BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conceal carry laws by private citizens

I can see where your coming from and I'm all for curving any excuses the police can use believe me! however I'm a bit sinical I suppose. I just don't feel that non concealment laws will have any impact if the officer is already predisposed to being violent and is programmed to use deadly force. Excuses generally come after the act and are likely to be an attempt to manipulate empathy or to justify themselves. Now I don't believe that most officers who have shot and killed someone wake up that morning with the intent to kill, however I do not feel this should help render weak excuses that are accepted by the court. Oh I thought they had a gun...please. No i m afraid a significant amount of people abuse the power of their position in all lines of work, however the police have the power to use deadly force in theirs. They need to be scutanised even more so and be held accountable for their delivery and conduct. Whether a police officer let's for argument sake on a night shift approaches old Mrs Jones from the grocery store..... In between discussing the price of a twinkie he suddenly feels threatened by old Mrs Jones who is acting suspiciouslly and he suddenly remembers that she may have a perfectly legal concealed weapon on her person. Mrs Jones later was found by paramedics dead grasping a carrot...please.... Do officers really go into a shift thinking "oh someone may have a legally concealed weapon" Really? I'm not so sure.. Guns are not going away anytime soon I'm afraid. The way the Police act I would be concerned if they are the only ones with access to arms. Now if there were no guns then great!!!....but there are and that's kind of scary. It would be just a little nice to know that I did not have to worry about being shot by the police for holding a cell phone, or maybe that's to much to ask? I just pictured people being allowed to carry side arms.... like in the wild west lol. Now when the sheriff pulls over my wagon...would he: a) shoot first and ask questions later? or b) shoot first and ask no questions? Either way there's a problem right! Seriously the only thing need changing I feel are attitudes, I believe without serious restrictions and continuous vetting, prevention will be very difficult to achieve. This could however be achieved quite easily and with immediate results. This process should also be mandatory for any citizen wishing to own a firearm. This will protect all citizens including police officers. The amount of guns any one individual is allowed to own would also be key to this framework. The process of changing attitudes I suppose begins with one's self. Discrminitory or prejudice views can be changed whether your into hip hop or not lol.
Conceal carry laws by private citizens

Better police training, psychological test before and during employment, especially after a shooting or traumatic event especially for rookies, is a big part of it, I agree. My argument is based on reducing the amount of excuses cops can use to justify shooting where they declare that because of the possibility that the subject COULD of had a weapon/firearm they felt their life was in danger and shot in self defense or in defense of other officers or citizens. Racial prejudice does play a part, and that is exacerbated by the white lead media against minorities and also by minority media ALSO portraying stereotypes of themselves and other minorities. ( example rappers who portray themselves as bitch slapping, drug selling, jail time thugs even if the worst they did as a kids was shoplift if anything at all just to tap into the cultural stereotype for profits ) but as bad as prejudice is, it an opinion or view and everybody is entailed to theirs. Its when it interferes with your job or intimidates,harasses, or physically harms others, is when it becomes a problem but if cops are screened ahead of time and know if they can not keep their opinion separate from the job they are risking losing their job and in some cases jail time for themselves, I think that aspect can be reduced. Repelling Conceal Carry laws is only one step in a long and complicated process, eliminating 1 variable that contributes to shootings. Criminals are gonna be criminals regardless of ANY laws passed or repealed cause committing a crime requires a dismissive mind of the consequences. Hopefully with all of the for mentioned policies in place and conceal carried repealed the only ones concealing firearms would be criminals and so the cops logically would not have to be cautious approaching any regular citizen on random business, allowing them to more freely inexact in an open manner with their community. When chasing, arresting a subject, that person has been deemed a criminal by law ( by the officers with better training identifying suspect by their suspicious or criminal actions and not by the color of their skin and by way of a warrant which means they have proven reasonable justification to a judge ) the cop can assume there is a probability that the suspect has a firearm on hand and using their better training, can act accordingly and with lethal force as a last resort.
Conceal carry laws by private citizens

