BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Guns should be banned in the USA.

UnconstitutionalYou argue that the topic of the debate makes my argument weak but 'Should' still can be influenced by 'can'. If the U.S. constitution stops the 'should' by 'cannot' then your side of the argument is knocked down. The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments of the U.S. cannot be amended (https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org...). Your sources are biased as most of them are studies made by liberal organizations. My source may be from a talk show, but he still uses statistics. Thanks and good luck to you too.
Guns should be banned in the USA.

UnconstitutionalCon argues that it is unconstitutional to ban guns in the USA. My argument to that is the topic of the debates says whether guns should be banned, even if it means it is unconstitutional. There is also the possibility of amending the constitution in the USA, even if it is highly improbable. My sources are also not biased. The source you have is biased because it is from a conservative radio show, and my 2 sources are statistics.Good luck next round!
Guns should be banned in the USA.

Thank you for making this argument!UnconstitutionalBanning guns from American citizens is unconstitutional, because i goes against the second amendment and the fact that "All citizens have the right to bear arms" (https://en.wikipedia.org...).I want to also point out your sources are biased and that there hasn't been a proven effect with gun control and gun violence (http://www.infowars.com...). If anything, American citizens should have more guns to protect themselves.
Guns should be banned in the USA.

Hello people! I will be arguing why guns should be banned in the USA. The USA has much bigger gun related deaths than any other 1st world country (1). That is kind of pathetic because the USA has the potential to be better than that. Gun control and abolishing guns overall is effective in other countries like Japan who made almost complete gun bans (2). (1) http://www.cbsnews.com... (2) http://www.gunpolicy.org... The USA has also a lot of mass murder rates overall. When there are other countries with better methods on tackling gun violence, the USA could take a lesson from the other countries policies and how effective they are. Good luck to pro!
I can solve four riddles in a row.

Lol you gave 10 in one round... DAHECK?!ANYWAYS...1) Man wrote the three words "Your exact weight" on the paper, spelt to perfection without any error or additional text.2) Gold coin3) Edam ("madE" backwards)4) E N T (eight, nine and ten bacause O T T F F S S can only stand for first seven numbers realistically)5) An egg (golden yolk)6) Water (falls at a waterfall)7) Fire Flame (you feed it oxygen and it dies if you put liquid other than oil on it)8) Was he born in room 1955 at the hospital? Was 1995 something of a postal code of the hospital? Very vague question but to answer it:1955 was his hospital room. (most likely deduction)9) Either subjective reality or your imagination (identical meaning)BECAUSE...They can soar when on drugs or imagining hardThey can see, as you can make false images, without the use of eyes.I easily could travel the universe to and fro in my subject imagined version of itYet I've never been anywhere but home, it's physical home is one's brain.10) Let me make a diagram: ---------------------------------------- | Water <WRITTEN WITH INK ON WALL ABOVE HEAD | | | ___________________________ | | O<--- HEAD OF KID | | /|\ | " | | | /\ | | _/ \_ | FLOOR --------> -----------------------------------------
I can solve four riddles in a row.

next one A boy was at a carnival and went to a booth where a man said to the boy, "If I write your exact weight on this piece of paper then you have to give me $50, but if I cannot, I will pay you $50."The boy looked around and saw no scale so he agrees, thinking no matter what the carny writes he'll just say he weighs more or less.In the end the boy ended up paying the man $50. How did the man win the bet? 2-It has a golden headIt has a golden tailbut it hasn't got a body.What is it?3- What kind of cheese is made backwards?4- What is the next 3 letters in this riddle?o t t f f s s _ _ _ 5- A box without hinges, key, or lid,Yet golden treasure inside is hid.What is it?6- Runs smoother than any rhyme, loves to fall but cannot climb!What is it?7- You feed it, it lives, you give it something to drink, it dies.What is it?8- A man was born in 1955. He's alive and well today at age 33. How is this possible? 9- I soar without wings, I see without eyes.I've traveled the universe to and fro.I've conquered the world, yet I've never been anywhere but home.Who am I? 10- A magician was boasting one day at how long he could hold his breath under water. His record was 6 minutes. A kid that was listening said, "that's nothing, I can stay under water for 10 minutes using no types of equipment or air pockets!" The magician told the kid if he could do that, he'd give him $10,000. The kid did it and won the money. Can you figure out how?
No using the letter "e": Abortion within 20 weeks of pregnancy is morally okay.

