BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S !

Enacting more gun laws in the United States would not stop crimes or dangerous situations from occurring. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences, Justice Department, there is no apparent link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence, or even accidents with guns. Creating such laws would not stop criminals from committing crimes. As John R Lott, the author of "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws", stated in 1998, "States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes". In other words, increasing the number of guns did not increase the rate of violent crimes but instead decreased. With this, it is clear that people should be able to own guns because doing so prevents more crimes from occurring than actual gun laws. University of Chicago Press. (1998). Interview with John R. Lott, Jr. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://press.uchicago.edu... WND. (2004, December 30). Gun control doesn't reduce crime, violence, say studies. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://mobile.wnd.com...
There should more gun laws enacted in the U.S !

There should be more gun laws enacted in the U.S! Armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are more likely to make dangerous situations, including mass shootings, more deadly. The average gun owner, no matter how responsible, is not trained in law enforcement or on how to handle life-threatening situations, so in most cases, if a threat occurs, increasing the number of guns only creates a more volatile and dangerous situation. According to the Los Angeles times, author Patt Morrison states in his article that was posted on August 2, 2017 that Americans who carry "heat" increase the rate of violent crime. After reviewing these articles and doing research it is clear to me that armed civilians are more likely to cause dangerous situations rather than protecting theirselves or others. 1.) Jeffrey Voccola, "Why I Don't Want Guns in My Classroom," www.chronicle.com, Oct. 14, 2014 2.) Does carrying a gun make you safer? No. In fact, right-to-carry laws ... http://www.latimes.com...
"High power", "Assault rifle" and "weapons of war" are all misnomers applied to the AR15

"First off, I specifically stated that I only wanted to go over 1 term per round, but that's ok. " Sorry, I missed that part, but at least this way we can debate topics more thoroughly "Because if you compared every firearm in existence, they would all outperform a bow and arrow" False, a composite bow or long bow does outperform entry level muskets in terms of reload speed as well as range and accuracy. That's besides the point though--the AR15 can be considered high powered compared to many weapons including assault rifles. Some assault rifles make the AR15 look low powered. Anyways, pro still hasn't shown how high power is in fact a misnomer. The AR15 is high powered enough to do hunting as well kill; thus the AR15 is high powered in some situations. "The real AR15 has never set foot on the battlefield, therefore, it is not a "weapon of war"." I highly doubt that pro can prove that an AR15 was never seen on a battlefield since its creation in 1959. For the millions of units sold of AR15s, it is highly likely that at least one AR15 was used in some battle between nations; perhaps in third world countries that aren't documented well. Pro makes the assertion that the AR15 has never set food in the battlefield without providing proof that this has always been the case. "Also, the AR15 we have today, which is practically the same AR15 that's been around for the past 50 years, is not used by any military in the world. Why? Because it is semi-automatic. Semi-automatic rifles are not the preferred choice of soldiers going into combat." Again, how can you make the claim that AR15 has not been used by any military in the world, even one unit? Provide some proof that AR15s have not been used by any military; millions of units have been sold and pro doesn't think that at least one was used in a military conflict. I see no issues with semi automatic rifles, since they help to conserve ammunition, which can be helpful in certain circumstances. Provide proof that all militaries think that semi automatic weapons are inferior to automatic weapons. I'd also like to mention that con's definition of assault rifle is from a concise encyclopedia, which he choose because it fits his argument well; however, according to the first definition that is actually from Merriam Webster, it can be defined as "Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE : any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use " They keyword here is "or", which means that assault rifles don't have to be fully automatic to be considered assault rifles. This is the first definition given by merriam webster, which contradicts the concise encyclopedia definition provided by pro in the comments. Source- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
"High power", "Assault rifle" and "weapons of war" are all misnomers applied to the AR15

First off, I specifically stated that I only wanted to go over 1 term per round, but that's ok. Also, interesting that you would compare the AR15 to a bow and arrow. Because if you compared every firearm in existence, they would all outperform a bow and arrow, but still being weaker than a nuke, thereby fitting the category of high-powered as explained by con. So in order for it to be considered high-powered, it would have to be compared to another firearm. I would also like to state that the M4/M16 and the AR15 are not the same thing. The M4/M16 have different internal mechanics that allow it to go full auto, whereas the AR15 is only semi-automatic. Thereby it fails the definition of assault rifle. Also, the AR15 we have today, which is practically the same AR15 that's been around for the past 50 years, is not used by any military in the world. Why? Because it is semi-automatic. Semi-automatic rifles are not the preferred choice of soldiers going into combat. Yes I suppose you could go to war with it, but no one has. The real AR15 has never set foot on the battlefield, therefore, it is not a "weapon of war"
"High power", "Assault rifle" and "weapons of war" are all misnomers applied to the AR15

