BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"assault weapons" should be legal for mentally sane law abiding gun owners

I'd like to first point out an error in your comment. The AR 15 rifle is not in fact an "assault rifle" Assault rifles (like the M4 carbine) are fully automatic weapons. The AR 15 is a semi automatic sporting/defense rifle. (The acronym, AR does not stand for assault rifle. The AR stands for Armalite rifle. ) Now I haven't seen any arguments I haven't debated before in your introductory argument. Now you say "assault weapons" (which is a ridicules term made up by the media to fool the average American into thinking black "scary looking" rifles are some how more dangerous than other guns) are more dangerous. If that was true, why is it that "Assault weapons" make up less than 2% of gun homicides, the 2 worst mass shootings in the entire WORLD were not committed by them (which dismisses the argument that they have the ability to kill more people) and in the past TEN YEARS, less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings? It just makes no sense. Not to mention, 90% of law enforcement officers say they do NOT support a ban on them and an "assault weapons" ban would have NO POSITIVE EFFECT. AR 15s are sporting/home defense rifles. Nothing special about them. Tell me something. Why should "assault weapons" be banned if less than 300 people are killed a year by them (75% being criminals since most murder victims are criminals) but alcohol shouldn't be banned when 10,000 people are killed a year by drunk drivers? Now you argument that the American people would have no chance against the government is quite false. If the American people would have no chance against U. S government, why is it that the Taliban, made up of about 300,000 semi poorly trained combatants armed with some Aks, a few RPGs, and home made explosives, has been able to fight off the worlds greatest super powers for over 10 years? Not to mention they kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan in the 80s as well and the Russians followed no ROEs. So how come 300,000 Taliban fighters can fight off the greatest super powers in the world, but not at the minimum, 7 million armed American citizens? Something else interesting, the marine corp was asked in 2010 if the U. S government gave them orders to confiscate citizens guns, and the citizens used lethal force against them, would you shoot back? 80% said they would not and about 11% said unsure. So think about it. Most likely a little more than half of the U. S military would become defectors and fight with the U. S citizens which probably at the minimum would be 7 million against about 10% or a little more of the military who still would follow unconstitutional orders. Who would be the victor? The answer is clear.
"assault weapons" should be legal for mentally sane law abiding gun owners

I will make my argument first at my opponent's request. First, before I argue though, I would like to say that I personal enjoy the history and mechanical aspect of guns, and I am not 100% against guns First I would like to define what an assault weapon is. An assault weapon (if my opponent disagrees, than I will use my opponent's definition for the rest of the debate), as far as my sources tell me, is a pretty subjective term, but firearms such as the AR-15 and the M4 class series are considered assault rifles, but also fall underneath the category 'assault weapons'. Again, I have looked at sources and I have found them unreliable so please do not take my word on this. I believe that mentally sane, law biding citizens, or any other citizen for that matter, should have access to assault weapons. The use of such weapons is pointless on the ground of home soil. People like to throw in the argument that they can be used to defend us from a corrupt government. No, they can not. The government can take whatever it wants from you. First off, civilian, police, and military all have different grade guns and bullets. If you think an assault rifle will stop a corrupt, tyrant government, then you have another thing coming. I would be more than humored by a couple of Americans shooting at a M1 Abram's bullet proof body. You will get nothing done. Another problem I have is that the average citizen is not trained in using such weapons in case of a need for defense, nor do they know how to use the weapon in a justified manner. People, honest, mostly law biding, mentally sane people, have used a gun out of fear, out of instinct almost, to shoot someone in an unjustified manner. While mistakes are understandable, they can be avoided entirely. Now, relying solely on the police to help us out is not always safe, but in a some situations, in fact, a lot, a gun is pulled out at the wrong time. First off, how does one get a hold of such a gun to wreck havoc on your life if only sane people are allowed to get it? Even a person selling a gun on the black market would not sell a gun to someone who isn't all that mentally well in the head, unless they didn't know if they were okay or not in the head. An argument against banning guns completely is that people will just go on the black market for them, getting them from cops who sell them out the back door, so what would stop a not sane person to do go in to the black market and pick up an assault rifle? And believe me, people will sell assault weapons in the black market if it is illegal to sell them to not mentally sane people. Another problem I find is, if we are able to get our hands on assault weapons, because the country is pretty divided on many, many situations, it may not take long for another civil war to break out. No sources are being used in my opening argument. Sources will come along later
Marrying food

