BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
MTV Is Run By Masons

1. One of the MTV headquarters is in/by a Masonic Temple. http://media.tumblr.com... 2. Part of MTV's Video Music Awards on the left side of the picture, and a Masonic ritual on the right (And her pant leg resembles a Masonic checkerboard) http://media.tumblr.com... There's probably more stuff like this, but I think these are the most obvious.
We should prevent automatic weapons from legalizing.

Pro asks why automatic weapons were "made illegal in the first place". The irony is that in an appealing to that authority, the answer clearly favors my position. Fully automatic weapons were never made illegal by the vast majority of the states, which would seem to imply the opposite of what he argues. Pro ironically tries to argue that the Hollywood Shootout was a good example of why fully automatic weapons are particularly more dangerous than semi automatic weapons. What he does not seem to understand is that despite the fact that the perpetrators were doped up, wearing full body armor, and managed to shoot off over 1600 rounds of ammunition, they did not manage to kill a single person. Compared to any number of notorious shootings involving only low powered handgun, the results were pathetic. The ability to conceal a weapon and the element of surprise are far more important factors when it comes to the lethality of an encounter than the rate of fire of a weapon. Consider the fact that the hit percentage of the perpetrators was less than 0.017% per shot. This is in direct contrast to what pro asserts: that a higher rate of fire means a higher chance of hiring the target. Indeed, the police only fired roughly 600 shots in the same encounter, but hit the perpetrators more than twenty times. In other words, despite being only armed with semi automatic weapons, the police were able to hit their targets are a rate of almost double that of the perpetrators armed with fully automatic weapons. "Also, I don't have to press away any fact. Sure fully automatic firearms aren't used as much as small semi auto firearms, but that doesn't mean that the fully automatic weapons aren't dangerous." Pro continues to imply that I am asserting that fully automatic weapons are not dangerous. I have already dismissed this. In fact, I had previously challenged pro as to how he can measure "lethality", so that I may challenge his claims empirically rather than being forced to dissect dogmatic assertions. Of course, it's to late now, seeing as this is the last round. "Yes, I know that there are no high demands for it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't dangerous as I just said in previous round." Pro effectively admits that criminals do not want fully automatic weapons. I commend him in his reversal of position. "And here comes my same answer. It is if the state ALLOWS it, but I just said most of the requests are DENIED." Pro has not backed up this assertion up with any source, or explained the reason for the request denials. If the denials were issued based on legitimate paperwork or legal concerns, there I don't see how this is relevant. Below is listing of a large number of legally available fully automatic weapons and a FAQ regarding their transfer. Hopefully voters will be able to discern hyperbole from reality, as pro has not offered any factual or empirical data in support of his position. http://www.autoweapons.com... http://iawca.org...
We should prevent automatic weapons from legalizing.

Pro argues that every idiot knows that fully automatic weapons are more dangerous than semi automatic weapons, and that any idiot knows this. I would contend that an argumentum ad populum, and furthermore one that appeals to idiots, and should therefore be disregarded. Pro then asserts that higher rate of fire means that there is a higher chance of being hit by a bullet. Again, this is a bare assertion, one that is not supported by evidence. Even if we are to grant pro that being able to shoot more quickly rather than more accurately somehow increases the inherent lethality of a firearm, there is still no evidence that a fully automatic rifle would be particularly useful for the typical criminal. Again, the overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with pistols and revolvers due to the ability to easily conceal such weapons. Even granting pro the very generous assumption that fully automatic weapons are more lethal, there is no reason to believe that criminals would sacrifice portability for an increase in "lethality". Assuming that Pro agrees that rifles are far more "lethal" than pistols, he would be hard pressed to explain away the fact that rifles are one of the least used types of firearms used in crime. Pro argues that fully automatic weapons are already illegal. This is false. As far as I am aware, the only states specifically banning fully automatic weapons are Michigan, California,, New York and New Jersey. Most, if not all other states allow for the ownership of such weapons. Fully automatic weapons registered with the ATF before 1986 are perfectly legal throughout most of the United States, and require only a $200 tax stamp and the appropriate paperwork to transfer. Pro argues that fully automatic weapons are dangerous. I do not dispute this. However, he has not been able to present any evidence or any type of scale as to how one measures the "lethality" of a firearm. Is an underpowered fully automatic .22 more "lethal" than a .308 rifle? Pro asserts that if fully automatic weapons were legal, everyone would buy one and rob a bank. Again, he provides no evidence of this, and it is particularly suspect because fully automatic weapons are already legal. Furthermore, even if they were not legal, they are easily converted from semi automatic weapons with minimal technical skills. If there was a demand for fully automatic weapons in the bank robbing sector as pro asserts, pro has not yet provided a reason why the black market has not provided such goods like it does with illegal drugs. Clearly we are not engaged in a War on Fully Automatic Weapons, so any hobby machinist should be able to churn these weapons out for all those who wish to acquire them, legal or not. And yet the incidence of fully automatic weapons being used in crime effectively approaches zero, despite them being both legal and easily converted from existing weapons. Lastly, Pro argues that only a small percent of the population has access to fully automatic weapons. This is not the case. If you do not have a criminal record, you are generally permitted to own a fully automatic weapon if your state allows them.
We should prevent automatic weapons from legalizing.