"Point 1: God will f*ck you up." This point says nothing and don't got proof. It don't support Con. "Point 2: You can stick it in a glass cylindrical thing and coldify it." WTF?! That don't support Con! "Point 3: Throw it away, adoption." Throwing away is similar to abortion. This don't support Con. Adoption is an option, but don't modify fact that abortion is OKAY as I proof'd in round 1! "Point 4: If it is born, it will gain ration and do stuff on its own, including if it is born too fast." But not until 5 months, cuz it must got viability to do birth. 5 months ain't within 10 fortnights. Up to 10 fortnights, it don't got rationality. AND up to 5 months.
No using the letter "e": Abortion within 20 weeks of pregnancy is morally okay.

<<<<>>>> Definitions Abortion: The termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus. (Merriam-Webster) Morality: A code of conduct put forward by a society. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Used to determine right and wrong. Morally okay: Permitted by morality. Not-born baby: A human child at or before week 20 after conception, assuming a normal growth rate. (my own definition) ========================================== Point 1: Not-born babys ain't conscious, nor do not-born babys got passion. A child don't start conscious until around fortnight 13 [1] and don't got pain until fortnight 15 [2]. Stuff without conscious don't got right to living; unconscious stuff has no wants or passion. Stuff that gots pain may got rights, may not, but not-born babys still can't gots pain. =========================== Point 2: Not-born babys can't do living without mama. Not-born babys can't do living without mama until 5 months post-start [3]. Mamas giving food and air. Not-born babys can't do living on own. Basically, not-born babys is part of mama's body. Body parts don't got rights; mama is domain of mama's body. ======================== Point 3: Not-born babys ain't rational. Only rational stuff got human rights. Rational stuff got logic and can grok abstract stuff such as pain and post-living. But not-born babys don't got rationality. Not-born babys cannot grok mortality of not-born babys. Not-born babys got no rational want to do living. Not-born babys don't got right to living. [1] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [2] http://www.religioustolerance.org... [3] http://www.ppacca.org...
No using the letter "e": Abortion within 20 weeks of pregnancy is morally okay.

Punk'd is a tv show and therefore is a proper noun and must be spelled that way. If you were to use it as a verb in that spelling, it would be incorrect. Proof'd is not a word nor is it a proper noun, you cannot use it and because you did, you lose. Thank you for a quick debate, vote con. [Argument Part] This was fun.
No using the letter "e": Abortion within 20 weeks of pregnancy is morally okay.

<<<<< (I used "proof'd" in the same way that one would use "punk'd".) I created a contraction which I did not think was much of a stretch. The logic used to contract "proof'd" does not apply in most cases, so it could NOT be used instead of an e in every scenario. For example, it does not work if the "e" is at the end of the word. Additionally, while I *could* use contractions more frequently and it would be valid in many cases, I only used it once. >>>>> Con's stuff has no support. His points don't work. Affirm!
No using the letter "e": Abortion within 20 weeks of pregnancy is morally okay.

This does not count as my argument part where I can't use the letter e. You cannot use proof'd. If you are going to count that as not using the letter e, then I can put an asterisk in instead of every e and will not have used the letter e. Con wins. [Argument Part] God says birth is a must. Adoption is post birth. I got nothing.
Cannibalism is inherently immoral

Given that you have not defined what it is to be moral or immoral, Pro could advance the claim that Cannibalism is inherently immoral on any number of grounds, cherry-picking from various moral philosophies to find one that fits. Divine command would be the most obvious, but Kant's philosophies could work, and Pro could basically just keep throwing until one stuck. In exchange for not doing that, I would like to amend the resolution a bit (seeing as how we have 5 rounds, I don't think it's unreasonable to sacrifice one to clarify terms). The new resolution would read: "Cannibalism is immoral by Mills' Utilitarianism except in the case of necessity for survival. " If this is acceptable, simply reply to that effect, and we can begin.
Cannibalism is inherently immoral

This'll be interesting.... (Note: I am not playing devil's advocate) First round is for Pro to present his opening argument. BOP is on Pro. I do not believe that cannibalism is inherently immoral. In anticipation of at least one argument, cannibalism does not require murder-obviously killing people and then eating them is immoral, however, I do not believe that it is immoral to eat someone who is already dead.
Cannibalism is inherently immoral

If I was unclear about the change made to the resolution, I apologize. That said, the new resolution does not include the claim that cannibalism is "inherently" immoral. According to utilitarianism, the only thing that is inherently immoral is disutility, and the only thing that is inherently moral is utility. All other things are either moral or immoral in relation to moral agents. A prion outbreak among cannibals would be far more dangerous than, say, an outbreak of mad cow disease. Why? Because with mad cow disease, for instance, the prion is transmitted from one vector to one target. The person who eats the cow is not in turn eaten, and so cannot pass the disease on to others. With kuru, however, just one person with the disease can easily pass it on to several others who eat him. This makes cannibalism unsafe as a societal practice, and therefore immoral by utilitarianism.
Cannibalism is inherently immoral

