BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the USA should have universal background checks on gun sales

con argues background checks are a hassle to law abiding citizens. isn't it worth it if it saves thousands if not millions of lives? con argues checks do not deter criminals anyway. like i argued in my original post, some will surely break the law and get a gun. but not all guns will. even con said as much. "These checks wont do much to keep guns out of criminal's hands." it will keep some guns out of criminals hands. just having a gun causes a person to be more likely to commit a crime with a gun, and if someone is denied by virtue of a check, but they aren't hell bent on getting a gun, they are less likely to commit a crime. con argues background info could be made public. all i can say is it'd be rare for this to happen. criminal backgrounds in general could be made public, but you don't see that happening. and if it's rare, and the checks save thousands if not millions of lives, isn't it worth it?
the USA should have universal background checks on gun sales

This is my first official debate and therefore, I do not know what kind of formalities must be observed before beginning a debate, but I wish my opponent good luck and I am looking forward to this debate :) I have chosen to argue against backround checks on guns for the following reasons: ---They are a hassle for law-abiding citizens. An article on http://www.silive.com... states: ".....[Backround checks] mean forcing law-abiding people to fork over excessive fees to exercise their rights. Forcing parents to fill out forms to leave a family heirloom to a loved one. Standing in line and filling out a bunch of bureaucratic paperwork, just so a grandfather can give a grandson a Christmas gift. " Then, on Fox News Sunday, LaPierre complained that under a universal check system, "If I want to sell you a shotgun or something like that ... we"ll have to go find a dealer or walk into a police station. Who"s going to do the check? There"s going to be fees. There"s going to be paperwork. There"s going to be law-abiding people caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare." ---They are/will be ineffectual. Criminals, as we all know, dont abide by the rules. So, in essence, the only people that will consent to backround checks will be the law-abiding citizens. Let me give an example: There is a man that committed a crime that warranted taking away his gun rights. He is bent on committing another crime, but needs a gun to accomplish it. Do you think the man will go to a dealer and submit himself to a backround check, or would he buy a gun from a friend/black market dealer? The answer is pretty simple. The man will acquire a gun whether or not there are universal backround checks. These checks wont do much to keep guns out of criminal's hands. ---As the same article as above states, "Background checks are a slippery slope to confiscation. "They"ll turn this universal check on the law-abiding into a universal registry of law-abiding people," LaPierre predicted on Fox. Keene said the NRA opposes "any kind of national gun registry system" because "that is a precursor, in many cases, to confiscation." And even if the government doesn"t confiscate guns, Keene noted, the list of owners might be leaked or released to journalists and posted on the Internet, as happened recently in New York."
This House would prefer a hierarchal feminist movement over a decentralized one

Hello. 1. The nature of the human condition inevitably renders the sexes unequal. 2. You propose a hierarchical organization, clearly based on wealth and power. A and B have to Roam the streets. Whilst lucky old M and N get to lounge in comfort and count the money. Presumably distributing the money in ever greater proportions up the hierarchical ladder. Until the baulk of the wealth Lands at the door of Z. The Merkelesque figurehead. 3. Your proposition is clearly based on the Orwellian notion. All feminists are equal, but some feminists are more equal than others. 4. I would suggest that your proposition is somewhat counterintuitive.
Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life

R1: “Green tea is also good and healthy choice, but it has negative impacts, while water doesn't have any negative impacts. So green tea is not the best choice (Remember my topic is supposed to be "The Best Choice") .” Just because Green tea has one downside, does not mean it is bad for you. If the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, then this object is considered to be overall good, as is with Green tea. Green tea’s benefits outweigh its costs so therefore it is good for you. As I have already demonstrated; tea is entirely water based. Tea holds all the advantages that water will have, and the added bonuses within the tea. Tea is almost an improved version of water. Therefore tea is a “better choice” than water. R2: My opponent then demonstrates that “not all tea are good” and suggests that we make a new debate. The fallacy here is that my opponent makes the claim that not all teas are good, but then doesn’t give any evidence for it, does not show how other tea types are bad. Therefore the argument holds no weight. R3: My opponent then doubts the legitimacy of my evidence. “I doubt about the truth. Do doctors, nutritionists and health scientists actually perform any experiments or do they just give opinions about this?” Experts in the field do not hold opinions, they hold truth. They know this because they are “experts” in their subjects and they have done studies. My source says, “However, a report describes the danger of dehydration as a ‘myth’ and says there is no evidence behind claims that water prevents multiple health problems.” Experts do not just have opinions, they give facts, and the facts lean my way. Conclusion: Sadly this is the end of a quality debate. I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate and look forward to its results. I would like to thank my opponent and wish him the best of luck wherever life takes him. Thank you!
Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life