The institution and cultural norm of marriage is a way to pressure lovers into legally binding themselves to each other. If you love potato chips, why bother making your love for those chips into a legal entity with an expensive ceremony, where, if you want to leave the relationship, you have to go through an actual court of law, and argue with those chips about who gets the kids. They're your kids, kassie. You can't just *sniff sniff* abandon them.
Idealism is true

I apologize for forfeiting. Hopefully there's still enough time to get a good discussion going. Basically, my argument is that a “non-mental reality” is not actually a meaningful concept. I.e., to the extent that it is a meaningful concept, it is conceptual in nature. And since it’s not a meaningful concept, we can’t make an assumption about its existence one way or the other. It’s like asking “Might a circular square exist?” We can’t assume that a circular square does not exist, since it does not refer to anything coherent. Quite simply, it is beyond consideration… it’s merely words that describe nothing in particular. Suppose that my opponent could come up with an example of something non-mental. In order to call something an "example", he must subject it to cognition, and by virtue of cognitive embedment, it would be isomorphic to cognition and therefore cognitive. It follows that no such “example” would be possible. In order to point to something and consider it, we must embed it in a space of abstractions in order to theorize about it, such that “it” perfectly conforms to (is) a description. It follows that “mental” cannot be restrictively defined; it applies to everything that can be coherently described or conceived. If the content of cognition were truly non-cognitive, then it would be non-identical to its description (to what it is), which is of course a contradiction. One cannot meaningfully distinguish description from that which is described without describing each, such that each perfectly conforms to its respective description. “Non-mental” components of reality would lack meaningful cognitive representations, defying characterization of any kind. They would therefore be irrelevant with respect to any meaningful conception of reality, and since they would be irrelevant to it, they could not be properly included in it.
There is no rational reason whatsoever to believe any god exists.

Thanks for instigating this debate, Pro.I accept.I noticed that you didn't provide definitions for the terms of the resolution.So, I will.Definitonsrational - based on or in accordance with reason or logic.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...reason - a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...whatsoever - at all (used for emphasis).https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...believe - accept that (something) is true.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...god - a superhuman existence worshiped as having power over nature and human fortunes.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...exists - has objective reality or being.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...Good luck Pro and thanks again for the debate.
Genetically Modified Organisms are unsafe for people and the environment.

And I thank in advance anyone who takes the time to read it. The CON makes his case that I am attacking Monsanto, not GMOs, or that I am attacking the pesticides, and not the GMOs. As I have stated in previous arguments "the corruption of Monsanto is not what makes GMO's unsafe. GMO's in their own right are dangerous. "In reality, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including: allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. [1] I also proved that the research that claims GMOs to be safe is tainted, as it is endorsed by the Biotech companies themselves. The CON found scientists from Southern Illinois University Carbondale stating GMO safety, which I uncovered to be biased. Monsanto donated a large sum of money for that very research and said "Monsanto saw an opportunity to assist the college in a way that would also help them achieve their goals," CONs argument is that GMOs have cured disease because he defines malnutrition as a disease. That is a bold claim to make, and only supported by one instance of a GM banana. GM bananas did not save the world from malnutrition. If all you ate were GM bananas, you would still suffer from malnutrition. The world has a surplus of food, but still people go hungry. [2] They go hungry because they cannot afford to buy it. They cannot afford to buy it because the sources of wealth and the means of production have been monopolized by corporations. [2] We are told that . .. by refusing to eat GM products, we are threatening the developing world with starvation, an argument that is imaginative . .. The only reasons GM crops are being used is because they are patentable and are potentially an enormous profit, while gaining control over the world's food supply. [2] GMOs fail allergy tests GMOs may make you allergic to non-GM foods GMOs and liver problems GMOs, reproductive problems, and infant mortality GMOs inked to sterility, disease, and death . http://www.seedsofdeception.com... "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food" - Hippocrates Resources . http://www.seedsofdeception.com... 1 . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2
The Fat Tax

