BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conceal/open carry laws cause many GOP voters to appear weak and paraniod.

http://thedailybanter.com... I grew in very conservative community where everyone had guns, hunting was done before school and you might have a deer in the back of the pick-up and a gun in the back window when you arrived at school in the morning. As conservative and gun toting as it was though, we always settled major disputes with a brawl, eventually followed by handshake somewhere down the road. It was always the perceived "thugs in the ghettos" who were the ones who couldn't solve disputes through argument or a good, clean fistfight. Even in the "wild west" men left their firearms at the edge of town and handled disputes like men. All of the "tough guy" conservatives seem to have faded, now we're left with these NRA members who are afraid to go to a suburban 7-Eleven without packing a piece. And many of whom, are like Dick Cheney who couldn't hit a pheasant, if the birds life depended on it. We now have a growing majority of Republicans who couldn't scrap their way out of a wet paper sack and need the security of a gun for every black seventeen year-old in a hoodie, that they deem a potential threat. I used to think of Republicans as the gritty Veteran, that wasn't afraid of anybody and even at sixty years-old could still whoop the snot out of any liberal. My how things appear to have changed. The image of the "old tough guy" has turned into a "soft" individual that can't escape an imagined paranoia, unable to feel safe in their own house without an easily accessible AR-15, unable to pick up their kids from school without their conceal carry on their person and no ability to defend themselves with the guns attached to their shoulders that God blessed them with.
A Non-Mental Reality Must Exist

DEFINITIONS: Mental: Of or relating to consciousness (a "Mental reality" being one that is contained solely in consciousness Reality: That which is real - that which exists. In this debate, PRO will argue that there must be a non-mental reality, with "mental reality" used as defined above. I do not have to show that there are no mental aspects of reality, but that they must not be all there is in the makeup of reality. The first round will be for acceptance only - I will present my argument in the second round, and my opponent will present his, along with any objections to my arguments that he sees fit to write. The third round will be used for counter-arguments and defences, as well as new arguments. The fourth round will contain no new arguments, and will only serve to allow the debaters a chance to both give final counter-arguments targeting the already-established arguments put forward earlier in the debate, as well as letting them conclude their arguments. The BOP will be split - I will have to affirm that a non-mental reality MUST exist, while my opponent must hold that a non-mental reality DOES NOT exist. No abusive semantical arguments, etc - I doubt that this will be a problem so I don't think I need to go into detail about this. You will have 72 hours to post a round, can use up to 9,000 characters per round, and the debate will be in the voting period for ten days. I don't care much about voting, but please be fair.
On balance, generalizations about political ideologies are true

The general topic is whether or not it is reasonable to generalize about the beliefs associated with a political ideology. If the generalizations are typically not true, then it's not a valid exercise. It's clearly quite possible to make false generalizations. That's not the point. This debate is whether or not it is worthwhile to construct generalizations and to debate the truth of them. The disagreement at the basis of the debate came from a forum thread http://www.debate.org... "Need Some Proof Of Liberal Intolerance" in which I, and others, argued that intolerance is characteristic of liberalism. We are not debating that question specifically, but whether it is worthwhile to debate such questions. In that thread my opponent (directed to the thread author) wrote,"I said that you were painting a whole group with a broad brush, and then you backed away from the statement that Liberal individuals are intolerant (noted with underlined), but instead shifted toward the statement that the Liberal ideology itself is intolerant (also underlined). And now, you're coming back to it. I know why you initially made the thread; I'm questioning as to what it could possibly prove - I can find plenty of examples of intolerance from any political angle, it means nothing."My opponents position is that since examples of almost anything can be found, the exercise is pointless. Is it? Do generalizations provide anything worth knowing? Definitions"On balance" means the burden of proof is shared. I must prove that constructing and debating generalizations is valid, and my opponent must prove that it is not. The debate is decided by which side makes a better case. For this debate, an ideology is a set of fundamental political beliefs. Examples are liberalism, conservatism, socialism, and communism.A generalization is a common characteristic that is true often enough to be useful in describing a group, For example, "Professional basketball players are tall." is a claimed generalization about the characteristic of being tall. For this debate, true and valid both mean having substantial predictive power. The generalization about the height of basketball players is valid if it accurately predicts what one is likely to find in a group of basketball players. No doubt there are short professional basketball players, but if one is going to make basketball uniforms the generalization is true and useful.Debate conditionsTerms not defined here are the standard dictionary definitions appropriate to the context.Arguments and source links must be entirely within the debate.This round is for definitions and acceptance only. My opponent may may chose to clarify his position in the opening round to set the stage for the debate, but arguments are reserved for later rounds. I appreciate the opportunity to debate the subject with my opponent. This being a debate site, it's surprising how often members refuse to debate their forum positions in a debate. Debates should be the rule rather than the exception.
On balance, generalizations about political ideologies are true

