BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: The U.S. should ban all Guns.

Obviously, the gun is the most dangerous, defensive item. People are not left defenseless as i said, knifes may not match firearms, but they are a lot safer, and a lot harder to kill people than guns. People don't know how to use them. As i stated in my last argument, 'People who do not know how to use guns can actually accidentally fatally kill someone. With knifes, people know how to use them, for christ sakes you use knifes for eating! And with a gun, one shot your dead. With one knife stab, that is the first warning of 'back away'. They might also get traumatized once they shoot the person. Because there are many christians that carry guns for self defense. And they believe that god will punish them for committing such an act. But knifes are a completely different story. Let me show a whole list of defensive weapons that are not as dangerous as guns, and can actually be used for underage kids in dangerous situations. Knifes Pepper sprays Tasers Steel Batons Mace Pepper Folding knife Brass Knuckles Umbrellas You wouldn't expect a child walking around with a gun, would you? Sources: 1.http://budk.com... 2.http://www.selfdefenseweapons.com... 3.http://www.myselfdefensestore.com...
Resolved: The U.S. should ban all Guns.

I would like to note that my opponent has not said anything so far about the Constitutionality of such a ban.My misunderstands. She assumes that the government is a good organization. Sher fails to not that everytime in history when the government is the only people who have guns and the people are left defenseless (note:Knives are not a match for firearms) the people lose all of their other rights and are unable to get them back because they have no guns. We see this in Stalin's Russia and even our own War for Indepenence. In Russia at the time the people were given no gun rights and as a result the people were unable to resist the tyrrany of Stalin and the horrors that occured [1], while if it were not for firearms in the hands of the common farmer America would still be a colony [2]. ConclusionMy opponenent has failed to answer my first contention, and has failed to refute my second. She has also failed to state a case of her own.1. http://www.thegunzone.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
i leave meat-stains throughout the house when i drag in carcusses of dead animals (mainly pigeons)

Yes. As a matter of fact, there is. It seems my opponent has a hygiene problem in his house. He drags around dead pigeons and leaves meat stains. (I find this strange, you have to be pretty short to "drag" a pigeon) Anyways, one could easily put the pigeons in a bag, thus preventing the meat stains. The resolution is negated.
Anything Sports

Thank you or posting your next argument. So you claim that the Lions did better than the Steelers because they improved for 2009? Where are your facts? I have some facts to disprove this. In 2008 the Detroit Lions won 0 games. In 2008 the Pittsburgh Steelers won 12 games. Now you say that the Detroit Lions improved so that means they did better in 2008? In 2009 the Pittsburgh Steelers won 9 games. In 2009 the Detroit Lions won 2 games! I will now give an example. There is a 16 miles marathon and two en are racing each other. Man 1 runs 12 miles then stops. Man 2 runs 0 miles but has improved himself to run 2 miles next year. Who do you think did better? Man 1. I look forward to your response. Sources: (1). http://en.wikipedia.org...
Anything Sports

My opponent is pro and I am Con. I must make the thing to be against. Resolved, The Detroit lions did better in the 2008 season than the Pittsburgh Steelers. ( I am Con so I am against this) The reason I am against this is because the Steelers won many games, the Detroit lions won no games. I look forward to my opponents argument. Sources: (1). http://sports.yahoo.com... (2). http://sports.yahoo.com... (3).http://en.wikipedia.org...
Anything Sports

Thank you for posting your next argument. Improving i not being better. And it is obvious that the Steelers did a lot better than the Lions. In the NFL you are judged on how many games you win. Those who win the most games go to the playoffs, which the Steelers did. And those who win all the games in the playoffs go to the Superbowl, which the Steelers also did and won. You say you don't need facts because you don't need them? The truth is that there are no facts that the Lions did better. In a debate you have to show proof, something that you have failed to do. I thank my Opponent for this debate, and thank the audience for reading. Vote Con http://www.youtube.com...
Brett Favre will only last through this year than retire again.

