BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

"However, I said that because the government is granting federal officials the right to do things that are against the law, they are essentially "above the law," as a governmental official is "above the law" when he has the right to break the law, and the laws don't apply to government officials." Above the law (police being ALLOWED to run red lights if deemed necessary to perform their duties) is clearly not the same as outside the law (me running a red light because I feel like it). The very link my opponent cited [1] for the definition for outlaw makes this quite clear. The police are IMMUNE from laws when on duty, and therefore it is impossible to break them. 'Outlaw' is distinctively defined to mean one who is breaking the law, and needless to say that doesn't apply to police officers who are required to carry guns for their job. I see no reason to address the rest of my opponent's argument, because it is a repeat of the same semantics he's exhibited throughout the debate, and which I've already rebutted. He also uses a definition from the urban dictionary to prove whatever point he feels he has, which is a basic source fail. My opponent's entire argument has relied on semantically trying to equate the immunity police officers have against the law with the act of breaking the law. He has stretched his definition of outlaw as "outside the law" far beyond where it should be stretched, as is obvious when he resorts to saying "The policemen are outlaws, by definition", and other such clear contradictions. This is the equivalent of me saying that the word 'philosophy' means "love of wisdom", and then conclude that everyone who loves wisdom is in fact a philosopher. Or if I tell you that the word 'democracy' literally means 'popular government', and then conclude that in a democracy ALL governments are popular. It is taking the base literal meaning of a word and twisting to suit a resolution which, in this case, I've shown quite simply to be wrong. Police officers will continue to carry guns in a society which bans them, yet they will not be outlaws by any reasonable definition of the word. Vote CON. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

"Using your definition of outlaw, I showed quite simply that because police officers (NOT outside the law) will continue to own guns when they are outlawed, then not 'ONLY outlaws will have guns' when guns are outlawed. " However, I said that because the government is granting federal officials the right to do things that are against the law, they are essentially "above the law," as a governmental official is "above the law" when he has the right to break the law, and the laws don't apply to government officials. . http://www.urbandictionary.com... "6. police power This means that the police can do what ever the hell they want to keep you from breaking the law even though they can. to make sure that i did not another speeding ticket the police wrote me an extremely high ticket so that when i paid it i would be broke. Therefore i would not have a car to speed in anymore. That is police power. " There. Police fit the definition of "outlaw" when they are "above the law," which, in this case, they are. "Both of these points are obviously garbage. Let's take Australia as a recent example of a country who has explicitly outlawed gun ownership. The police officers in Australia are still required to carry guns. " So in Australia, policemen are "above the law," and thus, "outside the law. " "This gives us a recent, real-world example of the fact that when guns are outlawed in a country, it won't ONLY be outlaws who possess guns. " The policemen are outlaws, by definition. "I have negated my opponent's semantic argument by using his own simple definitions, and have also given a recent example of a country who DID outlaw guns and how that country's gun-owning populace DOESN'T consist solely of outlaws. " This fails once the connection is made between policemen and outlaws.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

"My definition of outlaw was one who is "outside the law."" Errm... right. I'm not disputing that. Using your definition of outlaw, I showed quite simply that because police officers (NOT outside the law) will continue to own guns when they are outlawed, then not "ONLY outlaws will have guns" when guns are outlawed. This clearly and effectively negates the resolution. This is open and close stuff. --- "If guns are outlawed, policemen have either two choices: 1. Turn in their guns like everyone else. There is no reason for the banning of something not to include policemen. 2. Keep their guns. In this way, they and the government that operates them elevate themselves "above the law" by not following their own laws, which is what the countries described by my opponent do. And being "above the law" is "outside the law."" Both of these points are obviously garbage. Let's take Australia as a recent example of a country who has explicitly outlawed gun ownership. The police officers in Australia are still required to carry guns. [1] This gives us a recent, real-world example of the fact that when guns are outlawed in a country, it won't ONLY be outlaws who possess guns. I have negated my opponent's semantic argument by using his own simple definitions, and have also given a recent example of a country who DID outlaw guns and how that country's gun-owning populace DOESN'T consist solely of outlaws. Vote CON. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