Well, the point is to start at round 2 anyway. My point in this debate is that fully automatic weapons should NEVER be sold to citizens. Assault rifles that are limited to semi-automatic doesnt count as full automatic. Why it shouldn't be legalized and sold to civilians: 1. Its very dangerous to others, even bypassing the dangers of a pistol. 2. By selling them, more options opens up for criminals. 2 Simple arguments, right?
We should prevent automatic weapons from legalizing.

Pro argues that automatic weapons should be illegal. I'm going to assume that by automatic weapon, he means a weapon that can fire more than one cartridge with one trigger pull. I'm assuming pro is talking about legislation in the United States. Since fully automatic weapons are not prohibited by federal law in the United States, I'm going to assume that the premise of "should remain illegal" and "should be banned" are meant to be used interchangeable by Pro, unless he is making a state specific argument. I will begin my actual arguments in round two.
Starwars vs Star Trek

My opponent hasn't refuted any of my arguments in the previous round.I'd like to point out that we're arguing to prove that Star Wars vs Star Trek. And video games don't count as canon.CanonIn fiction, canon is the material accepted as part of the story in an individual universe of that story.The official Star Wars canon consists of the six released Star Wars theatrical feature films, along with the Star Wars animated film and television series The Clone Wars and Star Wars Rebels. The upcoming feature film Star Wars: The Force Awakens (along with the untitled Episode VIII and Episode IX) will also be a part of the official canon. Source: https://www.yahoo.com... paragraph 2According to the Star Trek website, the canon consists of The Original Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager, Enterprise, and all of the films. So, comparing video games is outside the scope of this debate. Because the video games don't count as canon for either franchise.
Starwars vs Star Trek

I think Star Wars video games put Star Trek games to shame. Bioware and lucasArts While we may not be getting Star Wars 1313 RIP LucasArts Star Wars has given us one of the best role-playing games ever in Knights of the Old Republic and more than double the game titles of any Star Trek adaptations. We have no idea what EA has in store for Disney's next lineup of "Star Wars" games, but it can't be any worse than the latest attempt at a video game tie-in for "Star Trek Playing Star Trek: The Game felt like playing an unfinished version of a game that, even when finished, still wouldn't be very good. Also
December beginner's tournament: Homeschooling is superior to the public primary school system

This debate is part of round 1 of the December beginner's tournament.There are currently about 2 million children homeschooled in the US and this amount is growing by at least 7% every year (3). This debate is about whether it's preferable for students to get homeschooled or to go to a public school. The focus is on the primary schools.The burden of proof in this debate is shared. The participants have 72 hours to write their posts and the character limit is 10.000.Terms:Homeschooling: to teach your children at home instead of sending them to a school (1)Public primary school system: a school that gets money from and is controlled by a local government (2). The children are between the ages of 4 - 11 and they learn basic academic learning and social skills. They tend to learn basic arithmetic, English and the fundamentals of other subjects. (4)Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling6. Both debaters accept the definitions of the defined terms7. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 8. Violation of any of these rules means the conduct point should be given to the opponent Structure: Round 1: acceptance (no arguments) Round 2: arguments (no rebuttals) Round 3: rebuttals for the arguments in round 2 Round 4: defenses for the rebuttals in round 3 (absolutely no new arguments) Sources: 1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...3) http://www.debate.org...4) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Apple Computers are more dependable, reliable and user friendly.