Thanks pro for starting off this discussion. According to wikipedia the AR-15 is defined as "The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as an assault rifle for the United States armed forces. [8] Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire version of the AR-15 entered the U.S. military system as the M16 rifle." http://en.wikipedia.org... By my definition of AR-15, the AR-15 is indeed an assault riffle similar to the m16. In addition, "The rifle was adapted for semi-automatic, three-round burst, and full-automatic fire" This fits my opponents definition of ""Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire." Therefore, the AR-15 is indeed an assault rifle according to my opponents definitions as well as the ones I have provided. Next, I will prove that the AR-15 is high powered. Relative to a bow and arrow, the AR-15 has substantially higher kinetic energy in each bullet than an arrow from a bow would have. Thus, the AR-15 can be considered high powered in various situations. Compared to a nuclear weapon, no assault rifle would be considered "high powered." My point is that high powered depends on the relative context it is being compared to. From merriam webster a war can be defined as- a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : A weapon can be defined as any object which can cause harm, including a club, a rock, or a bow and arrow. Therefore, since the AR15 was used by the US military, and is also an object that can cause harm, which can be used in a hostile armed conflict between nations, the AR-15 is definitely a weapon of war by definition. Pro has cited various facts about the AR15, but hasn't proved how the various terms in the debate proposition are in fact misnomers. My definitions show that neither of the terms used above are misnomers.
"High power", "Assault rifle" and "weapons of war" are all misnomers applied to the AR15

Sorry, I just posted them in the comments. First off, the AR15 is chambered in the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO cartridge. The average bullet weight of this cartridge is between 55 and 62 grains.Since the dimensions of the cartridge are so close that the difference is negligible, I will simply refer to both as the .223. The .223 is an intermediate cartridge, which means that it is not as powerful as a true rifle cartridge, but not as weak as a handgun cartridge (1). The .223 is a common round among hunters because it is cheap and a good round for varmint. When compared side by side to a true rifle cartridge like a .30-06(which has an average weight of 150 grains) for example, the difference is force is apparent (2) At 100yards the .223 has 0.0017 of drop, with a speed of 2759 feet per second and 929 foot pounds of energy. At 100 yards the 30-06 has 0.0014 of drop, with a speed of 2597 feet per seconds and 2471 foot pounds of energy. 1.http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk... 2.http://gundata.org...
"High power", "Assault rifle" and "weapons of war" are all misnomers applied to the AR15

Misnomer- noun a wrong or inaccurate name or designation: "king crab" is a misnomer"these creatures are not crustaceans at all. " a wrong or inaccurate use of a name or term: to call this "neighborhood policing" would be a misnomer. Taken from the New Oxford American Dictionary. First round is acceptance(no opening statements) . Each subsequent round is for one of the above labels
This is not a debate.

Replies 1. " In a real debate, people don't go off topic like that. " I disagree. " in his next argument entertained my comments about tarantulas, by disagreeing with me that they were scary and monstrous. Therefore we were having a conversation and not a debate, because I couldn't even stick to the topic" Pro contends that the definition of debate it "And, finally I would like to remind my opponent that the definition of a debate is having opposing viewpoints. " Thus, since I disagreed with what pro said we had opposing views. So this is a debate. Whether or not it is a debate over a specific topic is irrelevant. 2. "There has been a pathetic lack of clash in this non-debate" You can vote Con. Pro agrees that there has been some clash, so this is a debate. " As I said earlier, once you take all the arguing out of a debate, it ceases to be a debate but instead becomes a discussion. " Problem: We've been bickering over definitions this entire debate, thus we have been arguing. " In a debate, 2 people have opposing sides and try to prove why their side is right. I failed to do that in this non-debate" Pro doesnt prove this claim.3. "However, he was not disputing the subject at hand( whether or not this is a debate) he was simply disputing my off-topic rambling about tarantulas and other irrelevant stuff " Talk about irrelevant! You've defined a debate as "having opposing viewpoints", and I disputed your statements. Your definition proves that this is a debate. Who cares if it's about the subect at hand? "Notice how my opponent is making an attempt to argue with me, but I have not made any effort at all in this non-debate" Problem: You've made statements, I've disagreed. Opposing viewponts=debate. Also of note:My definition was dropped by my opponent, extend that. My evidence of this being a debate was dropped, extend that.
This is not a debate.