Green tea is also good and healthy choice, but it has negative impacts, while water doesn't have any negative impacts. So green tea is not the best choice (Remember my topic is supposed to be "The Best Choice") . Beside that, you also generalized that "tea" is better than water from your previous statement, so I'm not in line with you. Not all of tea are good. Maybe you should change that "green tea" is better than water, then we'll make our new debates. According to the website that you've shared above, I doubt about the truth. Do doctors, nutritionists and health scientists actually perform any experiments or do they just give opinions about this? (Because me and my family often drinks water more than 8 glasses everyday in our whole lives until present and we are very fit). I await for your response, thank you. -benshine7-
Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life

For my opponent’s rebuttal, he attempts to show how green tea is unhealthy for you to drink. His rebuttal ran like so. P1: Green tea causes skeletal fluorosis. P2: Water doesn’t cause skeletal fluorosis. C1: Water is better for you to drink than Green tea. My opponent says this, “You must know that tea also can reducing bone quality if you drink too much.” Anything is excessiveness is unhealthy for you, even water. “Experts now warn that drinking eight glasses of water a day is not good for you after all – and could be harmful…Drinking excessive amounts can also lead to loss of sleep as people have to get up in the night to go to the toilet, and other studies show it can even cause kidney damage, instead of preventing it…Worryingly, Dr McCartney also warns that taking on too much water can lead to a rare but potentially fatal condition called hyponatraemia, which sees the body’s salt levels drop and can lead to swelling of the brain.” (1) Both tea and water are unhealthy for you “if you drink too much.” Yet the benefits of green tea outweigh the costs; just because one thing in green tea is bad for you doesn’t mean green tea is bad for you. Conclusion: My opponent has attempted to negate my argument that tea is good for you by pointing out parts of tea that might be bad for you. I have defeated this by demonstrating how the benefits of tea outweigh the costs and therefore tea is actually good for you and by showing that the same goes for water. (1) http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life

At first, I was amazed with those evidences that you'd showed to me. But,after all i'm not in line with your statement if you think tea is better than water. I can proof to you,especially for this argument: A2: "Epidemiological evidence has shown an association between tea consumption and the prevention of age-related bone loss in elderly women and men. Ingestion of green tea and green tea bioactive compounds may be beneficial in mitigating bone loss of this population and decreasing their risk of osteoporotic fractures. "(2) I agree for your argument that green tea can mitigate bone loss (after i did research). But, green tea also can reduce the bioavailability of nonheme iron. It means your body is less able to absorb this nutrient. Nonheme iron is the primary type of iron in eggs, dairy and plant foods such as beans, so drinking green tea with these foods can lead to reduced iron absorption. Beside that, You must know that tea also can reducing bone quality if you drink too much. As my evidence, that tea can reducing bone quality because it can cause "skeletal fluorosis" and causing pain and stiffening of the ligaments. In short, tea is not a better choice than water, because it has some serious negative impacts when you consumpt too much. Even in . http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... suggested to not drink more than two to three cups per day of tea (To against osteoporosis). While water can't cause osteoporosis. I await for your response, thank you. -benshine7- Sources: . http://www.theguardian.com... . http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... . http://www.livestrong.com...
Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life

I will now present my case that water is not actually the best choice for daily life. Instead of water, I propose that tea is the best choice for our daily life and will back this up in my arguments. A1: During the process of creating tea, you have to boil water. “Boiling water is the safest method of purification… boiling water kills germs and parasites… Naturally occurring water can contain bacteria, such as Giardia, that can cause digestive issues and, in some developing countries, potentially fatal diseases, such as cholera. Water that looks clean can still contain harmful bacteria, which are invisible to the naked eye. Therefore, it's important to purify your water if you suspect it has not been treated even if it looks safe to drink. ” (1) By drinking tea instead of drinking water, you decrease the risk of the transference of parasites, viruses, bacteria, etc. which leads to a healthier body. A2: “Epidemiological evidence has shown an association between tea consumption and the prevention of age-related bone loss in elderly women and men. Ingestion of green tea and green tea bioactive compounds may be beneficial in mitigating bone loss of this population and decreasing their risk of osteoporotic fractures. ”(2) In short, tea has many health advantages that water doesn’t. A3: “Water is essentially replacing fluid. Tea replaces fluids and contains antioxidants so it’s got two things going for it. ” -Dr. Ruxton (In a BBC interview) (3) "Drinking tea is actually better for you than drinking water. Water is essentially replacing fluid. Tea replaces fluids and contains antioxidants so it's got two things going for it. " –Dr. Ruxton (4) If you had one cup of tea and one cup of water, tea would be better for you to drink. Conclusion: I have stated by case for why tea is a better drink than water and backed up each assertion with evidence. I await my opponent’s response, thank you! . http://traveltips.usatoday.com... . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... . http://healthland.time.com... . http://lifehacker.com...
Water is The Best Choice For Our Daily Life

