BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The 2nd Amendment is Necessary to Keep a Free Society Free

"The 2nd amendment was created with muskets in mind." This is a common argument anti 2nd amendment advocates like to use to prove their point that the 2nd amendment has no place in our society. The problem with this argument is there is no mention of muskets in the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was created with the protection of the country's citizens in mind and when the enemy has an AR-15 pointed in your direction you don't counter with a front load powder musket. Our founding fathers knew this. They were not stupid. The advancement of weaponry has always been considerable and quick. The Bill of Rights was adopted on December 15, 1791 at the time that the "Brown Bess" long muzzle rifle was the common musket in use. This rifle shot a single ball or a cluster shot with multiple projectiles similar to a shotgun style. They were rather heavy and were difficult to carry around. https://en.wikipedia.org... Guns made a quick advancement through the 1800's and were becoming stronger, quicker, and much more powerful overall. Weapons in general continued to advance quickly. http://www.militaryfactory.com... If the 2nd amendment was created by our founding fathers with only muskets in mind, the 2nd amendment would have been pretty much worthless and irrelevant by the mid 1800's; pretty much only 2-3 generations after the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Our founding fathers definitely would not have done this. Screw you, grandchildren, right? "If we didn't have the 2nd amendment in the Constitution, we wouldn't have average citizens carrying guns around and there would be less gun violence." Another big argument by anti-2nd amendment advocates. I've heard this one many times and have been accused of supporting gun violence because I don't agree with this sentiment. The Revolutionary War was won in large part because of the 2nd amendment. With an armed populace it was extremely difficult for the British to invade and advance. Ordinary citizens were able to properly protect themselves from the enemy when the military was not around to do so. "...a well regulated militia..." Now let's fast forward to present day America. The majority of deadly shootings occur in "gun free" zones where the opportunity to protect yourself is significantly reduced because guns are not allowed. Most mass shootings are carried out on school campuses, in government buildings and properties, and even nightclubs, where the Orlando shooting took place recently. All of these places were supposed "gun free" zones. The Revolutionary War was fought and won with guns. The Civil War was fought with guns and slaves were eventually freed because of guns. And it wasn't just the U.S. military that fought these wars. The 2nd amendment was written and adopted because our founding fathers knew that in order to keep a country free from tyranny and oppression from its very own government, it needed a way for its citizens to protect themselves should that government overstep their bounds. The reason this country has its freedoms is due to the 2nd amendment and its power that grants us our basic freedoms.
The 2nd Amendment is Necessary to Keep a Free Society Free

Round one is for acceptance only. All other rounds for debate in no specific form. I will be taking the pro 2nd amendment stance. I will argue that guns and the 2nd amendment are definitely needed to keep a free society free. Con will argue against the 2nd amendment, or at the very least, pro gun control in some form. In short, con will argue that guns and the 2nd amendment have no place in a free and civilized modern society, or will argue that some form of gun control is needed. I look forward to the debate.
Why do people fight if someone is L, G, B or T. It does not matter.

The world is a big place and if people of the same sex get engaged the world is neither going to care nor end. Let people do what they want, the world is a big place for you to get mad over something this stupid (And I"m not homosexual or whatever, I"m straight but seeing people kill each other over this is really stupid) And I would like to have a religious Con in this debate (If possible).
vote stuff

That is impossible. You are saying that Italians can't say pasta is the best food, that Marvel fans can't say its better that DC, and that black people can't say others are racist! In other words, if you are biased, you should not be able to vote! But if you vote for one side or the other, then you must be biased. If this is true, then people who think that your side is right, should not be able to say so.
Abortion should be legal in all U.S. states

My opponent has ignored the fact that different people have different maxims of morality. What one person finds to be immoral can be moral for another person. Saying something is moral doesn't even mean anything. Saying "something is immoral to me" is not argument for other people not to do it.My analogy has shown that it is up to us to define what is killing and what is not. Since my opponent argued that alcoholic is committing kind of a suicide, I will give another example. If someone ordered for road to be built by another man's house, then that man would have no choice, but air pollution would still kill him if something else does not before it.It can't be more obvious, but anyway: vast majority of people in US know how to make fetus by having sex, but they don't know how to make fetus in lab.My opponent said "only challenges he made that I can think of", and quoted himself. I can only facepalm to this.It is not up to me to repeat myself, but up to my opponent to read what I have already written.Here is a tip: Click F3 and type "challenge".
Abortion should be legal in all U.S. states

