BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control = Poo

- Criminals will attain guns no matter what. Innocent civilians will be the ones without guns to protect themselves. - The Constitution allows people to carry guns. There is no reason to void the Constitution on this. - Criminals will not register their guns. Making the gun count inaccuarate instead of not having one. - Criminals will attain better guns that civilians can not have and shoot at us. - You have NO offense. There is no reason to allow gun control. So far I win this debate for that as well. - In 2004 66% of murders were convicted by handgun, however, in the same year 51% of murders were convicted by cutting or stabbing. Where are the "Knife Control Laws?" My point is, if some sick, derranged person is going to kill, it will be done reguardless of what weapon he chooses. Why take the guns out of the hands of innocent people only trying to protect themselves? If the government plans to take our guns, make sure they don't forget to take everything that could remotely be used to kill. (knives, guns, rope, anything firm, or hard, pencils, plastic, etc.) - You say that innocent people are left defenseless, but the innocent people can still go out and buy a gun. The people who don't buy guns are probably the ones that aren't going to know how to effectively use one anyway. Also, the Constitution says people can have guns, and they can. They just have to register themselves so that everyone can make sure that they aren't psychotic killers. + Psychotic killers and sane killers wil not register their guns. Instead they will find some way to obtain them illegally. Only non-criminal civilians will(do) abide by this law. - Criminals won't register their guns whether there is gun control or not so I don't see a real difference in this subject. + Civilians have to wait 72 hours, have guns under restrictions, have certain types of guns, not have guns if they have a certain circumstance. But they should have the same rights and non law abiding criminals. - Apparently 117% of people killed in 2004 were either killed by guns or knives. + 117% So everybody who was killed plus some was killed by guns or knives? So car accidents did not happen? Etc.? This statistic is ridiculous. - This doesn't seem like an accurate statistic, but accuracy aside: I believe that it takes a great deal more mental and physical effort to kill a person with a knife instead of a gun. A knife needs a forceful stab or cut at a person multiple times before the person is dead. A gun takes one pull of a finger. With a knife the killer must be close to the person. However, with a gun the killer can distance himself from the person, severing emotional connection. Also, if a knife gets into the wrong hands (for example: a small child) it is less likely to kill itself than with a gun. My point is that gun control is important because guns a very efficient killing machines that can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. + Criminals WILL get guns ILLEGALLY. While a person who is not allowed to have a gun (yet) or the same type of gun is stabbing aay or shooting a pistol against a rocket launcher, the civiliian will die. Think of our rights and lives.
Gun Control = Poo

Hello policydebategod, I'm going to start by saying that I have a bad habit of using harsh sarcasm. I'm trying to cut back but if some slips in then please don't be offended. It's just the way I argue. In your next statement, please be more specific as to what kind of gun control you are talking about. I'm confused about the amount of control you are against. You say that innocent people are left defenseless, but the innocent people can still go out and buy a gun. The people who don't buy guns are probably the ones that aren't going to know how to effectively use one anyway. Also, the Constitution says people can have guns, and they can. They just have to register themselves so that everyone can make sure that they aren't psychotic killers. Criminals won't register their guns whether there is gun control or not so I don't see a real difference in this subject. Apparently 117% of people killed in 2004 were either killed by guns or knives. This doesn't seem like an accurate statistic, but accuracy aside: I believe that it takes a great deal more mental and physical effort to kill a person with a knife instead of a gun. A knife needs a forceful stab or cut at a person multiple times before the person is dead. A gun takes one pull of a finger. With a knife the killer must be close to the person. However, with a gun the killer can distance himself from the person, severing emotional connection. Also, if a knife gets into the wrong hands (for example: a small child) it is less likely to kill itself than with a gun. My point is that gun control is important because guns a very efficient killing machines that can be very dangerous in the wrong hands.
Gun Control = Poo