I believe that water is always be the best choice as a healthy drink. Although there are many healthy drinks such as herbal tea,goat milk,and even coffee. But, water still be the best choice because it is calorie-free and no additional sweetener. Besides,we cannot avoid the fact that H2O is one of the major element in human body. It is about 50-65 % in adult, and in infants is about 75-78%. So,we need more water in our daily life. Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... http://chemistry.about.com...
morality=survival+truth

A failure to this shows ultimate disrespect towards me and the debate overall. May I remind you all that my opponent has not provided any counterarguments only about 2 sentences that have ultimately proved nothing. Therefore, the only winner in this debate shall be the one that has provided the most solid arguments, meaning the negation. Now, for defense, morality is a necessity but it does not mean it is survival and truth or even leads to it, survival and truth are in no way connected to morality. My opponent fails to provide concrete details to support the argument, proving me the winner. This is why voters I ask you to vote for the side that is the most logical and strong, with good arguments and concrete details, which is the negation. Thank you!
morality=survival+truth

I greatly apolgize for the delay. I was to provide a fundamental speech for this debate, but time got in the way! I greatly aplogize, I will provide this in the next round but I would like to let the audience here think. Do you really think that my opponent is defending anything? My opponent fails to recognize the resolution, ultimately showing that I am providing excellent knowledge on the resolution. Again, apologies for the delay and rush of this round. But again, this debate would come down to one person, me and only me the one that is actually providing argumentations. Thank you!
This house believes that the death penalty should be abolished

Have you heard of an eye for eye? Well that's exactly what the death penalty is doing. It may seem wrong and brutal to kill someone but to not kill the killer is wrong. Death penalty's are done in a humane way and is not as unusual and cruel as it looks. The prisoner is blindfolded and then executed. It is pretty much like putting down an animal. If animals can be put down why can't humans be put down? It's all the same. Both animals and humans that stand on this Earth is meant to die. By executing prisoners you only end their lives shorter but sooner or later they will die. Death penalty's should be done if you are to stop mass murdering or brutal killing of a man. As I mentioned in my previous arguments, without the death penalty, there will be no fear to kill and killing is what will happen if you don't create the fear. It will keep going until it can be stopped and unless you find a proper way to stop the criminals instead of execution, then you should keep the punishment. I thank the opposition for his argument and I hope l changed what you think of the death penalty
This house believes that the death penalty should be abolished

Thank you for your speech but I find it odd that you've only countered one of my many points and have not made any of your own in your second argument. Both my opponent's arguments have been weak as you can see from his speeches. You have not even really made a point of information based on my speeches in you second argument. You said that I said Jail breaks were a huge thing, when the only thing that I concluded was that it was obvious you were going to bring it up. In Fact jailbreaks rarely happen. Society may depend on wether we can stop the death penalty, two wrongs don't make a right. We could reduce the people being killed in murders by 50% by stopping the death penalty (the victim plus the criminal). We,as a society are murdering people and breaking one of our very own laws. We are crumbling justice to the ground fragment by fragment and we tell people not to murder. That's like telling people not to bully when your a bully. We are breaking our very own laws by violating the Eighth Amendment which restricts people from using cruel and unusual punishment. If killing people is not cruel and unusual I don't know what is. American humanity may rely on whether the death penalty stops or not. The death penalty is not even cost efficient. My opponent is obviously shying away from my arguments and clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. This concludes my statement and I hope it concludes your decision.https://gdblogs.shu.ac.uk...http://prospect.org...
This house believes that the death penalty should be abolished

As you mentioned in your speech, jailbreak is a big thing which is true and to add on to that point what if you take Guzman as an example? The world's most wanted drug lord deeply embarrassing the Mexican government by escaping TWICE from maximum security prison. He is known to trade slaves, drugs and weapons and have killed more than thousands of people indirectly or directly. Should this type of person not serve a death penalty? If he is kept alive, he will not change and continue his drug trades and cause harm to the world. Obviously we know that he did help people but his graceful actions were not in fact so called legal because the money he uses were mainly from drugs. My point is that criminals such as Guzman should be executed for killing so many. I understand that although around $17 billion have been spent on prisons, don't you think there will always be a flaw? Unless we execute these malicious criminals they will still be in this world and still have that chance of killing people. No matter how strong the prisons are, there will always be a flaw and a chance of escape.
This house believes that the death penalty should be abolished