First off my opponent concedes the greatness of Brett Favre. However other than that it seems we have a clash of opinion. The basic position I must hold on the CON is to prove that Brett Favre will last through the year and not retire again. However Due to the shenanigans [1] that ensued the last time Favre "retired", we can see that conceding this point does not give away any ground because the point my opponent is trying to prove in his case is that he won't play next year/ the rest of this year. However against the lack of compelling evidence presented I, and many other individuals feel the incorrect conclusion reached by my opponent is absurd. This is true for three key reasons: 1) Brett Favre's arm is fine, 2) Brett Favre has not given any signals to support this claim, and 3) Brett Favre always tends to do poorly at this point in the season, so his playing has not correlation to whether or not he will continue playing. 1] Brett Favre insists his arm is fine, and doctor's agree [2]. Therefore when my opponent says his arm is reason to worry. So we can see the first reason listed by my opponent why Brett Favre wouldn't play has been dismissed due to its incorrect nature. 2] While not explicitly stating he is going to continue playing the ruthless game of football, Brett Favre has shown he has the will power and strength to keep on going, and competing in the sport he loves [3]. So yet again my opponent's logic is found untrue. 3] A recent article supports the claim that Brett Favre's playing has no correlation to his decision. [4] In this article both Brett Favre and several journalists remark on how Brett Favre has historically played poorly at this point in the season, and that it is not cause for concern. As a matter of fact no where in the article did they reach the conclusion that the playing of Brett Favre has anything to do with his decision to play. So as we can see the third and final reason why he might possibly quit is a myth. [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]. http://bleacherreport.com... [3]. http://bleacherreport.com... [4]. http://www.startribune.com... On and note Brett Favre will always be an Icon, contrary to the views expressed by my opponent, but don't believe me believe the article . http://www.brettfavrejersey.net... that points out how Brett Favre is still hugely popular and an icon fro the ages.
Brett Favre will only last through this year than retire again.

Brett Favre is a great player, no doubt, but he will only last through this year especially because of his arm. He is just too old to be a long lasting icon, still, but he's great. His arm just won't last the whole year or after the year he's not going to be able to come back to fulfill his 2 year contract he signed with the Vikings. Vote Aff! GO VIKINGS!
Ober is a troll

Contention: OberHerr(me) is a troll. Troll definition: A troll is a supernatural being in Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore.[1] Or In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] So, in order for Pro to win, he must prove this. However, the only evidence he has given is that I called him ice cream, which he has no evidence or source for, and that he is a homo sapien, which he has also been unable to show. To contend, I will say that I am not a troll, in Internet terms, and have contributed to this site greatly. My evidence? I have been responsible for several Mafia games such as Halo Mafia, and Beginner's Games 9.1, 9.2, and soon to be 9.3, 9.4 and Half-Life Mafia(Reverse Morality).[3][4][5][6] Not to mention I have done several debates.[7] Pro, on the other hands has done no such such thing, and his only posts are things like "Wat is 16kadams", or "wat is president." Also, there is no proof whatsoever that I am not a supernatural being from Norse/Scandinavian folklore, so I don't think I have to contend that. Therefore, I conclude that I am not a troll, and that Pro is(in the Internet terms). Vote Con. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://www.debate.org... [4]http://www.debate.org... [5]http://www.debate.org... [6]http://www.debate.org... [7]http://www.debate.org...
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not @ same time

"you say God cannot act illogically, yet when i try to confine him to his own logic, you say he can't be confined." I think I understand what you say. My response is that you cannot confine God to his own logic. As it says in Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher then your ways, and my thoughts than your thought." This implies a similarity between our thoughts and God"s thoughts. But God is infinite, while ours is finite. You can"t confine God the way you are trying too because people are below God. You can't contain something that you can't understand. "you say any reasoning to God as illogic involves logic. if i say A plus B equal peanut butter, i didn't engage in logic, but I describe God's potential." Your statement is confusing to me. I don"t see how "if I say A plus B equal peanut butter"" has any relevance to God"s potential or the topic. I was saying that logic presupposes God. So if you try logically disproving God's existence, you only prove his existence, because logic proves God's existence. "how would you answer the question? can GOd create the rock he can't lift? or can he lift the rock he can't create? can he make the rock or not?" I answer it as so. The paradox is the question. The imaginary and paradox concept of a rock that God can"t lift doesn"t mean God is a paradox, but means the question is imaginary and a paradox. You can"t disprove God by making a faulty question. All you end up doing is making a faulty question. A question that is faulty doesn"t prove anything. The verb "lift" would require God to be bound by space and time, and be material. God is not bound by space and time, and is immaterial. Your concept of God is faulty, as God isn"t some person walking around with super powers like in The Avengers. He is God. He created all things. He isn"t bound by his creation because he is Omnipotent. The question is a faulty, not God. My conclusion is that logic presupposes the existence of God. Therefor, God exists, and your question fails to disprove His existence.
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not @ same time

you say God cannot act illogically, yet when i try to confine him to his own logic, you say he can't be confined. you say any reasoning to God as illogic involves logic. if i say A plus B equal peanut butter, i didn't engage in logic, but I describe God's potential. how would you answer the question? can GOd create the rock he can't lift? or can he lift the rock he can't create? can he make the rock or not?
Can God create a rock so big he can't lift it, or not create the rock? either, not @ same time