My opponent has done nothing to show that the points he makes are actually true. Their is no way for me or the voter to know whether or not his points are viable. I therefore ask my opponent to cite his points so that they can be taken as fact. Furthermore, every point my opponent brings up alludes to paying extra. Buying adapter for more USB ports = paying extra Upgrading Hard drive = paying extra Upgrading Memory = paying extra All things aside the mac requires you to pay more and more, possibly getting up to double the price of a pc JUST to have the same hardware and software. You are paying for an apple on the back of your computer. Furthermore, my opponents point about being able to run windows operating system and mac operating system on a mac at the same time is false. In order to run windows os on a mac you must "dual boot". In this case when you start the mac you will be able to choose between the windows os or the mac os. You are not running them at the same time. You could also use a virtual machine. In this case you are using a program to run the windows os. Essentially it is the same thing, however their are drawbacks to using a virtual machine in that you may be unable to do a plethora of things. Also windows can as well run mac os through a virtual machine. [1] Finally my opponent makes the point that their is no web cam on the sony vaio. I urge you to take not of the video above. In this video I am using a mirror to show that the sony vaio does indeed have a web cam. [1]. http://www.applematters.com... . http://www.youtube.com...
Apple Computers are more dependable, reliable and user friendly.

Ok lets go ahead and compare the Mac book air and your computer as you are wanting , First of all the Mac book air compared to the Sony Vaio model VPCEB15FM in comparison is much lighter , the Sony being 5.9 lbs min , without any upgrades such as hard drive increases and ram increase etc, whereas the Mac book air is 3.0lbs min, thus making it much more easier and less tiring to carry around. Also as for the usb port you can buy an extra adapter from best buy or compusa that allows a single usb port to manage up to but not limited to 12 usb ports so that your single usb port becomes 12. But lets not stop there , if you wanna compare hard drive size this can easily be done cheaply by an apple technician for as little as $30 to a larger size of GB. You can also have memory upgraded up to GB also. Where as the processor may be newer Intel is still the top of the line and can quit be just as powerful as the i3. They made the newer processors for users running in windows 7 , which apple based computer can run both windows and Mac osx at the same time without rebooting !! Lets say however you didn't want the mealy 13.3 inch screen then you have the choice of a different computer from apple such as the Mac book pro or even the powerbook. Now lets move onto the web cams, the apple has a built in web cam and microphone whereas the Sony does not. Software wise mac come standard with TONS of preloaded software and not your everyday 30 day trial versions , no these are fully licensed activated forever software free of charge such that windows based pc's require you to either buy them before they expire or upgrade them costing you more money in the long run ,Also if I may point out Windows is NOT able to run 2 different operating systems at the same time !! Last but not least the Macs are built out of All Macs nowadays use aircraft quality Aluminum, stainless steel, bullet proof polycarbonate and impact resistant glass. Where as the pc's do not thus if you drop you pc you are more likely to break it or damage is, faster than you would if your laptop was built with theses materials
Apple Computers are more dependable, reliable and user friendly.

Through my contentions I look to show that Windows based personal computers are overall more dependable, reliable and user friendly then Macintosh based personal computer. For my contentions I will be comparing Mac computers to Windows based personal computers based on their price range. ~~MacBook Air~~$1499 2.13GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 2GB of 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM onboard 128GB solid-state drive 13.3-inch (diagonal) --->One USB 2.0 port<--- [1][2] Now first lets compare this to my Windows Based PC ~~Sony Vaio model VPCEB15FM~~$949.89 Intelï¿½ CoreTM i3 - 330M Speed: 2.13GHz 4GB (2GBx2) 500GB 5400rpm hard drive 15.5 inch display -->3 USB 2.0 ports<--- Now to compare these two we first look at the Processor. At first they may seem the same. Both having 2.13GHz processors. However the processor from the Sony Vaio is an intel core i3. Which is their newest line of processors. The i3 is able to handle higher speeds, and is able to overclock more so, then the intel core 2 duo. Secondly the RAM. The MacBook Air comes with 2GB or RAM. Where as the Sony Vaio comes with 4GM of RAM. More RAM=Better handling capabilites=do more things at once. Thirdly the hard drive. The MacBook Air comes with a 128GB Hard drive. This does not even come close to comparing to the 500GB hard drive that comes on the Sony Vaio. Also note to the picture in the [4] link. This is of the hard drive space on my computer. I have had my computer for 4 months and have already used DOUBLE the space of the MacBook Air. Now for Screen Size. The MacBook Air has a 13.3 inch display. Where the Sony Vaio has a 15.5 inch display. The Vaio display is obviously larger. Finaly one of the most important points, USB ports. The MacBook Air only has one USB port. Where as the Sony Vaio has three USB ports. One USB port is simply not enough when it comes to computers. I currently am using all three of my USB ports in fact. Cooling pad, Wireless mouse, and External Hard drive. This is something you would not be able to do with the MacBook Air. So looking between the two computer it is obvious as to which one is better. The sony Vaio has better specs in all categories and cost $500 less. I patiently await my opponents response. [1]. http://www.apple.com... [2]. http://www.apple.com... [3]. http://www.amazon.com... [4]. http://img825.imageshack.us...
Apple Computers are more dependable, reliable and user friendly.

