incest (which, despite what was stated before, is most frequently between cousins and similar distant family rather than within a "nuclear" family) should be treated no differently than any other consequentially conceived child. From experience with observing my local feline populations, it takes between four and seven generations of inbreeding before any major genetic deficiencies become prevalent. Many modern genetic studies on both animals and humans also confirm that the likelihood of a defect due to incest to be significantly lower than is generally believed. The chances of a birth defect formed from a first generation incestual relationship is 4%, not significantly higher than the non-incestual chances of 2%. This applies to difficulties in pregnancy and P.N. Depression as well. the social side of your argument is wholly invalid. Americans have the right to choose to engage in incestuous activities and can choose to be open about it or keep it a secret if they want. This argument is Ceteris paribus to a baby conceived legally and consensually in every other respect. This is a question of if the abortion of a consensually conceived child that is a product of incest should be handled any differently than if a child was not conceived in incest. This isn't a question of if incest is moral or ethical but rather if the law should treat incest pregnancies any differently when it comes to abortion.
Incest should not be considered in the legality of abortion.

Hello my friend, before we discuss the abortion aspect, lets firstly talk about incest. Now like most young men, I'm a long term porn addict. In porn, incest is one of the most popular categories due to the overexposure and exploitation of the oepidus/electra effects, which is the tabboo lust towards your parents. Bc of porn, incest has become modern fantasy for young teens. HOWEVER, when you mature, and when actually research about incest, you will find that it truly is a disgusting, immoral act. Pleasure aside the long term effects are damaging. These effects include; Increased chance of a disabled kid, hence the need for abortion if it occurs Social ostracism Pregnancy difficulties n PNDepression All that for an intense orgasm, why risk it?!? Would you get yo momma pregnant ?- If u say no, your argument is dead in the water boy!
There isn't really any moral difference between taking and not giving.

Let's start off with a brief example of what I'm talking about. A man with a handful of spare change walks by a donation box, but decides not to donate. Now imagine instead a man walking by empty-handed, and stealing a handful of change. Has either done more wrong than the other? Going off only what can be inferred directly from the story, I don't think so. Either way, the box has a few dollars less than it could have. What do you think?
Prove your own existence as a separate being

In light of the fact that I had completely debunked my opponent's arguments last round; nothing my opponent has sadi as round four makes any sense. My opponent continues to makes baseless attacks with circular unwarranted arguments. Therefore since my opponent has essientially juts extended his earlier attacks (albiet they where re-worded) they do no stand up in this debates. I extend my prior voters; But going on, as of last round my opponent has also given me two new voters; Eleven, my opponent has tried to break the fourth wall; he has not broken the wall thus he is wrong. Twelve, If I get even a single vote(which could be my own vote); then my opponent is proven wrong and all votes must go to me.
Prove your own existence as a separate being

If you are part of me you never argued that you are not part of me. You are trying to prove that you are not part of me and therefore not part of my universe. You never proved this. Your consciousness does not exist because everyone has only one consciousness, mine. Therefore, you have no personality because you have no consciousness. Therefore, reality is in me and mine to dictate. The universe is my reality. The universe is in me. You are, therefore, part of me, a construct of my mind. Meaning you are me. Again to bring up what you are trying to prove. You are trying to prove that you are not me. You are part of my reality so then, you are me because your just a construct of my mind. Because you have not proved that you are not me then you must be me. Furthermore, if you are me then only I can be voted on as you are me. To conclude, my opponent has my conscious mind and my personality. I have proven that my opponent exists in a reality that I control. This reality is the universe. There is no possible way for me to prove he exists outside of my mind. Since, he cannot exist out of my mind he is in my mind and therefore, is a construct of my mind, since, "he" is a construct of my mind he is me. I can not shatter reality because I control reality since it exists in my mind. My opponent has stated several times that he is not a separate being therefore, "he" only exists in my mind. In sum, you must vote for me because I am the only one whose mind exists, by voting for my opponent you are voting that "he" is separate conscious entity divided from me, something, which I have proven, "he" is not.
Prove your own existence as a separate being

