BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun Control Is Still Bad

Your reason for why gun control is bad is because, it will take longer for good guys to get guns while it is easier for bad guys to get guns, as well as good guys with guns keep bad guys with guns in check. However this has been proven false because for every one time a gun is used in self defense there are at 7 times that assault has happened by a gun owner, from a governments study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... You don't seem to understand my point that when the distribution of guns is more difficult you still have to gather the parts by other means. How can the criminals obtain the guns if the citizens that don't have a record can no longer sell it to them? That is the loophole that a majority of gun owners support. Here is your source for gun owners supporting stricter background checks and closing the loopholes available. https://cdn.americanprogress.org... How about you link my the numbers that like you demand that I do. I am always able to send you a valid source that has its studies cited linked and source, again a news station is not a valid source. Gathering illegal contraband from millions of people will take more time than a couple of years. The unlimited supply of automatic weapons is due to very lenient trade market. Molotovs are still classified as a bomb under military and judicial guidelines, they are considered "poor mans grenade" or "mock fire bomb" A small number of people who pick up a gun develops violent tendencies, again it's an impulsive behavior. Good guys with guns do not keep bad guys with guns in check if 7 assaults are happening for every one crime stopped due to guns. Why is it that states with tighter gun control such as better gun storage laws have a lower rate of gun homicides? The study for gun ownership causing 4 time more inherent risk in Philadelphia I am glad that you brought up Switzerland I was waiting for that, because people have a misunderstanding about Switzerland. 2014 research shows that only 25% of citizens owns a gun, in 2005 61%. Also the big thing in Switzerland is that their gun politics is different, every citizen of Switzerland is conscripted into the Switzerland military, meaning they learn how to use and care for their gun, as well as military issues assault rifles are usually kept at home with no ammunition.
The U.S.A should intervene with military force in North Korea

Though it is entirely tempting to stop the horrible threats the North Korean's face with their government it would risk nuclear war, it would obviously result in deaths of are own people, and china would most likely not allow us to attack North Korea without some consequence. America is not the world police, but the North Korean situation would be concerning enough to take all the risks I mentioned, but there is one thing that undoubtedly would make it a foolish move, the fact that North Koreans haven"t begun to rebel against there own leader. THE RISK OF NUCLEAT WAR AND LOSS OF AMERICAN LIVES: Because North Korea is a nuclear power in the world, attacking them risks nuclear war. This is a pretty big commitment for a country so far away. Also, war is pretty. It unquestionably will end with the deaths of people in are country and North Korean civilians. AMERICA SHOULD NOT RISK WAR WITH CHINA TOO: North Korea and China are really pretty close, and china would probably not like the USA invading one of their ally"s countries. War with China and North Korea is extremely threatening. It would be useless to undergo this threat. IF WE DID HELP NORTH KOREA WE WOULD BE WASTING A LOT OF EFFORT, LIVE, AND TIME: If USA did go into North Korea we would probably win, have the motive, and be able to handle all the risks. We would have won North Korea"s war for them, but pretty soon it would be inevitable for some power to try to rise again. Because North Korea hasn"t started a revolution, the USA intervening would not help much. Without the passion to start a revolution themselves, it wouldn"t be very productive for us to go in. I"m not saying it would be easy, but until they are ready to risk life and limb and use there own kitchen knives to bring down their government America should not get involved. Once there is a mass desire for revolution absolutely America should help, but not before.
The U.S.A should intervene with military force in North Korea

I thank Con for starting this debate. Since Con leaves the military intervention open for definition, my view of a military action in North Korea would entail bombing raids of key military and federal targets, physical isolation, and a strongly surrounded "net" of anti-missile and aircraft weaponry. Therefore, my contention is that for the reason I will present in following rounds, the abuses of threat of North Korea must be responded to and dealt with in the safest and cleanest way possible.
Fox News Has a Conservative Bias