I appreciate my opponent's willingness to debate this thoughtful topic.My opponent has forfeited, leaving all my arguments unanswered. It's a violation of debate protocol to introduce new arguments in the last round of the debate, so they will remain unanswered. Con never responded to my query on his rule that separates useful from useless generalities.I think there is a natural appeal to the notion of "it's wrong to generalize." In truth, it's wrong to use generalize incorrectly --of course it's wrong to do anything wrong-- but forming generalities is a key aspect of intelligence. The ability to see patterns amid clutter is central to understanding. Con protests that generalizations about political ideologies are useless because they do not necessarily reflect the details of each person's beliefs about a list of current issues. That's not compelling, because generalities are useful in describing the general philosophical approach of a person, and more importantly in understanding the trends in society and the roles of ideas in history.I cited many examples of valid use of generalities including use in everyday discourse (nearly 500,000 google hits on "conservative pundit"), use in studying political science and history (college courses and degrees), use in serious writing (15,000 books on "liberalism" or "conservatism"), and acceptance in standard reference works (Wikipedia. et al). Con may find no validity in ideological generalization, but it seems just about everyone else does. The utility is found by academics and serious thinkers, who worry a great deal about correct usage.In the first round, I clarified the resolution, with which Con agreed. "The general topic is whether or not it is reasonable to generalize about the beliefs associated with a political ideology. If the generalizations are typically not true, then it's not a valid exercise. It's clearly quite possible to make false generalizations. That's not the point. This debate is whether or not it is worthwhile to construct generalizations and to debate the truth of them"The resolution is affirmed.
Abortion

I hope you realize that 16k gave us the rights to his arguements. So I thought.I can give you the post and stuff so dont play the VTL CAPS game.Response Point 2:Okay. So? You didn't touch off on adoption. Adoption is much better then being killed. IMO.Response Point 3: I doubt the same people who cant afford a baby would bribe a high-class working. I also think that some of the workers might be zealous pro-lifers. But this has no meaning on the debate.Response Point 4: Really? Being KILLED is better then adoption? If you can give me numbers that adopted kids with abortion related pasts are abused. Adoptiond seems like a better way to go.Response Point 5: What happens if the adopted child lands in a nice place?Again ADOPTION.Response Point 6: Eariler I have asked Ron to give me ONE example of bias besides the title. He has not done so.There is nothing wrong with having your mindset on the URL.Response Point 7: I think Ron is saying if abortions are illegal then the mental illness rate will stay the same. I dont think the problem lays here. Attack Point 3: "In 1967, England liberalized its abortion law to permit any woman to have an abortion with the written consent of two physicians. More than 600 American women made the trip to the United Kingdom during the last three months of 1969 alone" "The year before the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, just over 100,000 women left their own state to obtain a legal abortion in New York City":http://www.guttmacher.org............. This means that is abortion is made illegal, then thousands of women will travel to a foreign country that legalizes abortion. In other words, they will bypass the law.So be it. This is America. The point is that it satys true to America. Why would the poor fly to Europe? THEY"RE POOR.Attack Point 4: Here is more simple logic. "Say abortion is still illegal. Then the 1 million babies aborted each year would raise the unemployment rate tremendously (based on Guttermacher estimates on abortion, unemployment would be between 15-20%). More babies from the 1980s now=a higher unemployment and povery rate." And more simple logic. "Say abortion is still illegal. Than the 56 million babies that would have survived may pay more taxes, but since over 90% are in the bottom 47% of the population (money wise), they don't pay any taxes (Look it up if you doubt me about the 47% not paying taxes). Also, they are sucking up Government Welfare money. So they would increase the Government Debt, not decrease". (the statement "abortion is still illegal" means that Roe vs. Wade did not repeal abortion laws, and they are still in place to this very day). Quote but no link, it may be fake. You forgot this logic:more kids = more people that will hire.So you say more kids = less jobs, from a possibly fake quote. I felt like Ron was avoiding certain parts of my debate. but Ron said he held back this round. Being how this is the last I will see of this debate, ALL new agruements made by him should be forgotten.
Abortion