(Quick) Rebuttals "Concept "more moral" is fallacious, because morality is Boolean value. Something is either moral or immoral, there is no scale." In this particular case, we are talking about whether abortion is moral. I, earlier, compared abortion to murder and questioned whether it is moral. Using real, evident surveys my point--that abortion is NOT moral--can be proven, and the reason this can be considered valid is because my argument for why abortion is murder, in Round 2, was (hopefully) compelling and evident. "People do not want to stand to each other, they want to live prosperously. And resources are limited." Excuse my innocent ignorance but I don't see any way this proves anything or is related to this topic. "Everyone does own themselves in US, reproduction is happening is US." But what does abortion do?! Abortion discontinues and contradicts the very concept of reproduction. "If an alcoholic dies of "natural" death, beer factory killed him indirectly. He would certainly live longer if he wasn't drinking bear. This only goes to show that indirect killing is unavoidable, and we have to draw a line somewhere on intensity of influencing someone's health scale." Is this supposed to be an defensive analogy for abortion, or...am I seeing right? What you're saying is that when a fetus (that is human life) is taken away all chances to live, is aborted, [1] this is equivalent to when an old (man)--alcoholic--dies and when we blame it on a beer factory it's wrong? The difference between these two situations (the reason this analogy is utterly wrong) explains my point precisely. The man has a choice--in life--that's whether to drink beer or not to. The fetus however has no choice and no life yet the reproduct-er chooses to abort "it." Which is more moral to blame, the beer factory or the abortionist? "I am not saying that "we could replace all the aborted babies with lab-made fetuses". I never said even something that would indicate such thing. Where did my opponent even got this from?" Because Pro also said, previously, that "...Vast majority of people in US know how to and is able to make a fetus. If we come to the point where we need more fetuses, we can make even more than we actually need." My opponent said that if abortion was suddenly considered "wrong," society could fix it! And worse, he's denying it! Pre-Conclusion First, my opponent's conlusion was wrong because he said I (Con) did not "defend challenged premises," even though the only challenges he made (that I can think of) are "Under all circumstances of abortion, life is discriminated and there is one less intelligent, breathing and feeling human for the future. This cannot be justified" and he told me overpopulation justifies it. I refuted this. But CM feel free to point out any other challenges... Conclusion I strongly proved how abortion is wrong. My opponent has failed to provide good, valid arguments thus did not prove his point. Talk Thank you to my opponent for keeping it light, also! This was a decent debate and I hope we both learned something from it. Sources [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.abort73.com...
Abortion should be legal in all U.S. states

Rebuttal of my opponent's round 2:I gave proof of my opponent's argument not being valid, before saying my argument refers to real rights.Concept "more moral" is fallacious, because morality is Boolean value. Something is either moral or immoral, there is no scale.People do not want to stand to each other, they want to live prosperously. And resources are limited.Everyone does own themselves in US, reproduction is happening is US. I see no point in this question.If an alcoholic dies of "natural" death, beer factory killed him indirectly. He would certainly live longer if he wasn't drinking bear. This only goes to show that indirect killing is unavoidable, and we have to draw a line somewhere on intensity of influencing someone's health scale.c2 of 4) is "making abortion illegal is harmful to some women.", which is reason for resolution being true to everyone who cares about women.I am not saying that "we could replace all the aborted babies with lab-made fetuses". I never said even something that would indicate such thing. Where did my opponent even got this from?Conclusion:As my opponent did not defend challenged premises, his arguments(points) are refuted.Talk:My majesty thanks sir Jasper for not making this personal and keeping it polite, even though emotions are sparked by the weight of what is at stake.
Abortion should be legal in all U.S. states

The reason abortion is wrong is because aborting a fetus is no different than killing a two year old swiftly, except for that the 2 year old actually got two years of life. To me it's just sad reality. I already explained all that earlier. Quotation marks do not make the word imaginary. Therefore my argument about a fetus's rights are valid. I asked my opponent why killing a fetus is any more moral or better than killing a 2 y.o.: "Because fetus is less worth to the society than 2 year old." How? This is wrong in the long run. Guess what? If every person in the world right now stood shoulder to shoulder, we could all fit inside Los Angeles. Every single person in the world could live in Texas right now, too. Thus over population is not a problem. http://www.nytimes.com... If everyone owns themselves, how does reproduction happen? "By abortion. woman is not directly killing fetus, but only removing it from her body, and it dies on its own." Exactly. You admit it is killing. You admit it dies on it's own. And I know why this is fact: because the fetus has no rights. "Removing unwanted fetuses from women reduces number of people." Exactly. Why would you want to do that? What if you killed the most skilled genius in the world by abortion? Is that justified? I don't know what your '4)' gets at. It is sort of irrelevant therefore I will not go into its rebuttals. Are you saying we could replace all the aborted babies with lab-made fetuses? 1.2 million babies die each year from abortions. http://www.lifenews.com... I really don't think that's a good way to justify it in any way, especially by saying "...if abortion is harmful, then we can just do this..." This way of arguing is not good. I did not find very much to rebut so I will end here. This concludes Round 3, so thank you and God bless.
Mormons are Christians