My definition of outlaw was one who is "outside the law." "While I agree entirely with this assertion, my opponent has made a fatal flaw in his argument; he forgot about police officers and the fact that they can still own and carry guns even in countries where guns are entirely outlawed." If guns are outlawed, policemen have either two choices: 1. Turn in their guns like everyone else. There is no reason for the banning of something not to include policemen. 2. Keep their guns. In this way, they and the government that operates them elevate themselves "above the law" by not following their own laws, which is what the countries described by my opponent do. And being "above the law" is "outside the law." So, either way, anyone who has a gun is an outlaw, because either they are outside the law with guns, or within the law without. Anyone who disobeys the law is outside the law, and thus an outlaw, and that would include police officers.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Thanks to Mongeese for starting this debate. My opponent has attempted to affirm the resolution that "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. " His one and only argument to back this claim up was: "People within the law would be required to give up their guns. Outlaws, people outside the law, would simply continue to resist the law as always, and keep their guns. " While I agree entirely with this assertion, my opponent has made a fatal flaw in his argument; he forgot about police officers and the fact that they can still own and carry guns even in countries where guns are entirely outlawed. Police officers are not ALL outlaws, yet all of them will still be allowed (required) to own, carry and operate guns. We can therefore conclude with certainty that were guns outlawed, it wouldn't be ONLY outlaws who have guns. It's a bit early to claim a win, but what the hell.
"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

I affirm the resolution, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Gun - http://en.wikipedia.org... Outlawed - made illegal (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Outlaw - one who is "outside the law" (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Reasoning: People within the law would be required to give up their guns. Outlaws, people outside the law, would simply continue to resist the law as always, and keep their guns. I thank whoever accepts this debate.
Cigarettes should be illegal

Smoking is a individual choice that someone makes that is considered a risk. Our actions either if it is smoking,drinking,eating,or getting a tan will give us a chance we will die. Nobody is pointing a gun at someone and is forcing someone to smoke. If we ban smoking we are banning private households and business we are denying the right to choose if they want there building in which they own to be a smoke house or a non smoking house. Why it is our business to dictate if that person has the right to smoke in there own households. We are demoralizing someone because they made the individual choice to smoke. Personal responsibility is a role we all have to take. If the smoker choose to stop smoking they can take rehab,reduce the amount of cigarettes there smoking. In fact smoking rates has been going down. We just gotta give them the individual choice to smoke.
Cigarettes should be illegal

I wanna offer my sincere condolences to my opponents father. I will use this round to refute my opponent. "But if it is illegal it will reduce the number of smokers and therefore lowering the number of deaths".I agree on if you ban cigarettes it will cause less deaths but you can ban anything that can risk human life.Again such as alcohol if we ban alcohol there will be less deaths and car accidents.Same thing if we ban stairs we can reduce deaths by falling on stairs.Also if you ban cigarettes there may be less smokers but they will find other ways to attain cigarettes.If we put a ban on cigarettes it will just be another illegal drugs that will fund the criminal empire. "Cigarettes nearly killed my father and if they where illegal he wouldn't be into them in the first place".I dont wanna be rude and very very much mean so I hope I dont offend my opponent.If you smoke cigarettes you made the individual choice and like a lot of things you made a bad choice that possibly have him almost killed.Personal responsibility plays a role in the play.Cocaine for example has been banned but it hasn't stopped people from using it and overdosing on it. I await for my opponents next argument.
Cigarettes should be illegal

I look forward for a nice debate. Yes cigarettes do cause cancer,and destroy your lungs. I must ask there are a lot of things that can give you cancer. Alcohol for example shows evidence of head and neck cancer,Esophageal cancer,Liver cancer,and much more. If we ban smoking that is not gonna stop people from smoking. If we ban smoking millions of people will still smoke cigarettes. If we ban smoking it will just be another illegal drug selling in black markets and in illegal ways. Smokers will just find ways to attain cigarettes. A ban on cigarettes will make America lose money. The federal government excises at least 8 billion dollars on cigarettes. Continent stores sells at least 438 thousand dollars just only on cigarettes. There is about 145 thousand convenient stores in the US. There are no strong evidence that second hand smoking exist. Gerry Silvestri of Medical University of South Carolina and member of the National Cancer Institute"s Screening and Prevention Board. Says "What this study basically showed is what people kind of knew already: At low passive exposures the risk is not that great," While that"s good news, it shouldn"t stop anyone from saying, I don"t want to be a in a bar or any place else with someone who is smoking. Banning cigarettes meaning banning cigarettes on private places such as bars,restaurants,and houses. The restaurant owners has every right to choose to let people smoke in there private business. Same apply to bars,and yes the house people owns. This is why cigarettes should not be illegal.
Atheism is as illogical as theism in regards to the origin of everything