I find it funny how most of your arguments is just what I said previously in the last round. And I also find it amusing that half of your arguments here was just cut-and-pasted from my earlier debate with 16kadams. Response Point 1: This was a simple fact. You misinterpreted my point. Just skip over this point. Response Point 2: • Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).[6] • Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.* [6] http://www.guttmacher.org.... So 69% of woman who have abortions have a household that makes less than $22,000. Response Point 3: With money, people can do just about anything. Money can change the COD on the death certificate. Response Point 4: There is a big difference between adopted and cared for. A lot of adopted children are abused. Response Point 5: Might is a bad word becuase with the abortion by the poor statistics I have provided, most likely, the child will not grow up in a comfortable surrounding. Response Point 6: You are using a biased website. Look at the title; pro-life. This is most certainly biased. Response Point 7: First of all, you did not disprove my statement that prohbiting an abortion would decrease the mental illness rate since abortion causes mental illness. And you have also not refuted the claim that prohibiting abortions would decrease the criminal abortion rate, and not increase crimes. As for the breast cancer-abortion link: In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were: • Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child). • Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. • Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be "well established" (the highest level): http://www.cancer.org....... http://www.prochoice.org...... http://www.cancer.gov......; a non-biased source. http://www.cancer.org......; more non-bias Attack Point 1: I reinstate my previous attack points 3 and 4 since my opponent failed to respond to them. My final argument will blow this debate out of the water.
USA is not the land of opportunity

I guess this round, for me is to contradict your statement. You are right to say that America's social mobility has come down, and the source or whatever you call it has shown that UK has a better social economic mobility, but if you see its population, UK's is 61.9 million and USA's is 307 million. Social mobility is not just based on a single factor. There are many which determines a country's socio economic mobility, such as climate, natural disasters, country's economy etc. Now every now and then a cyclone hits the US, but you never hear any disaster that hits the UK. And whenever a disaster strikes, it hits the poor or middle class population. The richer classes are more or less unaffected by them. And going back to the population, every country that has a high socio economic mobility, has a relatively low population compared to the US. How many job opportunities can you get Canada or Norway? And both of them are freezing countries. People go to the US so that they have a better chance of getting a job and that it has a relatively milder climate than that of Finland or Norway or Denmark. So taking in all the factors, USA is still pretty much a land of opportunity. The African-American section of the population HAS experienced an increase in poverty and a decrease in their income, but that is probably because this economy is built on stilts. Even the white section have also experienced losses in the income sector. So its pretty much even-stevens . So, if I had to tie this up with a bow or whatever, I would say that US' mobility has started or has been on the decline, but its not such an extent where it can be called no longer as the "Land Of Opportunity".
USA is not the land of opportunity

It is right what you say that America is not the worst case scenario when it comes to opportunities. Many people have traveled to America to get a new life. The reason for that is of course that they think this is a land of opportunity. Regardless, USA is still not THE land of opportunity. Compared to Less Developed Countries (LDC's) America is far better, but in the category of developed countries USA is not near the best. Several studies on the subject shows that USA compared to other developed countries actually lies in the bottom - with worse social mobilty than the others. (In the bottom of this argument there is a graf comparing USA to other developed countries.) The graf is made by the research called "Do Poor Children Become Poor Adults?". It is hard to use specifik numbers to show the mobility in a country. They have studied the amount of poor people that, when they are grown up, still are poor. Turns out that 47% of the poor-born Americans have not moved up on the social latter throughout their life while it is only 19% in Canada and 15% in Denmark - which have the highest social mobility. USA is the second worse between these nine countries only better than UK. It would actually be a far better choice to move to Scandinavia or Canada to life The American Dream. This means that USA is not THE land of opportunity. Still, it is a land with high social mobility if compared to nations like China or Nigeria. Figure: http://upload.wikimedia.org...
USA is not the land of opportunity