Some things you have to consider first: Your "cheap" Dell...you'll be lucky if it includes Wireless A or B and bluetooth. Last time I checked these were premium and optional, an extra $200. A wide screen adds about another $100 to the price. Yes, it is true Macs are like Ferrari's They are more expensive than your average $499.99 cheap plastic Dell computers. All Macs nowadays use aircraft quality Aluminum, stainless steel, bullet proof polycarbonate and impact resistant glass. Another plus to new Macs is that they come with iTunes, iLife (iMove, iPhoto, iDVD, Garage Band and iWeb), Mail, Oxford American Dictionary, iChat, Widgets, Address Book, Automator, Art Directors Tool kit, Omnigraffle, OmniOutliner(usually standard on MBP), Sherloc and Comic Life. All of these are full working programs. None of that windows computer standard package of "demos and shareware" you are accustomed to get with your new computer. Which most of it will end up deleted from your computer anyway. On top of all that free software you also get with a Mac: iSight (built in Camera), 24bit Audio both digital (optical) and analog, professional Wide screen with color filters and SyncMaster resolutions, motion and light sensors which makes your Mac do cool things, a handy remote control, Wireless B,G and N, Bluetooth 2.0, Express card 34, Firewire 400 and 800, DVI output, The Magsafe safety power plug.. .This is the main reason to me as to why Apple computers are far better than pc computers , whether it be a desktop or a laptop.
Literal Christian Creationism MUST be the truth.

My opponent has responded to my literal critique of God by saying that the term "speaking" is a figurative comparison for humans by humans. In such case, my opponent then opens up the Bible to some form of figurative interpretation. Thus, the Bible, and most importantly, Genesis, should not be interpreted literally. As for my opponent's explanation of the supernatural property of God, why is it that it has to be the Christian God? Why can't it be any of the thousands of other gods? My opponent then decides to disagree with me about hunting and gathering. The hunting-gathering method of subsistence is known by everyone beyond 6th grade History. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Primitive tribes still do it today, and there is archaeological evidence that they did it thousands upon thousands of years ago before agriculture. All included above. "I don't do links, I do not read them, I do not send them. " This is unfortunate for my opponent, because debate. org accepts links as a source. My opponent has decided to forfeit his point about Jupiter and Saturn. However, I will state that Jupitor's size and Saturn's atmosphere and gaseous composition render my opponent's point completely wrong. My opponent then states that there is no evidence for Evolution. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... The fossil record demonstrates changes in world species from era to era, evolution is visible on the microscopic scale with microbes, speciation is visible among populations, homology shows physical similarities between creatures, DNA tracing allows us to map a species' family tree, if I were to cite all evidence for evolution, I would run out of characters. The eyeball argument is the first argument I have debunked by myself back when I argued against Creationism five years ago. This is known as "argument by irreducible complexity". The problem is that my opponent does not go in a scientifically supported scheme of evolutionary change. The brain evolved first, the optic nerve and the retina are parts of the brain used for sensing. The eyeball developed slowly because the curved nature improves light detection. The lens developed to shield the hole from debris. . http://video.google.com... Forget rocket scientists. Dawkins demonstrates the evolution of an eye so simply, a child can understand it. As for fossils, my opponent is misinformed. He does not understand how fossils form. Not all dead things leave fossils, the chances of leaving a fossil are smaller than winning the lottery several times over. My opponent has merely offered faulty and inefficient arguments against evolution. He cannot prove that Christian creationism is the only truth. He has not even proven that Creationism must be the truth. Thus, so far, he has accomplished nothing and the burden of proof rests on him. Thank you.