There are two reasons to support a Fat Tax. The first is that it discourages the consumption of unhealthy foods. The second is that it provides a source of revenue for the government. My opponent has argued that this tax will disproportionately affect the poor. He claims that the poor eat more fattening food because it is cheaper. This claim is un sourced at this time, but I will accept it as true for this round. In response to this I will first point out that that the average American only spends 6% of their income on food [1]. Secondly I will point out that most "poor" Americans are able to afford cable TV, air conditioning, and other non-necessities [2]. Clearly, food is not a large burden on such a person. Would it really be so horrible if Americans paid, say, 8% of their income on food, as people in the UK do [3]? One should also note that eating better can actually better ones long term financial situation. The total yearly economic cost of American obesity has been estimated at $270 billion dollars [4]. If obesity is afflicting the poor the most then do not the poor stand to gain the most, both health wise and monetarily, if obesity is fought? Finally, it should be noted that we have welfare programs to support the poorest Americans and that the benefits the poor receive from these programs should rise with the cost of living. Given this, a small rise in the cost of living in an area that takes up a single digit percentage of disposable income would not hurt the poor. But even if it did impose a small cost would it not be worth the years of life that would be saved be decreasing obesity? It seems that it would. My second line of argument concerns revenue. This tax will affect some poor people but it will also affect many middle class and rich people. This tax discourages a negative behavior and so is an ideal form of taxation. Contrasted will taxes that discourage investment, home ownership, or wage earning, it has clear advantages. The added revenue from this tax, however small, could be used to help payoff the deficit or lower other taxes. Both will encourage positive economic activity. Thus there is an indirect benefit from the positive economic activity that this tax will generate. To summarize: the fat tax will not substantially hurt the poor, it will benefit them financially and health wise, and the tax will generate unforeseen economic benefits from the increase in government revenue. 1. http://familyfarmalliance.clubwizard.com... 2. http://www.heritage.org... 3. http://familyfarmalliance.clubwizard.com... 4. http://www.usatoday.com...
The Fat Tax

This is my first debate, so I apologize if I don't put up a very good fight. Let us get down to it. The fat tax has been proposed to make fatty foods more expensive to discourage obesity. I think this is a very bad idea because the primary buyer of fatty foods are the less fortunate, with the more well endowed often being able to afford more healthy solutions. The healthier food is normally more expensive because of marketing and what not, and implementing a fat tax would only make it harder to eat and not really encourage healthy eating habits.
Progressive Tax

My opponent opposes progressive taxation, but he was unable to provide any support related to this position. He does provide a lot of support related to reducing or eliminating the welfare system, but this debate was never about distribution. This was never a debate about giving to the poor. This was a debate about collections. My opponent also made a few points that are relatively unobjectionable. I agree, for instance, that people work hard for their money. I agree that some poor people have worked hard and are now rich. The problem here is that it is not completely clear how these points relate to the tax scheme. Should the level of taxation turn on some measure of how “hard” someone works? How do we define “hard?” How do we measure “hard”? Is my opponent suggesting that poor people are poor because they do not work hard? If so, where is his evidence for that premise? My opponent stated his position against a progressive tax scheme and then proceeded to ramble unsupported conservative talking points without consideration for how those talking points rationally relate to the matter under debate. The problem with my opponent’s approach is that he has willfully ignored the principle basis for a progressive tax scheme: ability to pay. Given that sufficient income to exist requires almost $16,000 a year, lower income earners have less available income to pay taxes. The more their money is diverted to taxes, the more they must rely on outside help to continue to eat and pay basic bills. Perversely, higher taxes on lower income earners could drive them toward the welfare system my opponent deplores. In recognition of the decreased ability of lower income earners to pay taxes, their income tax level is reduced. Since the government must still collect sufficient revenue (or at least obtain an “acceptable” level of deficit spending), the income tax level of higher income earners must unfortunately rise. Given their higher incomes, however, they have the ability to pay that lower income earners lack. Once both sides had acknowledged the “ability to pay” consideration, this debate should have then considered the data on the effects on the overall economy of taxing lower income earners vs higher income earners. However, there was little point in that exercise when one party to the debate does not want to face the issue directly. Given that my opponent chose to ignore the main issue and to instead rail against the welfare system while making unsupported suggestions about how hard poor people work, his position on progressive taxation remains an unsupported statement of opposition. He never made an effort to meet the pro position fairly. He never bothered to finish this debate and forfeited his last round. Therefore, Con clearly lost.
Progressive Tax