My opponent's logic is hereby debunked! If my opponent is the universe and I am a part of him, then we are one; thus it is okay to vote for me. however if any aspect of my personality exists outside of my opponent's than I still win as I disproved my opponent For this lease refer to their first paragraph of refutation; regardless of whether or not my opponent was correct in their assertions in the beginning they have split consciousness and we are now two separate entities! Further-more my opponent admits that there are parts of myself that cannot represent himself! thus I am two-fold proven as a separate entity. The next paragraph is now null as my opponent has admitted I am not the same being as they are. Any manner of logical justification beyond this is exceedingly extra-topical and cannot be considered as I have already proven my opponent false. Going on to my opponent's refutations; say we accept this logic as viable; in which case neither I nor my opponent can win, but this debate must end in a tie, as we would be the same entity. Thus all issues must be voted on as a tie and even i there where a million votes, we would both end with zero votes on our side. My opponent's logic is three-fold debunked. Going on my opponent says I have not proven they are not the universe; but have attacked their logic. before my proof can be seen, we must clarify that through my opponent's claims I am a member of his person; in which case my proof is a first person admittance. With this in mind as prior stated my opponent's stance is four-fold debunked. Again extend my prior logic that I exist independent of my opponent from my previous speeches, and we have a seven-fold reason to vote me up (Constructive in round 1(1), Negation in round 1(2), Circular and multiple causation fallacy debunk on round two (two arguments here)(3 and 4) and my refutations in this round (5, 6, and 7)) Now with my opponent's stance debunked on four levels; and my stance warranted on seven, you have an ten fold reason to vote for me in this debate, one reason for this round to end in a tie, and no reason to vote for my opponent Thus logic would point to the fact that you must make the most prevalent decision, that being a vote for me.
Prove your own existence as a separate being

Everybody is one consciousness. I cannot prove that you exist outside of my mind. I will split consciousness into a couple parts: "me" and "you". "You" is representing anything that can not be "me". Without "me" there is no "you", because there is no "me" to conceive "you". Therefore, everybody is a construct of my mind. Furthermore, "you" are here only because of "me" and basically this means my reality in which I am existing in exists within me. So the universe exists within me because the universe is my reality. You say that this argument is not needed because I risk shattering my reality but, you don't know what reality is considering you are "you" and not "me". In reality "you" can argue about reality with "me". This does not place me at the risk of shattering my reality as it is part of the reality. You stated: "Finally on a logical/philosophical appeal; say my prior logic has not won the resolution for me. If I am not my own individual being but am apart of my opponent, then voting for me is the exact same thing as voting for him." You are trying to argue that you are a separate being but, you just stated that you are not. Therefore, you lose this debate. If you are the universe then again I am part of you which means again you lose the debate as you have not argued that you are separate. Furthermore, you have never provided proof that I am not the universe. You have attacked my logic but, you have not proved that I am not the universe.
Prove your own existence as a separate being

So first of all, my opponent suffers from a multiple causation fallacy argument. The warrant behind myself no existing as a a separate entity, is that that they are the universe; and the warrant behind them being the universe. .. is that they are the universe. The warrant behind my opponent's argument is circular thus we cannot accept it Further more, my opponent claims that they do no need to prove this as they are the universe. This argument is fallacious on multiple levels- First, it is as their prior argument dependent on itself; thus it has no warrant. Second, if this where a true statement then my opponent would have no problem backing it up empirically. Yet he further claims that is unnecessary by warranting this claim again back to his other circular and unwarranted argumentation. Further more; If my opponent's claims where really true then this debate would not be necessary in the first place. If he where the universe (which is not even a concept garnering sentience) then he would not have to debate this topic thus putting him at risk of losing (thus shattering my opponent's reality) Finally on a logical/philosophical appeal; say my prior logic has not won the resolution for me. If I am not my own individual being but am apart of my opponent, then voting for me is the exact same thing as voting for him. So I then Ask that you vote for the universe through me. My warrant behind this, is that by my opponent's logic I am the universe Now going onto a different note, my opponent has not refuted my claims in the prior round; therefore they extend across to this round and can be counted as direct voting reasons in my favor. therefore by logical conclusion of both mine and my opponent (or the universe) you must Vote Con Thank you :D
Prove your own existence as a separate being