1. Covering Bill Ayers hardly shows bias. It was just a far larger and more interesting news story. Even CNN and MSNBC covered it far more: CNN has 2,550 articles about Bill Ayers[1] compared to 504 for Gordon Liddy.[2] MSNBC has 929 articles about Bill Ayers[3] compared to 171 for Gordon Liddy.[4] 2. Perhaps I missed it, but I cannot fine my opponent's source for this. Hopefully he will point it out next round so I can give an informed rebuttal. 3. I'm not sure where my opponent gets this idea. Watch the very video he posted to try to validate this! There is nothing at all to suggest that Fox attacked Obama for doing a terrorist fist jab with his wife. Just listen to the way the announcer says it, "A terrorist fist JAB? People call it ALL SORTS of things." (1) It's pretty clear to me that the woman speaking in no way took it seriously, from the tone of her voice. (2) She never says 'Obama did a terrorist fist jab.' She was responding to 'all sorts of things' that other people called it. (3) The video is only 8 seconds of commentary taken out of context and played in a loop. 4. The first parapraph of http://www.thefoxnation.com... is "Welcome to FOX Nation, a new community where all Americans are encouraged to share, discuss, and debate."[5] I would say that this shows Fox's penchant for being 'fair and balanced.' Rather than simply watching the news and being forced to hear what they want you to, this site allows discussion and debate on the key issues. If you dislike the articles being posted, you are free to disagree and have your voice heard. You'll find, though, that the reason the conservative issues might garner more support among the viewers, is because that particular demographic most often visits the site.[6] 5. As with #2, PRO (to my knowledge) hasn't given any source to confirm this. Consider this, though. How many angry liberals would be protesting at the proposal of the new bill? The conservative protesters were the only ones that got air time because they were the only ones that did anything extreme in the face of the bill. 6. PRO's link brings me to a page with an error message. 7. a. Neither clip truly misrepresents anything. Even the liberal estimate of the event was 10,000+ people. The relevant footage showed a fraction of that at best. So, how does a bit of footage of 1-3,000 people falsely testify to the size of a protest of 10-45,000 people? b. For those who don't memorize old footage of healthcare reform protests, it's not exactly easy to catch the slip up. I would imagine this is a botched job on the part of some editor on the Fox News team, not some larger malicious conspiracy (to what gain?) and certainly not some biased broadcasting. 8. Sorry again but, like previous examples, I can't find a sourse for this. [1] http://www.google.com...= [2] http://www.google.com...= [3] http://www.google.com...= [4] http://www.google.com...= [5] http://www.foxnews.com... [6] http://www.quantcast.com...
Fox News Has a Conservative Bias

Examples of FNC Bias. 1. During the 2008 Election FNC constantly covered Obama's relationship with Domestic Terrorist Bill Ayers. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... But FNC Rarely Mentioned John McCain's relationship with Gordon Liddy a man who was Conspiracy, Burglary, Illegal Wire tapping and had a big role in the watergate scandal. He spent 4.5 years in prison. Mccain said "I'm not in any way embarrased to know Gordon Liddy". Fox never covered it in fact on Bill O'reillys on radio show O'reilly yelled at a caller for mentioning him. http://www.youtube.com... 2. Fox attacked Jay-Z and Yong Jezzy for making the song " My President is black " which praised Obama. But Never mentioned Conservative Radio host Rush Limbaugh when he sang "Barack the magic Negro". 3. Fox attacked Obama for something as ridicoulous as a fist bump even calling it a terrorist fist jab. http://www.youtube.com... But FNC said nothing when Palin did a interview on a chicken farm and there was a chicken being slaughtered in the backround. 4. http://www.thefoxnation.com... a opinion website ran by FNC has posted talking pages with titles such as "Are we watching a failed presidency", "Obama bows again is he are most embarrasing president", "why is Obama still in Hawaii". Those are just 3 of many and there are extremely few posts attacking conservatives and most of them involve a liberal in some way. 5. FNC has had numerous town hall protesters on their programing never arguing with anything they said. 6. Fox didn't send a camera crew to a gay rights protest with over 10,000 people but sent a camera crew to a much smaller protest that was allready over and empty. http://www.thedailyshow.com...- 7. Hannity changed video footage to make a anti health reform protest look bigger. http://www.thedailyshow.com... 8. On April 15th Fox sent Hannity, Beck, Van Sustren, and Cavuto to do live shows at TEA party protests, thats 4 hours of Obama bashing. I'll just post those 8 for now.
Fox News Has a Conservative Bias

Bias: •influence in an unfair way; "you are biasing my choice by telling me yours" Certain people on Fox News whose names end in -enn Beck might be biased, but this doesn't necessarily reflect Fox News's views as a whole. I don't believe that Fox's portrayal of current events is in any way unfair, I see no reason to assume such absent a reason given by PRO, so I'll await his arguments showing Fox to be biased.
Dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