- Criminals will attain guns no matter what. Innocent civilians will be the ones without guns to protect themselves. - The Constitution allows people to carry guns. There is no reason to void the Constitution on this. - Criminals will not register their guns. Making the gun count inaccuarate instead of not having one. - In 2004 66% of murders were convicted by handgun, however, in the same year 51% of murders were convicted by cutting or stabbing. Where are the "Knife Control Laws?" My point is, if some sick, derranged person is going to kill, it will be done reguardless of what weapon he chooses. Why take the guns out of the hands of innocent people only trying to protect themselves? If the government plans to take our guns, make sure they don't forget to take everything that could remotely be used to kill. (knives, guns, rope, anything firm, or hard, pencils, plastic, etc.)
Lib's have hi-jacked this website.

You have based your argument completely on the fact that you believe that liberals don't read the debate, but rather vote for their opinion. Also I would like to say, that if every one skipped out on all issues that they had a bias on, this website wouldn't exist, because unless you are completely oblivious to the topic, you almost always have a bias, sub-consciously, or otherwise, you have proven nothing, except that in your opinion liberals don't think things through, which you cannot back up at all.
Lib's have hi-jacked this website.

Yes, I hold bias on issues...if asked I'll link one debate were I specified in my comment that I will not be voting do to bias. So, that's that. The number of libs on the site wouldn't matter if debates are based on their argument. Your point that the number of libs on the site influences the out come of the debates is proof of my argument. I specify libs, because by nature they don't think things through, they feel things through. I don't see any real challenge to my statement other than you didn't like it.
Lib's have hi-jacked this website.

First off, I would like to make it known, I am a conservative, and for that matter, a strong conservative, and I am upset that you stereotype the people who you assume don't judge on the quality of debate as "libs", and that you assume that because outcomes are generally liberal, which I would like to see a statistic on, the liberals are voting simply on opinion. Can you honestly tell me that you do not have the least bit of bias when you see a debate about the wars, or abortion? When a conservative side is taken on a side, where most of the voters are liberal, they have a lot of ground to make up, because they must sway, rather than affirm the judges previous opinions. You have not considered the fact that there could be more liberal than conservatives who are active in voting
Lib's have hi-jacked this website.

I think it's pretty obvious. Reviewing many of these debates you find ppl will ignore argument and vote what they view. I've seen many cases were ppl have added argument in their comment justifying their vote. Adding argument clearly shows that when they were voting they added that into the equation, distorting the out come. I say that Lib's are guilty of this because they think with their hearts. So, they do things that are not in the spirit of the competition because the ends justify the means. Also most out comes that have this voting that doesn't reflect the argument end up in favor of a week argument presented by a lib.
Best Inappropriate Jokes

One day, Little Johnny overheard his parents fighting. Later, he asked what "bitch" and "bastard" mean. They explained that they mean "lady" and "gentleman." The next day, he overheard his parents having sex. He later asked what "penis" and "vagina" mean. His parents explained that they refer to "hats" and "coats." At supper the next day, Little Johnny's mom cut her finger in the kitchen and yelled, "Oh f**k!" Little Johnny asked what that meant, and she said it means "cut." A week later, guests arrive for Thanksgiving dinner. Little Johnny welcomes them at the door, saying, "Hello bitches and bastards! Hurry up with your penises and vaginas -- we can't wait to f**k the turkey!"
Best Inappropriate Jokes

Little Johnny walks in on his mother in the bathtub. He asks his mother what is the big fuzzy patch below her bellybutton. She replies, "A bush." The next day Little Johnny walks in on his father while he's in the shower. He asks, "What is that big long thing hanging between your legs?" His father replies, "It is a snake." A few days later, Little Johnny walks in on his mother, once again in the bathtub. He asks, "What are those two baggy things hanging above your bellybutton?" She replies, "Headlights." A couple weeks go by and the little boy walks in on his parents having sex. He yells, "Mom, turn on your headlights! The snake is crawling into your bush!"
Duct tape is better than glue.