Sorry for missing the deadline. Got sidetracked.Utilitarianism holds that an action's morality can best be judged by the utility it generates. Happiness and survival are utility-positive; unhappiness and death are utility-negative.Cannibalism is utility-negative except in the case of necessity to survival. Why? Because cannibalism transfers prions. http://en.wikipedia.org...(disease)http://www.sciencedaily.com...Prions kill people. Killing people generates disutility.If cannibalism is not necessary to life, cannibalism is therefore of negative utility. QED
God Probably Doesn't Exist

There is no denying it: God is everywhere these days. From "Modern Cosmology Vs. God's Creation" [1] to "Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God", [2] the media continues to bring God to center stage. But theological discussions ought not be restricted to scientists and philosophers. Everyday, run-of-the-mill people should have their say as well. I see Debate.org as a wonderful avenue for carrying on these conversations. Here I'd like to debate anyone who is convinced on the basis of argument and evidence that God does not exist. [3] That is to say, the burden of proof will be upon the atheist, [4] and my task will be to refute his or her case for God's nonexistence. I will not be offering any theistic arguments of my own; or rather, any arguments for theism will be extra credit on my part. First, there is a 10,000 character limit. I find that debates about philosophy of religion should be given maximum space. Second, the voting period will last two weeks. Third, round one is for acceptance only. [1] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... [2] http://www.wsj.com... [3] "God" is defined generally as the God of classical theism (as opposed to the polytheistic gods of the ancient world). That is to say, God is the morally perfect, personal Creator of the universe. We're not concerned with the rather narrow definition of "a being that is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, and all-good." Rather, we're adopting a more general, commonsense definition of God, but one that still excludes Zeus, Thor, and the like. [4] "Atheist" is here defined in the traditional sense as "someone who believes that God does not exist."
Communism

ResponseMy opponent claims that in true communism, equality would be promoted and countries like China and the USSR are not true communist. However, would true communism work?Communism strives for the complete equality of all incomes, and therefore, everything. As income approaches complete equality, productivity disappears. For example: people work so they can make money to support themselves. They work driven by the incentive of making more money and succeeding. In capitalist systems, he who chooses not to work suffers the consequences while he who works receives the incentives, money, which he is working for. Human nature includes a desire to "do better" and, therefore, make more money or advance in a job. In an attempt to make more money, people are driven naturally work harder and longer, seek further education for themselves, and develop skills which distinguish them as rare talents among that labor which is available as supply. Under true communism, income is completely equal. When there is nothing to achieve by working harder or longer, people begin to become idle. People begin to work less or not work at all because there is no longer the incentive of making more money or advancing in job. When there are no workers, production drops to nothing. It will then be true that all incomes are equal but this equal income will be zero. [1]Communism's original and most basic principles deal with the rich owners and the workers or proletariats. Unfortunately for Marx's cause, a third order was coming to power and it would prove to be the larger and more powerful than either the proletariat or the capitalist aristocracy. This third middle grounds was completely misjudged by Marx and incorrectly lumped in with the bourgeois rich. Marx's entire theory was based on class struggle and a difference in these classes forcing a revolution to be followed by an "equality" of all classes (the irony: Marx and Engels were factory owners when they published the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital!). The petit-bourgeois, Marx's term for the middle class, was only to further divide the upper and working classes by an irreconcilable rift. In reality, the opposite happened and the middle class actually bridged any "rift," that is to say if there was one in the first place! The arrival of the middle class practically ruins any chance for this revolution as well as any need for it. Further it presents a variable unaccounted for simply because it fits incorrectly into the communist and socialist theory. Strange that people put faith in a theory that completely misjudges the majority of the population! [1]As you see "True communism" would not work.Economy Extend arguments.Dangers of CapitalismThe same can be said about communsim. Extend arguments from above.Sourceshttp://gopcapitalist.tripod.com...;I apoligize for this short response, as I am quite busy lately and have very little time to respond.
Communism