I don't think its important what surveys say. Yes, even I have seen the surveys, and yes , a person born in a lower class has a small chance of making it to upper middle class. But that rate is still higher than that of other countries. For example, whenever you asked a literate Indian or African that which country would you consider as the land with the most opportunities for leading a good life and their answer almost every time will be America. I don't think anybody ever said that you won't find any discrimination in America, discrimination has been the foundation of the new America. Eg. Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks etc. So, we shouldn't be really that surprised that there's still that much discrimination going on. But still America is still considered as THE land of opportunity. You can say that they might not have heard of these surveys, but America came to be known as the land of opportunity by the general public opinion without the information on the discrimination statistics or levels.
USA is not the land of opportunity

According to several investigations made over the last few years the social mobility in USA is not remarkable. Study shows that a person born in the lower class has a small chance of reaching upper middle class or higher throughout his or her life. The whole idea of social mobility or The American Dream is that the economic destiny of a person should not be determined by the class which the individual is born into or the skin color, gender, etc. No matter if that person is born in the middle class or the lowest class he or she should be able to reach the upper class throughout hard work. It may not be easy, however, it should be a reachable possibility. Study shows that this is not the case. Only a fraction of the people born in lower classes reaches the upper classes. Nowadays, discrimination does not play as big a role as it did earlier. The biggest challenge is education. Education plays an important role in social mobility. Despite the importance of education the lowest classes have a very poor acces to this and thus an inferior change to climb the social latter. The income of a full time working lower class person is just enough to feet the family and to own a small house. There is no way the person can effort a high level education like a bachelor. Especially this problem with bad accessibility to education plays a significant role in the lowly social mobility. Main source: http://en.wikipedia.org...
USA is not the land of opportunity

I'm not supporting the US in any way, but it was never known to the americans as the Land of Opportunity. It was known as that name to the rest of the world. It is still. Whenever a person is asked of where he plans to do his higher education, he almost always says the US of A. It is always the dream of many people to atleast visit the country. Now on the topic of opportunities, there is still a lot of promise for lower classes. Yes, some people get discriminated. But, most people still see it as a land of opportunity. The earning of black and hispanic people has increased a lot since the 1960s or 1980s Asians are earning a lot more and foreign people seem content with Obama, I think, even though the local population isn't. So overall you cannot make a sweeping statement that USA is no longer a land of opportunity. Now there are a lot more countries that have also become a land of opportunity. But USA is still a very big land of opportunity.
USA is not the land of opportunity

USA is known to be the land of opportunity. A nation in which it does not matter if you are born in a rich or poor family or which skin color you have. If just you work hard enough you should be able to climp the social ladder. Turns out this is not the truth. People in the bottom of the society tends to stay there. They cannot effort high educations. There is no free health care and they are forced to work hard just to get their food on the table - if they have one. Even through hard work is is almost impossible to get out of the poor life. It requires an amount of luck too. This contradict the idea of prosperity through hard work. This is the reality.
There is a difference between worms and scorpions

There's a very simple point to be made here- scorpions and worms are both in the kingdom of Animalia. Very clearly close. Now, This clearly is not enough, Or else worms would be people. But they are both referred to as bugs. Is this not clear yet? They also happen to both have claws (velvet worms have very nice claws), Venom (bobbit worms), And often can be found under rocks or in other such areas. Given this, It is difficult to refute the fact that there is no difference between a worm and a scorpion.
Yugo is the worst modern car ever sold in america !!!

Rebuttal----- America is a general area of the western world. The U.S is referred to as America, but is not only contained to the U.S. Argument---- Seems as though you want Trabant off my list. Is it because it is worse then the Yugo? The answer is yes. And the Trabant has been sold in America just not by the corporation, which you failed to classify. The fact is that the Trabant is worse and it has been sold in "America" and the U.S. Which proves my point that the Yugo is not the worst car ever sold in America. References- http://trabantusa.art.officelive.com... And common sense I thank you again for this debate and enjoyed arguing with you