I roughly stated that the universe is contained within me. The cynical person is the part of me which is cynical. The happy person is the part of me which is happy etc. If the universe is contained within me everything is me. You would be me. This means "you" are not a separate being. I do not need to support why the universe is me because everything is me. Therefore, I do not need tell that the universe is me because there is no one else to tell it to but, myself. There is no need to support the argument because the argument alone supports itself. There is no way for "you" to disprove that fact that the universe is me and therefore, "you" are me and not a separate being. Your entire argument is that "you" are real because "you" have a debate.org account. But, since I am the universe and debate.org is in the universe debate.org is part of me. Since debate.org is me then "your" account is me then if "your" account is me then "you" are me. Empirical evidence is originating in or based on observation or experience. But, the universe is me. Since the universe is me then all empirical evidence is me. I can extend this argument to "you" because it is talking about the universe, which includes "you", since it directly applies to "you" there is no way to say that it is not relative.
Prove your own existence as a separate being

I am real because have a debate. org account. Thus I win. Now allow me to point out something about this argument; it has a claim, warrant, and impact. Thus it is a viable argument. Claim: "I am real. .. " Warrant: ". .. because I have a debate. org account. " Impact: "This I win. " My opponent has the instigator has the burden of proof to show that I do not exist, but has not done so. First, their opening arguments have no warrants as to why they are true. So therefore we cannot consider it in the realm of this debate Second, my opponent issued this debate to any-one who wanted to accept it; therefore the arguments are generic arguments that my opponent makes with-out a basis of empirical evidence. Finally, My opponent cannot extend these arguments as arguments readily relative to me in the next round because we already know they are non-unique.
Prove your own existence as a separate being

I will be trying to disprove your existence while you are trying to prove your existence. Everything that is sensed externally is just a physical manifestation of yourself. Everything that is perceived is just subconscious images projected into the outside world. The different people who are all different in some way are just parts of you that want to achieve different goals. Therefore, you are just a projection of my mind and are part of my mind. This means you do not exist as a separate being because you are actually a part of me.
The United States Government ought to provide Universal Healthcare for its Citizens

Hello viewers, I would like to first say that my opponent has not posted his argument at all, giving me nothing to argue. This is a Lincoln Douglas debate in which both the opponents are required to give arguments and all he posts is against my argument. And all the arguments must be presented in the 1st round (in this case it is the R2 because the first was acceptance). Since Thaddeus didn't post his argument, he has conceded. Now I will move on to defend my argument.Thaddeus says that I have introduced my definitions after he has. I have only done so because he has not included all of the definitions that I have presented in my case. And I have done nothing wrong as I clearly stated R1 was for acceptance. If you look at what Thaddeus wrote in his R2, he says word for word "My opponent is correct that the value of the debate is morality." By saying this he completely AGREES with my case. A point to be noted Judge. He then says I make a ridiculous leap to my criterion. When I state my criterion, I am saying that read my whole case and see how my criterion upholds my value in this debate. My opponent states that there is no objective morality. I am saying that the United States Government ought to provide Universal Health Care for its Citizens because of all the reasons stated in my case in R2. Now I have some questions for my opponent to answer: Do you think it is Moral for many millions of Americans to die simply because they have genetic and untreatable diseases and are too ill to work and make money? Would you rather have more or less doctors readily available to treat patients? Judge, I thank you for your time and I urge you to vote Affirmative (Pro) for all the reasons stated above.