I'm glad that we agree on some issues however I think that some of your points need separating in your argument. Firstly the fear experienced by cops that at times manifests in anger towards individuals during potentially dangerous interactions with the public I believe is more to do with their initial training, the individuals attracted to the police force and the general attitudes and culture that stem from this type of career. It would appear that the from the outset the marketing that is widely advertised in this career path is generally very high octane, aggressive and presents law enforcement in a very dangerous and emotive manner. I believe that this generally encourages the wrong types of individuals to the police force who are likely to be more aggressive and trigger happy in their approach. Secondly whether concealment laws are altered I fail to see how this will effect a criminals will to do so. A criminal will conceal a weapon whatever the law dictates and cops will still be paranoid that every one, particularly minorities that may wish to harm them. The general public will unfortunately continue to be seen in the same light by the police. There is a very strong argument to suggest that ethnic minorities are seen by their neighbours and strangely at times by themselves as being more dangerous and violent. In my opinion this is on the most part caused by institutional racism that at times is unconsciously and at otners intentionally perpetrated by the media and other social institutions. Your point regarding who is commiting the most killings highlights this as it was my understanding that spousal killings were the most prominent nevertheless criminals will always conceal weapons, it kind of goes with the territory. Peoples fear of others generally stems from their own fears, prejudices and programming. People need to work through their individual discriminatory programming before these problems will be rectified even alleviated. if I had the formula for this I would be a Millionaire however the tendency to shoot first and ask questions later needs to be addressed. At this juncture I believe that the only real tangable way to deter unlawful police killings are very very long prison sentences and this may cause officers to think first before they act.
Conceal carry laws by private citizens

It sounds like you agree with me on a lot of issues on gun ownership in general lol Yes if stricter laws are implemented that weed out the crazies before hand there is LESS to fear but JUST doing that will not necessary curb cops and other citizens fear that generally anybody on the street can be hiding a lethal weapon, legally or otherwise. Criminals HAVE to conceal carry firearms in order to perpetrate their crimes. A bank robber who openly walks across a busy street carrying an AR rifle, even not wearing a ski mask/hoodie to conceal their identity, will cause a few heads to turn due to fear. As snakes, spiders, brightly colored animals and insects that are poisonious, great heights, and predator animals have been instill over our time during evolution to trigger our fight or flight/danger response, so has guns due to TV, movies, video games, many having personal and usually deadly traumas connected to gun violence, and the media coverage of crimes committed using guns. Though many teens and young child have a numbness to DEATH because of TV, movies, and video games and the miraculous reset after death, they still recognized that guns CAUSE death. Concealing your weapon triggers innate psychological and social fears connected to criminals, even if the person carrying appears to be an upright and law-abiding citizen, though that view is skewed towards white men/women almost exclusively while minorities, no matter how proper they dress or act, will 95% be watched even more closely and with suspicious eyes full of racial prejudice. Cops see a lot of color on color, black, hispanic and asian, crime day in and day out. Although mass shooting and cop violence are saturating the media, the statistics are that most killings are from gang violence, assault and robberies by perpetrators and victims of the same color or another minority. Most use illegal guns that therefor has to be concealed right up until the crime happens and then usually turned on the cops when they are making arrests. Because of this, they have an even more heightened fear of concealed weapons and put more faith, however biased, in the possibility of a person carrying a lethal weapon that can be used against them, especially when engaging minorities. I believe that repelling conceal carry laws will help lessen the incidences of police violence - maybe not right away but as cops will no longer have the defense that they shot a person, usually minority, because they feared they were carrying a weapon or felt threatened by the possibility of a concealed weapon when that person comes towards them or has their hands anywhere but in the air or the ground. The offending cops should therefor should be convicted in greater numbers and other police officers and leaders will take notice and demand stricter training on assessing the situation and using non lethal force on suspects = less deaths.
Conceal carry laws by private citizens

I think anyone who carries a firearm whether you are a private purchaser, security guard, military or a Police officer should be subject to strict rules. Firstly anyone wishing to own or carry a firearm should be subject to quarterly drug testing (including alcohol and prescription medication), psychological screening and profiling. Secondly anyone with a serious violent criminal history should undertake even stricter scrutiny and controls but I don't think the carry conceal laws are the problem. Crazy people are generally the problem, people who are violent and officials who are violent and think they are beyond the law. Killing whether by breaking the law or loosely in the name of the law are equally detestable and indictable. In my opinion i genuinely feel that prevention should be more prevalent in gun control. If more scrutiny was given to these areas there would be less gun killings. Thirdly automatic weapons and high calibre spec weapons should only be issued to the armed forces and not the general public or the police its unecessary for home protection. The amount of weapons that anyone individual should also be scrutanised this would also bring down gun killings.
Conceal carry laws by private citizens