As a Christian, I find this debate will be rather entertaining. .. Morman Beliefs: "Soon after the founding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote thirteen Articles of Faith, which are straightforward statements of basic beliefs in the Mormon Church, many of which set the Church apart from other religious denominations. In a similar effort we have chosen to divide Mormonism into a few basic groups of beliefs which will help you understand the Church. " . http://www.whymormonism.org... Christian Beliefs: As a Christian, I'll handle this one. Unlike Mormans, Christians believe Jesus and the prophets came from the Cradle of Life and down. Christians beliueve in a more steadfast and tightly binding doctrine, as the one written for Mormans was a bit shady and I will explain that later. Christians and Mormans share the same belief in one called Jesus Christ. The Morman Jesus, however, is not the same when it comes to teachings, origins, and person lifestyles. (Also, as a side note pertaining to this argument, Mormans believe it is alright to inbreed and marry more than one spouse whereas Christians do not. ) Thanks, -EG
Language influences the way we perceive reality

Ok. I suppose i began the debate with an ill conceived view of the process. i didnt disagree with your subject line, but found it incomplete, therefore disagreeing with the premise as a whole. As i tried to articulate in my last post, our perception of the world develops before our formal use of language (which is what i'm believing you to be addressing). Therefore, our use of language is shaped just as much by our perception of the world as it is the other way around, making it not a causal relationship, but a circular one, which is much different. Its different because causation arguments are what lead to wars, where circular arguments have a greater likelihood of expanding perspective. Language and perception are linked by the way dollars and gold are. Dollars are an arbitrary mechanism we assign to place value on gold, something people want but not everybody agrees on the beauty of. Some people believe silver is more precious to them. Therefore i am saying that verbal language is arbitrary. This is why we have different languages that all have shared meaning. It's our experience of the word that has more to do with our perception of reality. If the word chocolate conjures up an associated response of pleasure and a picture in our mind's eye, we are influenced by the stimulus not the word. The word could be 'chistopre' and we would eventually have the same response. so let me say again, i'm not refuting the fairly established idea that language impacts our reality, because it does. But if you are willing to expand our debate to the idea that causality negates the premise when circular causation is more fitting, you may realize how your point is invalidated. I'll try to disprove your argument with this example, since that is how you have encouraged me to proceed, which i appreciate your willingness to teach me. If i say that watching pornography influences the way i feel about sex....i would have a good argument. But a more complete argument would be that my feelings about sex lead me to use pornography which then impacts my feelings about sex. The second being more complete dilutes the value of the first.
Language influences the way we perceive reality

You still you need to prove your point by using an argument for it, not state it. Also you need to refute my claims by attacking them. You have not done that. You say that " I don't see everybody as sharing the same reality" How? What makes you say that? You say that " I do see everybody responding to their perception of reality" But how is "perception of reality" connected or "reflected" in language? Your claim that "We use language to describe this perception" doesn't say a single thing about how they are connected. To this I can reply that we don't only use language to describe reality or our perception of reality. For example we have words in our vocabulary that do not reflect any relationship with reality, nouns "unicorns", verbs "believe" "accept", personal pronouns, conjunctions "and, but" and so on. The existence of such works proves my point, that language influences the way we perceive reality. There is nothing in "Reality" that "proposes" for example, but if a person says " I propose we go to the movies" it is immediately understood and "taken" as "real" in our minds that a proposal has been made. In this sense "linguistic constructions" become part of our understanding of the world around us.
Language influences the way we perceive reality

i'm terribly sorry. This is my first debate so i'm not familiar with the process nor the formal debate process in general. So here is my reaction. I don't see everybody as sharing the same reality, but i do see everybody responding to their perception of reality. We use language to desccribe this perception, not to create it. we experience our perception of reality long before we have acquired language skills to articulate it. A baby that crawls across a glass floor, stopping before they reach the perceived drop off (an experiment i can't quite recall), will learn first learn to avoid the apparent danger. Once they have developed peroperational thinking, which doesnt require language, they will know there is no danger to avoid. They can point and express emotion on their face to intimate danger and also confidence, which is indication of language helping to shape their reality, but not as a precursor.i hope i'm going about this the intended way. I'm open to feedback if i'm off base.
Language influences the way we perceive reality