I thought we were debating whether to have a progress tax scheme. You do not seem to want to focus on that issue. Instead, you want to debate the welfare system. As we both agreed before, a progressive tax scheme is not necessarily about giving money to the poor. A progressive tax scheme is about collecting funds, not distributing funds. Once we subtract your arguments against the welfare system and an incorrect definition of communism[i], your response becomes the following: “It still does not justify, just because there are poor people, with low income, that we tax the rich heavily. . . . It also deters people who are middle, class , 1st class, not to work hard and stay poor . . . .” Your first point appears to be a bare denial of a scarecrow version of my prior argument. I am not arguing that the mere existence of poor people alone justifies taxing the rich more. I clearly indicated that the justification turned on “ability to pay.” Tax percentages on poor people are lowered in consideration of their ability to pay. For sufficient funds to be collected, the government must therefore raise the income percentages on higher income earners. You still have yet to address this ability to pay point fairly. Your second point—that a progressive tax deters hard work—could be an interesting conclusion, but your supporting reason for it was again about the welfare system. We are not debating distribution of funds to the poor. We are debating taxation via tiers of progressively higher tax percentages. Since you have only one round left to respond, I will stop here for the moment so that hopefully you can focus your response on these two points: (1) responding to my point that a flat tax fails to consider the ability of the poor to pay higher taxes and (2) supporting your point that a progressive tax scheme is a deterrence on hard work. I would suggest avoiding emotional appeals not supported by reason and keeping your argument focused on tax collection, not welfare distribution. [i] Communism involves state ownership of property and the means of production and transportation. There is no private property. http://www.merriam-webster.com... . A tax on private income, even a progressive tax, necessarily involves private property and is therefore not communist. You reference to communism is an effort to play on the emotional baggage of communism and is not founded on reason.
Progressive Tax

It still does not justify, just because there are poor people, with low income, that we tax the rich heavily. Thats Communism by the way. It also deters people who are middle, class , 1st class, not to work hard and stay poor, because well all these low income individuals will recieve tons of money from the federal government. Why take away money from epopel who earned it, and give a lot to people who may not deserve it? Giving the poor money, doesnt necceseraily mean it will help them. They choose how to spend their money, so they might not spend it well, leading them to be poorer
Skittles are a Deadly Weapon

I would like to point out to my opponent that I had no intention of messing around with the sources, and would have probably used the same ones he did, if I had not been on an iPad when I made the debate.I will emphasis, this is a JOKE debate. And, while I assume my opponent will tear me apart nonetheless, I hope that the voters and my opponent will treat it as such.Now on to my arguments.Skittles are a Deadly Weapon.Why?Because, as we all know, Skittles, as proof from Video #1 can be used to make rainbows!Now, you may be asking yourself right now "Ober, how does this make them deadly? Rainbows aren't deadly."Well, you sir(or ma'am), would be wrong!As shown by video #2, it can be used to make people depressed, happy, and essentially on various drugs all at once.Rainbows are also a symbol of hippies, so you get a free hippie army to boot.Now, I would like you to look at video #3, and this picture: http://www.flickr.com.... In the video, there is a gun. It is known as the Skittle Gun. Now, my opponent may use some argument about, how its a different gun, and how it has nothing to do with Skittles. BUT, obviously, since this gun is called, the Skittle Gun, clearly, it must fire Skittles. No questions about it.And thats all I really have.Remember, Skittles are able to conjure up rainbows, which are be deadly, and shot, which is deadly.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
individualism > collectivism

Greetings! Thanks for accepting, I believe by the quality of your opening that we will enjoy a high level of thought and discourse. Let me squash, for lack of a better word, any notion that my op was an ambuscade. Being my first attempt at opening a debate here, I failed to fully articulate what I wanted in terms of structure, and will adjust my mistakes in the future. As it where, let me first clarify that I indeed will be arguing for the Liberal individualism of the Enlightenment. More specifically, the human individualism envisioned by Thomas Paine and Jefferson. I will follow suit and produce 5 general arguments, then we can take it from there. I am more than pleased to see that you are arguing for a leftist version of collectivism " because I feel it is a more relevant topic. Therefore! We should have a good debate. General Arguments 1.Collectivism by its very nature, leads to the death of individuals. Not every human life can or does contribute to the good of the collective. 2. Political participation is the duty and privilege of every citizen whom desire their voice to be counted --- and not enforced if they object to doing so. 3. In collectivism the distributors are never distributed to, producing a dual tiered hierarchy, with the distributors reigning as kings, and the people as their serfs. 4. Collectivism leads to the strict rationing of goods and services, by the autocratic state, which has always, and so one should assume always will, led to the demise of large groups citizens, in every situation known to man. 5. Collectivism will continue to fail because it is a system which stands in contrast to the very nature of mankind, of the nuances involved with being a society of conscious apes. Being so, society progresses only when the state is so restricted, the creative pursuits of the individual are emphasized, not the soulless singularity of an enforced collective. Opening Statement I will ask you a question and you can take it from there, instead of conjuring a statement. 1. If the collective good is the highest virtue, not the rights of the individual, what prevents the state from say ending genetic diseases by means of euthanasia and or sterilization procedures?