ResponseHuman Rights The fundamental problem with his analysis is that he is focusing on the standard American interpretation of Communism, which does not accurate describe a true Communist society. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx writes that Communist societies are those in which the state will wither away and in which people will voluntary strive together to protect all peope. This means that Communism is inherently an anarchist ideology and is does not focus on central authority as my opponent believes. His argument rests on societies like China and the USSR, but those societies are not Communist for two reasons. First, the state still exists in those nations, and by definition, Communism occurs when there is no state and we have voluntary collectivism. Second, those societies are plagued by inequality. Communism exists to promote equality, and the societies that he mentions are totalitarian State Capitalist dictatorships. That means that some people are treated as more worthy by the state than others, so equality, and therefore Communism, do not exist. In fact, a true Communist society would promote Human Rights better than a Capitalist society would because the basic tenets of Communism include respect for all human life and the promotion of human dignity. A true Communist society would work to eradicate poverty, suffering, and violence and would attempt to establish a society in which everyone can fluorish.Economy Extend the analysis about how the USSR was not Communist. Rather, it was a state capitalist society. Note that these quotas are similar to quotas that private corporations and factories created in the U.S. during the First Industrial Revolution (prior to governmental regulations) that lasted until leftists protested and advocated reform. Dangers of Capitalism Capitalism involves establishing a semi-aristocracy in which laborers are exploited for personal gain. In addition, the lack of any communal or governmental regulations renders unfettered Capitalism dangerous and intrusive. Prior to the existence of the FDA, for example, the meat packing industry packed dead rats, poisons, and other harmful and disgusting materials their meat. Clean water, seat belts in cars, and many other modern conveniences could not exist in an unfettered Capitalist society. In fact, unfettered Capitalism is not even sustainable; inevitably, lack of regulations, whether moral, communal, or governmental, leads to the destruction of the free market and the establishment of monopolies. John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company is an apt example; his corrupt practices allowed him to seize control over the entire U.S. oil market. The only reason that monopolies do not exist in the modern era is that the United States has taken measures to demolish them.
Communism

Remember, this is for intellectual purposes only, and will be a tie. Whoever votes will be countered! Argument 1: Human RightsCommunism is an idealology based on a central power, where the government has all the power. The people has to listen to the government, and the government has all the control. When people protest, events like the Tiananmen Square Massacre happens. Argument 2: EconomyUnder Communism, everyone gets equal pay, no matter what they do. During the time of the USSR, the government set unrealistically high quotas that people could not fulfill. To meet the quotas, people would work as fast as possible, resulting in sloppy products. ConclusionCommunism is not the correct way to run a country. . http://www.marxists.org...;http://history.howstuffworks.com...;http://www.sjsu.edu...; . http://news.bbc.co.uk...
todays americans would win in a fight against the spartans

My opponent lost the moment he did not define "fight", "win", "Americans" and "Spartans" as well as not providing the situation and context he is referring to. I think that the entire country of the United States would win a war against the Spartan society if they are alive today, however, I do not think that one American without any weapons would win a physical fight against 10,000 Spartans with weapons. He also does not define "win" -- "win" what? Is this an organized duel and only swords are allowed. As you have the burden of proof, I have won this debate by stating a case in which "Americans would lose in a fight against Spartans". I realize that I am using semantics and totally misconstruing your true intentions but that's what you get for making a debate which you thought you had an automatic win in.
animal testing should be banned

Actually I disagree with my opponent. Animals aren't the only way to test drugs. The science technology has improved and the scientists in U.S.A have invented CHEMO SYNTHETIC LIVER . Instead of animals we can use this ......liver to test our medicines. over a 100 million animals die each from animal testing in USA. 300 thousand animals die each year in New Zealand. Animal population is going down. Even my opponent agree that we shouldn't kill animals.
animal testing should be banned

Animal rights is something that needs to be established, sure, but animal testing is somewhat crucial to understand our Earth. Testing on animals has actually cured several human diseases, and by testing on animals we can know their struggles and how they are using natural selection to their benefit. Animals should NOT be abused in any way, but unfortunately they are the only way to not only understand their bodies, but also our bodies. I dont expect to win this debate, it's just my opinion.
Brick and mortar schooling programs are not a better form of education than online/home education.

In order to give my opponent one last fair chance to respond, I shall keep this argument short. My final argument in this debate, is one of testimony. My own testimony, which I believe truly does show the competency of home education. The truth is, I myself am homeschooled. While my opponent might say that this causes a strong bias, and that my arguments are invalid because of this. However, if this is true it is also true that my opponent himself would have an equal amount of bias based on past experience. Yet my "testimony" has been seen throughout the debate, my ability to reason well shows that I have also been trained well. Had my education been poor, so would my arguments, my research ability, and my logic. As you can see, I have been able to hold my own in these areas. While I may not "win" this debate, I have successfully demonstrated that homeschooling is truly a fine form of education, which should not be overlooked. I look foreword to seeing the final arguments of my opponent. Thank you.
Brick and mortar schooling programs are not a better form of education than online/home education.

This is a topic I have wanted to debate for some time, so thank you for bringing it to the table! I accept the challenge and will be arguing that brick-and-mortar schooling has many benefits which, by the nature of home-schooling or online learning, cannot be provided through these types of alternative learning environments. Good luck, and I look forward to reading your arguments!