My opponent's resolution is somewhat incorrect, although the meaning is fairly clear (there were very different bombs used). He makes the contention that: 1) The Japanese were about to surrender anyway. 2) America didn't know what the bomb would do & thus it was essentially a new toy. ************************** On the first point, Japan was warned on July 26, 1945 that it must surrender or face "prompt and utter destruction" This warning detailed the exact terms of the surrender agreement and outlined the penalty for refusal (http://www.ndl.go.jp...). Japan responded with the term "mokusatsu," which is literally "sliencekill" or the notion that the idea of surrender was so ludicrous that it would die in silence and contempt. Clearly, the Japanese were NOT about to surrender. On the second point, the development of the atom bomb had been ongoing since the 1930's and in earnest since the Manhattan Project was started in 1939. Thus, the world's best scientists had been working on this problem for anywhere from 6-15 years. They had a complete understanding of what the bomb would do. In fact, memos of the War Department completely describe the effects of the bomb (http://www.pbs.org...) and on top of that, Truman received a detailed report of the effects of the bomb after Trinity exploded at Alamagordo (http://www.presidentialtimeline.org...). Thus, it is clear that those with the power to make military decisions in the US had full knowledge of what the bomb could and would do. To suggest that the average citizen need be informed is ludicrous - the Manhattan project was of the utmost secrecy, and chances are great that the public wouldn't understand the effects of the bomb ANYWAY without actually seeing it used, which would have terrible military repercussions, especially if Germany were to realize that Oppenheimer had lied about the specifics of constructing a bomb and make one themselves. Clearly, it is not the case that the Americans didn't have full knowledge of the bomb. ***************************** Two arguments for using the bomb: 1) Utilitarianism The estimated casualties of an invasion of the Japanese archipelago vary greatly, but the general consensus seems to be that more than a million persons would have died, and possibly FAR MORE than that, as the Japanese government had approved a draft measure that could have increased their available military manpower by 28 MILLION. By contrast, the atomic bombs have killed fewer than 500,000. 2) Demonstration to Germany (and other nations). The Germans were very close to successfully testing their own atomic weapon, and the demonstration in Japan showed the Germans that the Americans both had a bomb and were willing to use it. Regardless of the fact that the German military had surrendered, if Nazi scientists had discovered how to make a bomb, Germany would have quickly regained all of their lost ground in Europe. ************************************** So far, I have completely refuted my opponents contentions and provided arguments that he will subsequently have to refute. AFFIRMED.
Dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

I think it was totally unecassary to drop the atom bomb on Japan as they were about to surrender anyway and it killed so many people, I also believe that America didn't have full knowledge of the atom bomb, so it was a case of 'I've found something that we can throw at them.' Of course Japan was not totally innocent, as they commited some henious crimes (Pearl Harbour) and I'm not going to argue that Japan was right when it so clearly wasn't (siding with Hitler) but I did not think it was a good idea to drop the atom bomb on Japan.
Religion shouldn't be taken out of/banned from schools

People are exposed to different belief and religious systems, even in the classroom, I don't support SJW culture. However, religion needs to stay in clubs not classrooms. We can teach people to respect other beliefs But when you go in depth like you say, controversy emerges. We can't talk about Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, etc, without talking about faith or popular belief. With these differences, there are many cases of controversy that come with it. (Ex. A parent who doesn't want their kids to learn about paganism. ) There are thousands of religions, and we can't cover them all. Thus, many people are going to complain about having no representation in schools, this leads to less resources, time, and money as schools try to fill in that void and demand and teach kids about different religions. (What use is there in teaching a Satanist about Christianity? None, all it does is create controversy. ) ALL THAT TIME AND EFFORT COULD HAVE BEEN SPENT ON SOMETHING MORE PRACTICAL. Besides there is NO evidence that points to people like Jesus being historical figures (look up historical inconsistencies in the bible). The same can be said for most other prophets. So essentially what you have here is a proven controversial topic in classrooms that is proven to hurt schools, with no practical use in real life what so ever, and above all else a hypothetical situation. (As you yourself admit that religious practice is encouraged in schools. ) Finally, if people are already given these opportunities to learn about other cultures such as in clubs, they would have done so already. Unfortunately, there are not many people who are willing to open their mind and actually care about what you believe. For example, in my school, I am always called an atheist even though I am an agnostic. I have always drawn a line as to what the difference is, but at the end of the day all most people care about is their own beliefs.
Religion shouldn't be taken out of/banned from schools