Conceal carry laws exacerbates cop violence particularly against black and minorities. By private citizen being allows to conceal their lethal firearms, cops are forced to assume that ANY ONE could be carrying a gun, be they man, women, adult or child. Therefor they are naturally inclined to shot first in order to protect their lives if they feel threatened in the slightest which does not take much because of their own prejudice and police training teaching them to value THEIR lives over citizens. Minorities are greatly affected because even if they are a lawful gun owner in a open carry state or have a conceal carry permit, the majority do not exercise this right cause the majority of cops racial profile and shot first before asking questions so they do not want to take the chance. Criminals on the other hand are forced to conceal because they are acting in a criminal manner and add to the racial prejudice and skewed thinking, even against whites if they are judge to be poor due to their dress, appearance, or speech. Therefor if an officer happens to see a person with a concealed weapon or believes they have a concealed weapon, they are most likely to shot without warning or while warning cause they assume the person is a criminal. Though I don't think private citizens need to go around carrying guns for their protection, as that there are non lethal means available and you are more likely to be shot by friendly fire from another citizen or the cops mistaking you for a criminal or from an angry ex or shooting yourself while cleaning the gun rather then from an ACTUAL CRIMINAL IN THE PROCESS OF A CRIME, and there is the police which we are paying for in the first place, I don't think we need to carry guns at all unlessl for hunting food but I would rather it be open carry instead of conceal if anything at all.
Voting should be mandatory

Now, in a normal debate round, it would irk me that you waited to specify on what type of voting. But I don't care right now. So ok, let's talk about voting in a democratic country. You say in a broad sense, but for the sake of debate, can we say America? Either way, the arguments will still cross apply. You say "people have the right to vote for a cadnidatebecuasue of their issues, history, tradtion, demogrphic, hotness, or whatever else they want to." I agree that people actually do vote for these reasons. If people actually vote for these reasons, then why if we force them to vote, would it be bad. Someone voting for a presidential candidate because he/she is "hot" is the same as someone who is completely apathetic being forced to vote. There is no credibility in either one. And like I said earlier, our founding fathers fought for the right to vote. One of their main cries was "No taxation without representation." Now though, as you and I can both agree upon, people don't want to vote on who represents them. This is a huge shame. If people don't want to participate in the process of electing the officials who run their country, then they don't deserve to live in that country. Voting can be mandatory, and it won't hurt anything. If voting were to be mandatory, then we still have the people who will vote on who is the hottest. But we also will have the people who normally wouldn't vote because of one reason or another, but when forced to, will actually take it seriously and research it. Yes, voting is a right, but that doesn't mean it should be optional. Our government relies on people voting. It is essential to our political process. That is why the people living in this country, should at least vote.
Voting should be mandatory

In response to second arguement that I do not sepcify where or what voting should be mandaotry on, I am referring to poltical elections in democratic countires on broad, open phiolosophical sense of it. Voting is a right, and people have the right to vote for a cadnidatebecuasue of their issues, history, tradtion, demogrphic, hotness, or whatever else they want to. It is there right, but voter apahty would not be ixed by making voting mandatory. Should we really be encoraging unifmormed, poltically apatheic people to go to the polls evne if they haven't the slightest inclaination about who the cnadnates are and don't really care? Voting is a right, but tkaing no interest in poltics is also a right, though hopefully not too many people do this. Rtaher than force people to vote why dont't polticians bother to start glavanizing the nations of the democractic world so that people are actually taking a geneuine interest in voting?
Voting should be mandatory

First off I would like to say good luck. I say that voting should be mandatory. The trend over the past elections has been one of a decreasing number of people who actually vote. You gave your reasons for that already. I would say that people who live in a democracy, should be democratic. This nation is run by people who are elected. Except for the exceptions like judges and cabinet members. If no one elects anyone, there can be no democracy. Now, I am not necessarily the best person to defend a democracy, since I feel that our government is very flawed. A democracy does not work well on a grand scale like america. People now aren't interested in politics. But since it is politics that essentially runs their lives, then they should be required to have a say in it. If a person does not vote, then they are giving up the right that our forefathers gave their lives for. This means they don't deserve the right to be an american. That is my main argument. My second argument is one of a technicality. Now, I realize that people hate voting for these reasons, but it is one that should be voted upon. You don't specify where voting should be mandatory, or on what it should be mandatory on. So, since you don't, I will. I say that voting should be mandatory for judges judging a debate round. It is their duty to provide a clear winner and loser, or even a tie. They have made a choice to give their time to judge, and voting should be a requirement. This will allow the debaters to see how they did in the round, and it provides for a winner. Now I realize that this is a shanty way of winning, which is why I also argued legitimately, but as someone who provides a topic, you should clarify more specifically. For those of you voting, I did stick to the topic. You can't say I didn't. So you should vote on both of my arguments.
Voting should be mandatory