Thank you for your speech but criminals won't be running around murdering innocent people if there strictly prohibited to every place except there jail cell. Big criminals like Luka Rocco Magnotto won't be running in circles killing people if he's placed in jail with a life sentence. Its most obvious your going to talk about jail breaks, but when we have spent $17 billion dollars on are prison systems, so I don't think many criminals will be able to jailbreak. Maybe next time before you look at the homicise rates look at the costs we put in to defending our country. In fact evidence startlingly reveals the opposite of this. Twenty seven years after abolishing the death penalty, Canada saw a 44 per cent drop in murders across the country. You also said that the mother would go through terrible pain, but if you had a kid would you rather see him die because he did criminal activity or go to jail for being a criminal. I know I'd rather have my kid alive and I don't know what type of person wouldn't. Are opinions do differ but I hope you acknowledge the links down below. http://news.nationalpost.com... http://www.amnesty.org.au...
This house believes that the death penalty should be abolished

This house believes the death penalty should not be abolished because criminal activity is much less feared and therefore make violent murderers such as Luka Rocco Magnotta fearless which resulted in the sever death of Lin Jun in 2012. Do you really want this type of danger in the world? Although Magnotta was charged of first degree murder, he only serves a life sentence. Think of the outrage the world has and the pain the mother has to go through. Also according to https://en.wikipedia.org... it shows that Canada although has less people than China has a slightly higher homicide rate. Why? The sever death penalty in China and the tough gun control prevents death from happening.
This house believes that the death penalty should be abolished

I do not think that the death sentence should continue in the future. The second you realize you've executed an innocent person your mindset may turn from laying in your backyard with an utmost serene mood to realizing you just murdered an innocent person. The criminals also need time to reflect and change their ways, I'm not saying I'm a fan of criminals (in fact criminals irk me a lot) but to not get time to reflect is bizzare. Our system doesn't even give people a chance. What eccentric penalty are we going to do next blow criminals up with dynamite.
Gang members joining the United States Armed Forces is bad.

I believe that members of 'gangs' should be allowed to join the U.S. Military, because (no ill-feelings) most of them do have experience with a firearm. Although I highly recommend an extensive background check, I do believe that once they've served their country, they'll know better than to use their military-training to terrorize streets. If they do, they should be given a heavy penalty in court.
Gang members joining the United States Armed Forces is bad.

I have the burden of proof to demonstrate why gang members joining the U. S. Military is bad. I for one disagree with gang members joining the U. S. Military due to once the commitment of service is over. What the last words mean is that a person involved in the military has educated himself or herself to gun training knowledge, combat knowledge, knowledge into becoming a one man army. (One man army: Means no need of a partner. ) And bringing their new skills back on the streets only to do harmful things to society. The person can also teach other members of their gangs what they had learned in the military. Here I am providing proof for my argument. 1. )According to released FBI reports, Gang-related activity in the U. S. military is increasing and poses a threat to law enforcement officials and national security. 2. ) . http://abcnews.go.com... 3. ) . http://www.youtube.com...
Gang members joining the United States Armed Forces is bad.

1. Acceptance, arguments, rebuttals. 2. Closing arguments. I pro will gladly argue why Gang members joining the United States Armed Forces should be restricted. My reasoning for my argument is stated below. 1.)According to released FBI reports, Gang-related activity in the U.S. military is increasing and poses a threat to law enforcement officials and national security. 2.)Gang Activity in the U.S. Armed Forces (members) have been identified on both domestic and international military installations. 3.) There are members in the U.S. Armed Forces that in this very moment are in many notorious gang affiliation. Some in which I don't want to state due to my safety. But logic clears up that missing sentence that is not stated. 4.) One reason gang members should not be part of the Elite proud United States Military is because of what can happen once that persons contract is over, meaning violence in our communities. Now I know not all people are that way in which I'm describing therefore I support strongly in rough background checks before enlistment other than that, no gang member should participate in the U.S. Military. http://www.youtube.com... The link above is a youtube video supporting my argument. Over to Con
The Existence of God

Yahuwah, Elohim of Abraham Isaac and Jacob sent his son Y'shua to die in your place. You don't have to be afraid of judgment day if you accept him as your savior. Stop running from God. He wants you and loves you so much. He doesn't want to cause you any harm, he wants to heal your broken heart. I know there are many questions about the existence of God that were not answered in this debate. If anybody has more to ask, or wants to debate me, feel free to challenge me. But as you saw in my argument, God and Creation are not illogical or unscientific. It Is actually was logic demands. Be joyful that he is real. You can have a purpose on earth. You can know real love. Just ask him for it.