Note, my opponent has dropped much of what I argued for, including contentions that directly refute the resolution. By default, pro loses the vote.Pro's contentionsMy opponent starts out with a bold assertion. He basically generalizes that atheists say since theists believe God had no creator and existed forever, they are wrong. This is a very broad generalization. I have to say, nothing in the viewpoint of atheism necessitates this tenant. In fact, I myself as an atheists view the objection as a fairly weak one. I wouldn't ever entertain it in a debate. That's because most often, the theistic God doesn't need a creator because he is viewed as ontologically necessary. Pro says theists/atheists just use reverse logic on the other but I think the viewers can clearly note his portrayal of the arguments for both side aren't anything like reverse logic. But it doesn't matter since he just strawmans atheism anyway.His analogy also fails to be analogous with the two positions. Theists, at least the reasonable ones, don't say God exists because there's no proof he doesn't. They say God exists because there is proof that he does. In the last round, I made a series of explanations that demonstrated the universe was purely functional without the need for God. My opponent hasn't provided any proof there is a God. Thus I think atheists are justified in believing there is no God. Pros dropped pointsMy opponent has dropped a whole lot of my arguments. My first argument was a direct refutation of the resolution. If true, it would should that it's logically necessary the resolution is false. My opponent should try hard to refute it but he has entirely dropped it for some reason. Pro has also dropped the evidence for the multiverse and Hawkings theory. I used these two theories to provide substantial evidence for existence that does not require God. I even said that without God, the conditions for life would still almost inevitably arise. My opponent has dropped both the theories and the arguments. Pro also did not respond to my reasoning about everything existing necessarily. As it stands, pro has dropped almost all my case while not provided any solid foundation in defense of the resolution whatsoever.
Atheism is as illogical as theism in regards to the origin of everything

The logic atheism uses is that because theists believe god is a creator that had no creator and existed forever they are false.The logic theists use is that everything being never created is as stupid, so god must exist in some form.Both just use reverse logic of the other but in the end are as illogical as each other in how they go about reasoning.Atheism = "They didn't do the crime because there is no proof they did."Theism = "They did the crime because there is no proof they didn't."Theists do claim more, with less use of Ockham's razor BUT in the end could be just as right or wrong as one another (since it's 50/50). Theists and atheists are using very illogical means of finding the answer and even if one is logical the other is just as bad.
Legalized Prostitution

If prostitution were to continue to be illegal, could it really be completely eradicated? According to businessinsider.com, there are 40 million to 42 million prostitutes in the world, 1 million of which are in the U.S. It would be nearly impossible to erase prostitution from the streets of nearly every urban area in the United States simply because of the sheer amount of men and women that depend on this occupation. In sumnation, a ban on prostitution has less of an effect on society than intended by lawmakers. Because of this, it is a law not particularly enforced by law officers. Not only is it nearly ineffective, but keeping this law active endangers people with this job. Violent people wishing to hurt a prostitute are more likely to abuse them if they are confident about not being caught by the police. This makes prostitutes dependent on "pimps" to keep them further away from the law. Their dependence on them increases the amount of violence against prostitutes. Not only is there violence within the prostitution rings, but it is comitted by those who enforce the laws themselves. Every year, there is more and more police violence against prostitutes. An article by Chi Mgbako on rhrealitycheck.org says that in South Africa, where prostitution is illegal, police officers often fine sex workers immense amounts of money. The illegality of prostitution only encourages discrimination and violence against sex workers.
Legalized Prostitution

Because this is my opponent's first debate I'll make this simple: Legalizing prostitution would inevitably lead to girls taking shameful jobs. When prostitution is legalized, the government essentially tells their citizens that such activity is "acceptable" or even "normal" to partake in. Girls could be lured into this business, thinking that the job is acceptable, and find out that the opposite is true. Currently, prostitutes suffer from mental and physical abuse coming from both their clients and their "pimps". This includes manipulation of money, beatings, and rape. [1] Legalizing prostitution would only succeed in popularizing it, causing more women to suffer through this harsh cycle. Many prostitutes also have families and children, who suffer along with them each time their mother (And rarely, their father) is abused or emotionally destroyed by their work. The children of prostitutes then essentially lose their childhood as they are forced to live with a mother who is in terrible condition and may not even be with them, leading to poor child development. Clearly, legalizing prostitution would lead to harmful effects that are undesirable as they ruin careers, lives, and even our children. Thank you for spending your time reading and considering this argument. [1] http://www.womenslaw.org...
Legalized Prostitution