Thanks for you lovley comments. Now to begin this final confrentation. Con clearly left himself open for a clear shot. He stated "Is a Suzuki Impreza not much worse than a Porsche Carrera? " First it's Suzuki Forenza. And second I find the Suzuki to be a much better vehicle. Oh you don't know? ?? ?? The Suzuki has 28 mpg highway and 20 city. The porche has 24 highway and 20 city. Not to forget that the Suzuki has a much more affordable price. Oh and to respond to your little challange, which i kinda laughed at. I have you little answer. A standard size hershey's chocolate bar costs usually $1.09. Where as the smaller, cheaper, and way more tantalizing is the milk chocolate ice cube. Sells for about 15 cents. It's not the size it's more as the taste, and popularity. Back to the argument. You said that i strayed away from the "duct tape" argument? Ha I say, HA! ! Every brand of duct tape out there is in the catagory of duct tape. It's like saying that the rayovac batteries arent the same as duracell. Or that colored duct tape isn't duct tape. Which in fact i use for my shoes. Glue however only holds up for a very short time. Back to that glue is weaker thing. Yeah duct tape holds way more press Anyways to negate you "proof" that you krazy glue can hold up to 2000 pounds of weight. Oooooh so was it static or moving? ?? Forgot that little bit didn't you? ? Ah it's fine I mean i forgot to add in a little bit back in my last argument. When you said strand did you mean strip? Just wonderin. Anyways, moving down the line. You say that you glue can take far more damage than my tape yes? Well test your theory on a fallen bumper, because i would love to see someone have to blue a bupmer back and try to drive down the highway at 80 mph without it going fwhoooosh! ! Right over your car or truck and hitting anyone else behind you. Duct tape owns at the bumper, much stronger and way safer. And yes if you did use your precious krazy glue it would shatter into pieces from the pole experiment. What is their to prove in the versitility anyway? ?! I clearly stated in the begining of the debate "the big stuff. " Not poster board. Oh and to add to my argument, taping something back or glueing it, the cold or hot weather woould cause serious trauma to the glues potency. When duct tape gets a little too warm it melts a bit which actually creates a more stable hold. You can twist that however you want man. Besides that not to forget father time. as time goes on not only does glue become brittle but it looses it's sticky hold. One last thing. I don't hear any catchy saying about glue. Do you? ?? ?? "If you can't duck it F#@$ it. " "Duct tape it turns no no no into mmm mmm mmm. " "Silence is golden, duct tape is silver. " And so ho ho much more. My argument and time have come to an end, that was my argument.
Duct tape is better than glue.

Firstly, Pro admits himself that cheaper products are a lower quality. "This is all true in most cases," says Pro. Then he goes on to say that not all things that are cheaper are worse than theire expensive counter parts. But it is always like that. Is a Suzuki Impreza not much worse than a Porsche Carrera?By what Pro says about gorilla tape, is duct tape not much worse than gorilla tape?Are Wal-Mart boots not much worse than Timbalands?Are Value Village jeans not much worse than Levi's?Cheaper always means lower quality or grade. It has always been like that.I challenge Pro to find a product that is better than it's expensive counterpart.Secondly, Pro tries to defend his arguments and attack mine using Gorilla Tape. I just want to point out that the resolution is "Duct tape is better than glue", not "gorilla tape is better than glue".Duct tape and gorilla tape are very different things. It is like saying, masking tape is the same as duct tape when it is obviously not. On the site, it even differentiates between duct tape and gorilla tape, saying that "Duct tape is made for smooth, even, predictable surfaces." Gorilla tape is "Made to stick to rough, uneven, unforgiving surfaces like wood, stone, stucco, plaster, brick and more." http://gorillatough.com...Therefore, it is obvious that duct tape and gorilla tape are not the same things. Therefore Pro's entire rebuttal is ineffective.Thirdly, Pro believes that duct tape (not gorilla tape anymore) is stronger than glue. He also comes up with something about a pole and throwing it on the ground. Well, yes, it would fall apart if you used the elementary style glue. However, the glue I am talking about is much more powerful, such as krazy glue.http://www.krazyglue.com...If you go to their fourth bullet point, they say, "A single drop of krazy glue has been tested to hold 2000 pounds." I want to stress a single drop. Now how much force can a single strand of duct tape hold?http://dsc.discovery.com...Go to around 1:10. A single strand of duct tape can only withstand 67.3 pounds of force before breaking. That is much less than the 2000 pounds of force that a single drop of krazy glue can withstand. Therefore, no, duct tape is not stronger and cannot take more damage than glue. Fourthly, Pro does not contest my versatility argument. This argument remains unrefuted by Pro.So in conclusion, Pro thinks "duct tape has more sticking power and withstand more damage." If you still think that way after you have finished reading my arguments, then you must not have read properly, or you must be really bad at math. A single drop of glue can withstand 2000 pounds. A single strand of duct tape can withstand 67.3 pounds. As Pro's entire arguments were about strength and withstanding power, they are all invalid, as I have proven with credible sources that duct tape is weaker than glue.Therefore, glue is better than duct tape.
Duct tape is better than glue.