I thought that the position that you would take would be to claim that language doesn't influence the way we perceive reality, but your view is also welcome. Let me explain why I think that the example that you are proposing fails to defend your view. Your claim is that language is also a manifestation of how we perceive the world. First of all, we would be able to perceive and react to the world even without knowledge of language; this doesn't make language a pre-requisite for perceiving the world. To do this you must prove it is a manifestation of how reality is perceived. But reacting to a language that we don't understand does not mean that it has the ability to shape our understanding of the world any more than hearing a dog barking has, or a gunshot. To all these we would probably react in fear, and to other examples without fear, this does not mean that language shaped our understanding, although it caused a reaction. Other senses can have exactly the same effect too, for example we might see something strange and react although we don't know what it is. Eyesight is a way that we perceive the world around us and can cause the same reaction. I can accept that we use our senses to form representations of reality and react accordingly but this doesn't prove that it has an impact on our language and that it is a manifestation of how we perceive our world. To this I add. If language is a manifestation of how reality is perceived, then how are going to account for the variety of languages in the world. If reality is one and the same for everyone, then by what you are saying, everyone would be expected to speak the same language. If reality changes all the time then why does a word have the same meaning when it should always be changing its meaning?
Language influences the way we perceive reality

The claim is straightforward: "Language influences the way we perceive reality" One argument to support my claim is that language, among other things, registers at an emotional level. This emotional content of language, apart from tonality or other sound aspects, also registers with certain words to the extent that the use of such words may cause someone to feel fear or shame. If someone feels fear he has a natural tendency to react in a "different way" than someone who is not afraid, for example by distorting aspects of reality in his mind, i.e. to exaggerate certain characteristics or ignore others. Anyone is welcome
God is real

This is going to be a serious, groundbreaking debate regarding the existence of a monotheistic God. I will be arguing that yes, there is an omniscient, omnipotent Christian God who created the universe and wants all good folks to know that sins are the work of the devil should be resisted at all costs. Con will be arguing that no, there is no such thing as an awesome, loving, all-powerful God. If you do not believe, please know that you are in my prayers. I hope you will someday experience the all-powerful love after this insightful debate. The burden of proof is split between Pro and Con. No wrong information. No semantic or troll arguments. No fallacies. (Here are some fallacies to avoid: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;) If an argument is proven wrong, it is thrown out. You can't rely on the Koran or other myths.Good luck to my opponent.
God is real

Pro Offered no rebuttals regarding any of the points I made, so extend all contentions. Seeing as how pro did not really build a case, there is nothing much to refute but I will offer some brief refutations in regards to some of the links and claims he made. Accuracy of the Bible.He gives a quote saying this " On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories."I do find this quite ironic in a sense. Mesopotamia was the first ever civilization on the earth. From this civilization an epic novel was written, called the Epic of Gilgamesh. What is so unique about this novel is some of the content within it. It has the story of Noah and the flood in it, except with different main characters, plots, and Gods. Remember every civilization came from Mesopotamia, and this is including the Greeks and Hebrews as well. This is where the bible originated. So if the bible is historically accurate and correct, why then do we see a story in the bible appear prior to the rise of the Hebrews. For a full review of the similarities between the bible and the novel check out source [1]This is not even including the similarities between the story of Christ and the story of Osiris. Osiris was betrayed and resurrected, and all those believing in him could go to paradise [2]. Again this is predating the rise of the Hebrews and the time the bible was suppose to be written. It is quite possible that when Alexander the Great merged all the known earth at the time of his crusade, stories could have been shared and cultures could have influenced each other. Some of the greatest biblical minds of our time even acknowledge the inaccuracy of the bible, and simply claim it to be a metaphor. On Broken Links and Articles. Pro actually linked me to a wiki article for defense of God. I am not going to even acknowledge this as credible or viable, because nothing was said by him personally and he simply linked me to a bunch of sites about apologetics. Also note when you click on most of these links, a few of them do not work. In Closing. There is nothing really left to defend. I have covered his contention about matter and energy in my contentions, and I also just showed why the bible could be historically incorrect. Other than that all we see are a bunch of articles and broken links by pro without him even presenting a case. I would advise pro to actually build a case in his next round instead of spamming links with no credibility to them. Half of those links have like 10-20 points about random issues in religion, and have nothing to do with proving a God exists. I would ask pro to build a case so we can have a proper debate. I await his response. [1] http://www.icr.org...[2] http://www.jimloy.com...