I never said that religion was necessarily discouraged. I am a member of FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes), so I understand that there are clubs and such to practice in. I understand there are churches. I wholly agree in the separation of church and state for the most part. What I am saying is that a lot of schools, especially in my community, have begun to shift away from religious history in history/social studies classes. More and more of our curriculum is becoming politically correct. (I have more in the comment section). I'm not saying we need to take region classes, I am saying that religious history is cultural history. Ancient history revolves around religion. No matter what your beliefs are, this is undeniably true. I think that subjects like history, especially when dealing with The Middle Ages, The Renaissance, and ancient Asia wouldn't be the same without going in depth with religion. You can't say they did it "for religious reasons" without actually explaining the beliefs they followed. I know about the Satanism movement, and I know it caused outrage. The hard part is is that the schools can't appear to be swaying the children to believe a certain way. Instead of saying "Charlie worships _____ and that is good/bad" we instead teach it historically. As in, who was Buddha? Jesus? Moses? Men that are important historically, but won't sway someone's religious views.
Religion shouldn't be taken out of/banned from schools

First off, I'd like to introduce myself. Hello, my username on this site is Faust, and I would humbly disagree with your stance. To begin, I would like to clear a common misconception that you have, religious practice is NOT discouraged but encouraged. There are various clubs for any student who wishes to express their beliefs with other people, and those clubs span from middle school up to college, (I know this from personal experience and from clear cut data.) And I agree with you to some extent it is the first amendment right that allows for expression of religion, or expression of a different stance on the topic. You can practice your religion in your church, home, club , etc. However, I do not agree when you say that religious practice should be taught in school because there are many beliefs out there, and not only is this IMPOSING your beliefs upon somebody but it could lead to some uncomfortable situations. Imagine this, a few years ago an anti-religious movement started that sought to teach satanism (actual occult satanism to children across the country.) This caused an outrage, because of the disagreements in religious practice not only will teaching religion in class cause conflict and divide between students, it will cause controversy between parents, and will not help the learning experience progress. For all of this reasons I humbly disagree with your stance. Thank You https://thesatanictemple.com... Here is the campaign mentioned in my argument https://www.google.com... Here is the schools response to all the controversy, as you can see, teaching religion in class would help outright ban any religous practice in schools. That is why what you porpose is a bad idea.
Religion shouldn't be taken out of/banned from schools

Religious education should not be taken out of schools., although there does need to be a separation of church and state, students need to be exposed to many different types of cultures and beliefs systems, even if they do not believe the same things. My school has a moment of silence in the morning for those who wish to pray, and I take advantage of it every day. I love learning about other religions, even though I am strong in my own beliefs. I do not believe that it offends me or others by doing so. Many social studies classes have shifted away form the religious curriculum to be politically correct. This is not okay. Humans evolved with religion, regardless your personal stances.
The Theory of Evolution is true

The Theory of Evolution is split up into two sub-categories:Microevolution "Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population." [1]Macroevolution/ Speciation"The formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution." [2]I will be defending both microevolution, and macroevolution/ speciation.By evolution is true", I simply mean that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming, that it would be outrageous to deny it once confronted with the evidence. First round is for acceptance. Sources[1] [http://evolution.berkeley.edu...[2] http://www.britannica.com...;
Intelligent Design is the most likely to be true hypothesis for the origin of life.

At the core of my objection to their argument is that it appeals to ignorance. We don't know how (x). .. .. .. .. .. .. .. therefore intelligent design. Once again I repeat Pros stated premises. .. .. .. .. .. "3. We have no scientific understanding of how functional DNA can arise by natural means. " "4. Therefore it is logical to conclude that an ID explanation for the origin of life is the hypothesis most likely to be true. "" As far as I am concerned this should end this line of reasoning. Never the less Pro maintains their argument is justified and uses a crater investigation as an example, and tells us that the line of reasoning is the same in both cases. .. .. .. .. .. .it isn't. In the crater example the people are forming inferences upon what they do know about craters. When it comes to DNA, Pro is forming their intelligent design inference on what they/we don't know about DNA. As I pointed out before, all human made things by the very nature of the case are intelligently designed. Pro's argument contains an element that is eerily similar to the more standard arguments for intelligent design, you have probably heard it before it goes something like this. .. .. .. .cars, buildings, paintings are complex and intelligently designed a human being/or some aspect of the natural world is complex or even more complex, therefore they are intelligently designed too. Quite simply Pro has not being able to show that DNA it's self requires intelligent design, Pro just creates the category of "type of code" put's in human made things which of course must be intelligently designed and hopes you transfer the intelligent design characteristic from the man made things to the non man made thing, in this case DNA. I maintain that Pro has not being able to justify that DNA is more likely to be the result of intelligent design.