Thank you for accepting my argument. First off i would like to point out that my opponent has stated "Most times, when a product is cheaper than another, it shows that that product is of a lower quality, as it is made from lower quality material." This is all true in most cases. But not all things that are cheaper are any worse tan the more expensive counter parts. Now to point out in my first argument I stated that duct tape was cheaper than glue. Where this is true in most styles and or versions of the said tape, seemed to have forgotten to mention Gorilla glue duct tape. "Duct tape is made for smooth, even, predictable surfaces. How many of your projects can be described that way? That's why we invented Gorilla Tape. Made to stick to rough, uneven, unforgiving surfaces like wood, stone, stucco, plaster, brick and more." http://gorillatough.com... Yes at the Gorilla glue incorporation they revolutionized how we see and use our duct tape today. "Gorilla Tape is available in the following roll sizes: 35 yards, 12 yards, the Handy 1" Roll, which is 1 inch by 30 feet, and the NEW Tough & Wide, nearly 3 inches wide!" The Gorilla tape was created to withstand even the harshest or elements, be it snow, rain, heat, or your usual wear and tear. Some of these little facts might even prove that duct tape can be superior to glue. "DOUBLE THICK ADHESIVE – fills up the gaps in rough, uneven surfaces for super strong bite." "STRONG REINFORCED BACKING – the tight weave makes Gorilla Tape extra strong, but you can still rip it straight and easy." "TOUGH ALL-WEATHER SHELL – for the toughest jobs in the toughest conditions." In Cons argument he stated "If anything, duct tape is less effective than glue. Duct tape can easily be ripped off, and it also does not stand well in many weather conditions." Maybe it was me forgetting to mention Gorilla tape or maybe Con just doesn't know his tape. In my argument above I believe the Gorilla tape rebuttal negates that little statement and any others that refers to tape being outside becoming weaker. Or opinion of how it seems. Ever had trouble with repairing your bumper? Well duct tape would hold a lot more weight than the brittle aftermath of dried glue. Now my opponent has stated "As I said, typically, when you duct tape or glue stuff together, you want them to stay together. I have already proven in my refutation that glue does have more resistance than duct tape, therefore being able to stick longer. As a result, glue is better than duct tape." Duct tape can take way more damage than any glue. Have you ever tried to (this is just a theory) glue a pole or 2 by 4 back together? If you have try throwing it or slamming it on the ground, I can guarantee it will shatter that pathetic glue. However if you tried applying a good amount of the trusty duct tape it will do a much better job of holding out. http://t2.gstatic.com... So in conclusion, duct tape has more sticking power and withstand more damage. That proves my case that duct tape is far ore superior than glue.
Duct tape is better than glue.