In Australia people of voting age who do not practice their right are fined 75$ (Aus). Should the same sort of thing happen here? I think, the status quo is better. Let me expalin. First of not all the people pay much attention to poltics. When voting, they should not be voting becuase of the cool-sounding names or because they've "always" supported that particualr party, but rather because they are informed and trying to give the government their opinion. Although it would be undemocratic to question their reasons for voting neither should we force people to vote if they really don't care about whats going on and aren't going to pry their eyes away from the TV for less than an hour to go vote. Opponent, its your turn.
Allen Iverson revolutionized the NBA more than any other player

I understand Iverson is currently broke and has never won a chip, but this is irrelevant to my argument. Iverson changed the game because he was the first small player in the modern NBA game to dominate the way he did. He was barely 6 feet and lead the league in scoring four times, was an 11-time NBA all star, and three time steal leader. These are just a few of his accomplishments. There have been other great small players such as Tiny Nate Archibald, but none have dominated the way he has. Iverson inspired many young ballers who were undersized to strive for the best like Iverson had successfully done. No other player has influenced and given confidence to short kids on the court the way he did. In this aspect he was a role model. Even well after his prime, Iverson's jersey sales were the third most sold in 2005/2006, fourth in 2006/2007, and again third in 2007, 2008. Additionally, Iverson was so revolutionary because he also had a "dark side" to him. He was the first "hip-hop, rapping gangster" to play in the league, introducing styles such as cornrows, dirty clothing etc. He was also one of the first players of his high stature to cover his body in tattoos, which was revolutionary because people began viewing NBA players as a bunch of gangsters all because of him. He was arguably the loudest player to play the game. Iverson also had a horrible attitude, as he clashed with coaches, teammates, and fans. What comes to mind is his public protest of the dress code when David Stern tried enforcing one. Iverson was different than your average baller and changed our perception of the game more than any other player in the history of the game. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Allen Iverson revolutionized the NBA more than any other player

I think you hear what I'm saying, but are afraid to admit defeat. It seems you think I am arguing with you even though we agree on different points ie how dominant Iverson was for his size, how big of a "trendster" he was etc. We agree that no player Iverson's height has ever scored even close to how many points he has, how bad his attitude was, how he introduced cornrows, shooting sleeves (which I dont think I mentioned before but another fashion statement which should be mentioned). Regarding his magical 2000-2001 season, trust me, if you were old enough to be following in 2000-2001, you would clearly know how good AI was. You make their coach, Larry Brown, sound like he was the one dropping 30 a game. Further, you point out how he had Dikembe, who was a great defensive player, and Aaron Mckie. Dikembe completely got owned by Shaq in the finals, like it wasnt even close, so how is AI to blame for his center? He's not! Because if not for Shaq in his prime killing everybody AI would have won the finals. So even though he may not have gotten that ring, taking his team to the league's second best record, and to the finals is enough in my books. Behind Mckie, (who for some reason won the sixth man award that year) they literally had no one else who could play ball, and I think you'd agree with that (just look at their roster). I think in conclusion we argue over the meaning of revolutionary. You dismiss a player who brought in shooting sleeves, cornrows, and a 6 foot frame with a killer swagger as revolutionary, which I guess is understandable. You define revolutionary as coming up with something completely "new", so in your opinion Bob Kurland, or the first player to dunk is more revolutionary than AI was. I think though you would agree with the entire statement I wrote in round one: "I believe Allen Iverson has changed the game, dynamics, and THE WAY PEOPLE VIEW BASKETBALL more than any other player in the history of the Game. He brought A PERSONALITY (not skill) to the game THAT REACHED OUT TO MORE PEOPLE THAN ANYBODY BEFORE HIM. The first player to dunk may have changed the rules of the game, but Iverson's combination of everything he did, including outreach to every single kid following ball in the late 90's and early 00's is why he is revolutionary- he was the FIRST player to have all those traits in one figure, and either you weren't following ball at that point or you were sleeping, but if you lived during that time you would have known exactly what I meant. You definitely make great point though, and I look forward to your final comment in this debate.