Full resolution: "The United States of America should legalize prostitution". Definitions: Legalize: "To make (something) legal : to allow (something) by law" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Prostitution: "The act of having sex in exchange for money" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Rules (Made by bsh1 and edited slightly): 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or sources must be used within the character limit of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. No K's of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all of the following definitions and waives his/her right to challenge these definitions 8. The BOP is shared 9.
Legalized Prostitution

Thank you for the debate Pro! Rebuttals: "There is no rebuttle to his arguments he made in the first round" Regardless, the point is still irrelevant to the debate as I never argued that making it illegal would completely eradicate it. In addition, the fact that it will never truly be eradicated does not mean that we should make it legal. The harm that prostitution causes is still minimized by keeping it illegal, and like I said earlier the defects of prostitution would only get worse if it were legalized. "Why make something illegal if you do not hope to eradicate it" Although I personally "hope" for it to lose all popularity, I'm not arguing that it's practical to contend that we would completely eradicate it. Again, I'm arguing that the legalization of it would increase prostitution. "The question of whether or not prostitution should be illegal can be applied to every country, not only the United States" The full resolution (Which Pro agreed to debate in the first round) stated: "The United States of America should Legalize Prostitution". This confirms that the debate is in fact about America, and information/arguments about other countries are essentially irrelevant. "I can assure the accounts of violence against sex workers are not specific to South Africa. People will discriminate and commit acts of violence against prostitutes everywhere around the world" I agree. However, there has been no evidence given to indicate that making prostitution illegal would make the violence decrease. My opponent must prove that it would in fact decrease in order to make this point valid, which he has failed to do. Pro's second argument is faulty because there are multiple other jobs that are more viable than prostitution. Even if there are none available (Which there are many, some young people just decide to not work at a fast food restaurant but then they would not want to go into prostitution either) the government should focus on making more jobs. This is super simple, as it does not take much to make a job better than selling your own body for sex. Let's go over the points that have been made so far: Pro's arguments: (A) Prostitution will not go away, even if it remains illegal: Pro had argued that prostitution would never truly be eradicated even if it was made illegal. However, as I mentioned above, whether it's completely eradicated or not is irrelevant as keeping it illegal will still decrease the negative effects that come with prostitution (IE: Torn families, physically and mentally abused women, devastating blows to many children's development will essentially be minimized if prostitution remains illegal). Again, the goal is not necessarily to get rid of it completely, rather it is to minimize the harm done by it. In conclusion: My opponent has offered little evidence, has failed to provide an actual link for his claims, and has made illogical claims in this debate. I have refuted his arguments and have shown how it would not be in our interest to legalize prostitution. My opponent has done little to rebut this and his arguments have been refuted. Good luck in the last round Pro! Again, thank you for debating me.
Legalized Prostitution

I would also like to start out on a good note; however, I feel my opponent misunderstood some of the arguments I was trying to make. "My opponent commits the straw man fallacy here because he is essentially rebutting an argument that I never made." My opponent misapprehends my words here. There is no rebuttle to his arguments he made in the first round. Why make something illegal if you do not hope to eradicate it? Also, the question of whether or not prostitution should be illegal can be applied to every country, not only the United States. Even if that was the case, I can assure the accounts of violence against sex workers are not specific to South Africa. People will discriminate and commit acts of violence against prostitutes everywhere around the world. In the words of one of my personal favorite Yiddish proverbs, "Everyone is kneaded out of the same dough." Now that that misunderstanding is resolved, I would like to make another argument for the legalization of prostitution. If kept illegal, there will be no way for young men and women to recover from the mistakes they have made if they are convicted. The gap between crimes such as murder and prostitution is not thin. If someone is convicted of murder, they most likely deserve to be put in a federal prison because murder is hardly ever a mistake, but with the type of economy and low amount of opportunities given to young people in modern-day America, oftentimes young people are forced to do things like sell their bodies for money in order to stay alive. The well known Pew Research Center produced a study in 2013 announcing that 34% of those in the millenial generation still live in their parents' homes. Imagine those who have parents that have died or have kicked them out of their house. How can someone who has no economic support survive in a country with a median annual rate of $26,695 per person a year. The United States government supplies for its citizens an economy so weak, that people are forced to sell themselves to survive, and the best solution they have for this problem is to make it illegal. What are people to do?