Before I go right to trying to disprove this, I would like to ask for clarification. We understand that time and space are related. God is outside of time and therefor in a way, outside of space. By God having to "lift" this kind of rock, doesn't that assume that God is bound by time and space, as "to lift" is a verb? If so, then this is an illogical question, because the assumed Omnipotent nature of God is assumed to be non-Omnipotent in order to prove he isn't Omnipotent. This is circular reasoning and appears to not define God in the correct way. I need some clarification if I am going to state my position in a correct way.
Rape culture does not exist in the USA

Please re-read my argument. I never once implied or claimed that you don't believe rape exists. And you are in fact debating the lack of care surrounding rape cases. This is what 'rape culture' is defined as: You also took what I said about victims (both male and female) not reporting rape or sexual assault out of context. I never once claimed that it's a good thing that it isn't reported, Or that it wasn't a problem in itself. I stated that it is because rape is so normalized (called 'rape culture'), That victims of such crimes have not received the justice that is due. As a result, A substantial fraction of victims, Who are already discouraged by communities and a culture where the victim is isolated and/or shamed for being raped, No longer report their case. This lack of reporting is the RESULT of a rape culture. In fact, Look at the current political case surrounding Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault by Ford. Regardless of whether or not Kavanaugh is guilty, Ford was immediately struck with social backlash, Despite carrying her civic duty to warn the judiciary of a potential inadequacy regarding the Supreme Court judge nominee Kavanaugh. She was doubted, Ridiculed, Threatened through mail, And accused of being a liar before a thorough investigation of any kind was initiated. I also gave an anecdote of my professor's colleague's experiment and program regarding rape culture. The result directly supported that America has become a "setting in which rape is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about gender and sexuality". THIS is rape culture. I think the problem here is that you don't know what you're arguing against, Which is why I and another commentor attempted to clarify before continuing the debate. I implore you to double-check the definition of 'rape culture', And to re-read my argument from last round, Before we proceed.
Rape culture does not exist in the USA

First of it seems your not really debating the topic, Your saying that there is a lack of caring in the US and that may very well be true, But that is not what I'm debating, I'm debating the fact that in the US as a whole there is no rape culture. Also your claim women not reporting isn't a problem is absurd, Not reporting is a very big problem and the fact that they don't report it is actually causing a bigger problem in the sense we can not stop something that is not there to stop. You also seem to be pushing the fact that I'm saying rape doesn't happen, That is completely wrong, Yes rape occurs, It occurs way too often but that does not create a culture that by definition supports people being raped.
High school should NOT be mandatory

The answer is simple: high schools are little more than government-funded indoctrination facilities dedicated to stripping children of their creativity and molding them into productive, complacent workers. This is an exaggeration. Many schools offer children chances to be creative through art, music programs, writing, etc. Considering that the United States remains the most financially prosperous nation in the world despite the financial turmoil of 2007 to the present, one would logically assume that a nation of such might and majesty would be capable of producing exceptionally well educated individuals, yet the statistics eradicate such aspirations. This argument seems to support a reform and improvement of the education system rather than wiping out mandatory high school education. These discrepancies, coupled with the social, psychological, and physical issues presented by locking children into a confined space for 7-8 hours with exposure to little more than mentally unstable peers, underpaid and often irritable teachers, and boring, outdated textbooks, are negatively impacting once inspired and dedicated learners who often find themselves questioning the value of completing their work and complying with instructions only to receive a diploma that rarely guarantees them admission into a respectable college. This argument makes the mistake of grouping teachers and students into groups. Most students are far from "mentally unstable" and many teachers merely want their students to succeed. The fact that teachers are underpaid contradicts your argument; if high school education were to be made optional, enrollment would decrease, and teachers would be paid even less than they are now. Conclusion: It seems that my opponent's argument would support reform and improvement of the educational system. Making high school optional would only make the problems described worse. High school education is important for the future of the United States. I would like to clarify a source that I used as a part of my argument. While this source did come from the United Arab Emirates, it was an example of how free time among teens leads to crime.
High school should NOT be mandatory