I am now going to provide reasons why this isn't a debate 1) In my previous argument, I strayed off topic and starting saying a bunch of random things about tarantulas, usernames, and pictures of ducks. In a real debate, people don't go off topic like that. I want to point out that my opponent in his next argument entertained my comments about tarantulas, by disagreeing with me that they were scary and monstrous. Therefore we were having a conversation and not a debate, because I couldn't even stick to the topic 2) There has been a pathetic lack of clash in this non-debate. As I said earlier, once you take all the arguing out of a debate, it ceases to be a debate but instead becomes a discussion. In a debate, 2 people have opposing sides and try to prove why their side is right. I failed to do that in this non-debate. During both Round 1 and Round 2, I didn't challenge anything my opponent said, I simply started talking about tarantulas, and said "I agree with everything my opponent says" 3) My opponent says that he has disputed everything I said, therefore this is a debate. However, he was not disputing the subject at hand( whether or not this is a debate) he was simply disputing my off-topic rambling about tarantulas and other irrelevant stuff that nobody cares about. Also, my opponent did dispute what I said, yes, but the disputing and the arguments are one-sided. Notice how my opponent is making an attempt to argue with me, but I have not made any effort at all in this non-debate. And, finally I would like to remind my opponent that the definition of a debate is having opposing viewpoints. Since I have been continuously insisting that the voters vote for my opponent, and my opponent also wants them to vote for him/her, then this can not be a debate because we both want the voters to vote for thett3. I therefore affirm the resolution that "This is not a debate. " Vote Con. I look forward to my opponent's reply.
This is not a debate.

" I mean, they LITERALLY look like little beasties." No they dont they're cool!!!!!! " They have too many legs" No trust me, having 8 legs rules. " and they're all hairy and gross." I disagree." I had a dream when I was little that there was this tarantula, and it started out with 8 legs, but as time went by the amount of legs it had doubled, until there was nothing but a tangled mass of hairy legs. Ever since then, I acquired a hatred for tarantulas and just spiders in general." You're making tht up."By the way, how did you come up with your username? What does "thett3" mean?" It's based off something I called myself when I was a small child. "Oh yea, I forgot about that interaction we were having that isn't a debate." Is so!! "I agree with everything my opponent said" I said earlier (R1): "This is indeed a debate. " So vote Con. ". My opponent is an astoundingly intelligent woman" I'm not a woman! I'm a guy!!I have disputed everything my Opponent has said.This is a debate.More evidence:" chesslvr is debating thett3: This is not a debate.58 minutes ago"" chesslvr wants to debate the following topic: This is not a debate.1 hour ago"" chesslvr's Debates"" 1 Debate" http://www.debate.org...
This is not a debate.

The duck in your picture is really cute. Don't you hate tarantulas? They look absolutely monstrous. I mean, they LITERALLY look like little beasties. They have too many legs, and they're all hairy and gross. I had a dream when I was little that there was this tarantula, and it started out with 8 legs, but as time went by the amount of legs it had doubled, until there was nothing but a tangled mass of hairy legs. Ever since then, I acquired a hatred for tarantulas and just spiders in general. By the way, how did you come up with your username? What does "thett3" mean? Oh yea, I forgot about that interaction we were having that isn't a debate. I agree with everything my opponent said Vote Con. Don't vote for me. My opponent is an astoundingly intelligent woman, who has come up with such solid, undisputable arguments, that I can not even challenge them. I look forward to my opponent's reply.
This is not a debate.

Why this is a debate(i)My Opponent concedes to all my points in an attempt to show that this is not a debate because no dispute is happening. The problem with this is that my arguments proved that this was a debate. (ii) Secondly, my opponent states: "I would first like to point out that my opponent is right about everything, except his definition of a debate. Not only did my opponent not provide any sources for this so-called definition, but it is not correct."I think my definition is perfect, and better than all of hers. You have to vote con, my definition is 10 times better.(iii) "My opponent then says that buttons such as "Report this Debate", "Do you like this debate", and "No comments have been posted on this debate" prove that it is a debate. I suppose he's right. He will get no argument from me." Vote Con.(iv)"Notice how, because I have not challenged any of my opponent's points, and I agreed that it IS a debate, and my opponent also thinks it's a debate, it therefore really isn't a debate, because there is no clash." Problem- The resolution is "This is not a debate" you are taking Pro. You can't argue that it is a debate or else your position is self contradicting. (v)" Another thing I would like to point out is that my opponent does not have the following things in his opening argument: a value, contentions, and a criteria. Since these are all crucial parts of a debate, this can't be a debate." Did so. Look closer!(vi) "Everything he says is right." I'm female.
This is not a debate.