I accept. First, I would like to provide a definition of better.According to thefreedictionary.com, better is: One that is greater in excellence or higher in quality.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Therefore, I must prove that glue is better than or equal to duct tape, according to this definition.Pro must prove that duct tape is better than glue.Refutation:1. Pro's only argument is that duct tape is cheaper and more effective than glue. I understand that duct tape is cheaper than glue. However, something being cheaper, does not mean that it is better. Most times, when a product is cheaper than another, it shows that that product is of a lower quality, as it is made from lower quality material. And as you can see, the definition of "better" includes being higher in quality. http://thegatewayonline.ca...Furthermore, Pro also states that duct tape is more effective than glue. However, that is not true. If anything, duct tape is less effective than glue. Duct tape can easily be ripped off, and it also does not stand well in many weather conditions. With the right glue, such as crazy glue or super glue, it is much more difficult for the parts that you are sticking together, to deattach. For one thing, when you use glue, the glue is not exposed to the outside. As you see with the picture, there is no excess glue on the outside when gluing two pieces of wood together. As you see with this picture, when duct taping, the tape is exposed. This is inferior to the glue method, where the glue is not exposed, because this way, people can easily rip off the duct tape and take apart the things you are sticking together. Furthermore, when taping outdoor things, the tape is exposed to weather, making it weaker as time goes on, until it loses it's effectiveness.Typically, when you duct tape or glue stuff together, you want it to stay together. Therefore, duct tape is inferior to glue because it's "stickiness" potential is much lower.Arguments1. Less versatileDuct tape is less versatile than glue. For example, when doing a school project, you might need to stick pictures onto a bristol board. In this case, you would use glue, as duct tape does not really make sense. You are able to use glue in many more cases than duct tape. Therefore, glue is better than duct tape.2. Sticking powerAs I said, typically, when you duct tape or glue stuff together, you want them to stay together. I have already proven in my refutation that glue does have more resistance than duct tape, therefore being able to stick longer. As a result, glue is better than duct tape. ConclusionPro admitted himself that duct tape is cheaper. I proved that cheaper products typically are lower in quality than more expensive products.I proved that glue has more versatility and has more sticking power than duct tape.Therefore, glue is better than duct tape.
Duct tape is better than glue.

My argument starts as to where I am completly bored. Nothing to do here in JA. So my argument is that I believe duct tape is better than glue. Only for the big stuff, not the small things like a toy, stuff like that. To make my point or whatever is that duct tape is both cheaper and more effective than most glue some people I know use glue to fix things. To name a few, your bumper fell off, or the lamp broke in half. So who is my opponent to be???
Ethical dilemma about triage and rescue

"Alright, you're going to win. Here will be final questions for thie debate on this ethical issue before we call off the day. "I'm assuming this means he forfeits. "If you were one of the kids, what would you do to help others, try to get out of the mudflats and find help with the other casualties and other thougts of the kids. "That depends which kid I was. If I was one of the kids with hypothermia, I probably wouldn't do anything except maybe speak some encouragement to the rescue crew. If didn't have hypothermia, I would help the rest up. "And if you were the rescuers, what would you do and you other thoughts. "I would do everything I listed in the previous rounds. "What would the rescue team would do with the extra casualties if they found them while bringing the 8 kid causalties back to the rescue base. "Save them as well, if there not already in the middle of the trip back to base. If they are, send another helicopter. "Realized your kid is trapped in the mudflats. "I'd start seeing of there is any way I could help him/her out without getting stuck myself. "Your kid is rescued. "I'd be overjoyed, but no time for celebration, as I would see if there is any way I can help the rest of the kids without getting stuck myself. "You find your kid alive and well from the rescued from the mudflats. "I'd be overjoyed. "Would it make a good news story on TV, newspapers and other media. "Yes. "Would it make a good documentary or TV special about this incident. "Probably not. "What would your parents react about this news. "They'd be shocked, overjoyed that everyone made it. I have one thing left to say. Thank you for a good debate.