Mandatory high school education is extremely important for young adults. It is true that most kids don't like school, but this is likely because they don't realize the importance of school. A student's quality of life can be completely changed by their education. If high school was made optional, there would be consequences. Those students who didn't attend school or have a job of some sort would have a large amount of free time on their hands without adult supervision. Teenagers with too much free time has been linked to an increase in crime among teens. (1) If teens were to go without high school, they would be limiting their career options. Most careers require a minimum of a high school diploma. The best careers require much college education. A high school diploma(and much more) is needed to get into the best colleges. High school gives teens opportunities to make themselves appealing to colleges in activities like sports, band and orchestra, National Honor Society, etc. High school ultimately leads to a better career and higher quality of life for these teens. There is also a social aspect as well. From high school teens learn how to interact with people of different races, religions, etc. They learn who to associate with and who not to associate with. They learn how to make the right choices through their mistakes. Ultimately, school promotes the learning of social skills. Conclusion: High school is necessary for teens. Through school teens are kept out of trouble, teens are given more career options, and teens learn important social skills. Over to my opponent. Sources: 1. http://www.thenational.ae...
High school should NOT be mandatory

High school, particularly in developed nations, is often toted as a necessary and crucial component of a child's life, and rightfully so. The vast majority of the subjects taught by these institutions are fundamental staples of literally millions of potential jobs, so why are the students expressing such vicious and unfaltering opposition to them? The answer is simple: high schools are little more than government-funded indoctrination facilities dedicated to stripping children of their creativity and molding them into productive, complacent workers.Allow me to begin with the facts. As of this writing, students in the United States are performing near the middle of the international pack. On average, 16 other industrialized countries are scoring above the United States in science, and 23 score above us in math.[1] Unfortunately, the reading scores planned to be utilized in this article were discarded due to a printing error. Considering that the United States remains the most financially prosperous nation in the world despite the financial turmoil of 2007 to the present, one would logically assume that a nation of such might and majesty would be capable of producing exceptionally well educated individuals, yet the statistics eradicate such aspirations. It should be noted that federal funding of public education has undergone steady increases throughout the decades, as evidenced by a bar chart accessible at http://www2.ed.gov.... These discrepancies, coupled with the social, psychological, and physical issues presented by locking children into a confined space for 7-8 hours with exposure to little more than mentally unstable peers, underpaid and often irritable teachers, and boring, outdated textbooks, are negatively impacting once inspired and dedicated learners who often find themselves questioning the value of completing their work and complying with instructions only to receive a diploma that rarely guarantees them admission into a respectable college. Therefore, I assert that secondary education in the United States should not be mandatory and that parents should be implored to seek alternative outlets for learning.[1]: http://www.greatschools.org...
High school should NOT be mandatory

I would like to begin by stating that, by accepting the "con" position, you are arguing in favor of mandatory secondary education in the United States.First round: Definitions and acceptanceSecond round: ArgumentsThird round: Counter-arguments"High school is an institution which provides all or part of secondary education. Other terms such as "secondary school" or "secondary college" are used in different nations or regions. The phrase "high school" often forms part of the name of the secondary institution." - Wikipedia
The Confederate Flag is a Symbol of Racism

Okay, So my opponent has decided to conflate "slavery" with "racism. " I'm reserved in my declaration either way that the Confederate Battle Flag is "symbolic" of racism. When dealing with symbols, We're dealing with subjective perception. So if the Confederate Battle flag is a symbol of racism, Then it begs these questions: (1) to whom was this flag racist? And (2) whose racism did the flag symbolize? A historian whom I'll cite in the comments section noted he read over 25, 000 letters, And over 100 diaries of soldiers who fought on both sides of the Civil War when researching content for his book. In these letters, As described by said historian, Seldom is slavery mentioned. Instead the confederates made continuous references to self-government and opposing the tyrannical control of "the yankees. " Another historian cites the cause of the confederate secession was in part due to the growing influence and expansion of federal control by the Republican North. He also cites a series of protectionists tariffs since 1824 that hampered the Southern economy. Is there any credence to these claims? Well, Yes there is. We know that the Morill Tariff was passed in the spring of 1860, Preceding Lincoln's election, The formation of the Confederacy, And the start of the Civil War. If the Confederate flag was in fact a symbol of "racism" why was the confederacy of Southern States formed immediately after the tariff, And not, Let's say the signing of the emancipation proclamation? The Southern States had already seceded, So any measure by Lincoln wouldn't legally have affected the seceded states.