This should be interesting. I am new to this website, so don't have too high expectations of me. I would first like to point out that my opponent is right about everything, except his definition of a debate. Not only did my opponent not provide any sources for this so-called definition, but it is not correct. Dictionary. com defines debate as, and I quote, "a formal contest in which the affirmative sides and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers" Another definition says "a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints. I wholeheartedly agree with my opponent that this in fact a debate, because we have opposing viewpoints. One of us is arguing that this IS a debate, and one of us is arguing that it ISN'T. We have opposing viewpoints, so this must be a debate. My opponent then says that buttons such as "Report this Debate", "Do you like this debate", and "No comments have been posted on this debate" prove that it is a debate. I suppose he's right. He will get no argument from me. Notice how, because I have not challenged any of my opponent's points, and I agreed that it IS a debate, and my opponent also thinks it's a debate, it therefore really isn't a debate, because there is no clash. The whole point of debating is to argue on something, and I'm not arguing with anything he says. Another thing I would like to point out is that my opponent does not have the following things in his opening argument: a value, contentions, and a criteria. Since these are all crucial parts of a debate, this can't be a debate. I look forward to my opponent's reply. Please vote for him. Everything he says is right.
This is not a debate.

This is indeed a debate. Pro hasn't defined debate, so I'm going to.Definition of debate: A form of interaction on debate.org that can appear on the first page, not the forums or a privaste message. Heres some evidence: I am shown these things when looking at this page:" Report this Debate"" Do you like this debate?"" This debate has 8 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.""No comments have been posted on this debate."" Debating Period"
Con Will Not Forfeit First

Yes you did forfeit, and I do agree with what you say about last coming after first. However you are not the last one to forfeit nor the first to forfeit; you are the ONLY person to have forfeited. There was no other forfeit before or after your own, meaning you can't be first to forfeit. A parent with one child might say 'he is my first kid' to express he wants more kids. The parent may even say 'he is my last kid' to express he doesn't want another kid. However by expressing his feelings in this way he'd cause other more rational people to think he has other children, because last comes after first, and first comes before last.
Whether or not the prophecies in the bible can be used as evidence for the existence of god

Because I don't have to address the prophecies my opponent has shown to win, I wont (I was simply testing if you're rambling in the first place). Though I'm strongly unsatisfied with what you've presented. "Why" should be partly explained in the further paragraphs. Time: Cons argument fails when one considers the background of the the writers. For example Hosea was born before Jesus was. He had no idea that America existed and one must remember in the times he lived something like electricity or even visiting Europe was almost inconceivable. There is no doubt that the "how" question couldn't be answered in his times nor could be answered by the generation which followed and so forth for a long amount of time. I suppose he thought that it would be done by some extravagant miracle. Explanation: "The American and Western European governments knew about the prophecy and took it upon themselves to make it happen." For non-believers this is needed furthermore this is a great statement hence some strong evidence would be needed. Not only you have to prove that it was encouraged but that it was also strongly supported. The evidence for the contrary is found in the BBC website. I must remind you that I'm not talking about the relationship USA and Israel share now but we're talking about the times when it was established, some time before and after. The Odds when accepting what my opponent said as true: Let BBC do the explanations for me: http://news.bbc.co.uk... also: http://www.suite101.com... I feel a bit of resentment for not building a cumulative case but this shouldn't hinder me much. It is my stance that the return of the Jews is extremely improbable and couldn't have been predicted by "mathematics and astronomy" especially by a man living over 2000 years ago. The more prophecies one includes the more obvious this becomes but I think that this one prophecy is more than enough.
Whether or not the prophecies in the bible can be used as evidence for the existence of god

Very well, I will provide my opponent with the requested examples and sources, but I will limit it to three of them so as not to take too much time. 1. Well known author Ray Bradbury, in his book Fahrenheit 451 (1953), painted a mental picture of a future world with eerie similarities to the one we live in today. First off, he spoke of banks having automated tellers that were in operation 24 hours a day. Secondly, several of the homes had wall televisions similar to the hanging plasma TVs we have today, and some highly expensive homes even have full-size wall TVs nearly identical to the ones in Bradbury's book. Finally the book spoke of voting via the television such as is done today on various reality shows. 2. http://www.edgarcayce.org... is a summary of many of Edgar Cayce's prophecies. 3.http://forums.abrahadabra.com... is a similar collection of prophecies as above, but from the Mayan civilization. Concerning my opponent's argument about the return of Israel as a nation and the Jews' return, my rebuttal is simply that it is a perfect example of prophecy causing reality. The American and Western European governments knew about the prophecy and took it upon themselves to make it happen. The same could be said of the Jews' willingness to return. They knew it was supposed to happen, so they went along with it. The predictions were made in the Old Testament which, as I'm sure my opponent is aware, is almost exactly the Torah, word for word, so the Jews had easy access to the same prophecy.