BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime

My opponent claims I argued his side, but it was clear that I am for conceal carry, and it appears he is trolling as well. One reason we can assume I am for conceal carry is because both of my parents have the license, I own multiple guns, and any DDOer knows I am against all gun regulations, well most should know that. Also if you look a tmy past debate history you see constant support for the lott mustard data. (http://www.debate.org...) (http://www.debate.org...) My opponent then claims, without any logic, we can assume pro is for controlling weapons, which is false. The resolution states: "Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime" As I am labeled pro, it is EXTREMELY clear that I am arguing for the resolution, I am PRO conceal handguns reducing crime. My opponent basically uses logic that does not exist nor relate to the resolution. Then my opponent states we have a mutual agreement, NO WE DON'T. I am arguing that it decreases crime, my opponent must not have reading comprehension, as I am labeled pro vs the resolution, which is clear what I mean. I also clarified with my source page, as many of my sources easily explain my position. Look at this source: Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-control Laws. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2010. Print. If I was arguing that it raised crime the book "more guns less crime" woudl not be a source. Also, I am the instigator, my opponent thinks he knows more about the debate, when he is a newcomer to DDO and I made the debate myself. Anyone that read the resolution then reads I am pro would logically assume I am arguing that it decreases crime. he states: "Also, my opponent's failure to provide a concrete definition of the most important term in this round is detrimental to this debate." No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FF - Rule one One of the things you will not semanticise is definitions, whether or not who wins my opponents red herring argument, he already auto FF'd/ CONCLUSION: My opponent argued the wrong side. urge all voters to take a logical look at my past, no gun regulations, and the PRO resolution relation: If I am pro and the resolution is "Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime", it is simple to assume I am arguing it lowers violent crime. My opponent has: 1. dropped my arguments 2. argued the wrong side 3. Persists I argue the wrong side, yet this indicates he has not read the resolution, and the pro resolution relationship is simple enough to hint I am arguing it lowers crime 4. Ruined this debate by his red herring on the who argued what, and refuses to read the resolution 5. Vote pro, as he is not making a case and arguing the wrong side, and to say is with full attitude: its pissing me off. He is essentially trolling a possibly good debate. If you wanna debate me see the open challenges section.
Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime

Unfortunately, it is clear that we agree. Furthermore, it is obvious that this disagreement stems from a misinterpretation of the term "concealed carry handgun laws", which I defined in round 1, contrary to the definition that my opponent never provided, but was apparently assuming. For clafification, the definition that I provided, and which was not responded to, was that a concealed carry handgun law is "any law which imposes limits or restrictions on concealed handgun carry. " My reasoning for assuming my definition are as follows:Without any "concealed carry handgun law", there would be no laws regarding concealed carry. And just as there are no laws regarding changing lightbulbs, everybody would be free to concealed carry (or change lightbulbs, whatever floats your boat) in absence of a "concealed carry law". Upon introducing such a law, the only way to go is downhill - in other words, if we can concealed carry with no limitations when there is no law, it follows that any "concealed carry handgun laws" would result in the opposite of that - restrictions on concealed carry. In light of this reasoning, it is more sensible to label the PRO side as arguing the position that concealed carry laws (which restrict concealed carry) reduce violent crime, and to label the CON side as arguing the position that these laws increase violent crime. Thus, our mutual agreement should result in a CON vote. Also, my opponent's failure to provide a concrete definition of the most important term in this round is detrimental to this debate. Not only did it result in a debate with no clash, but by choosing a resolution that was vague and undefined, my opponent could choose to agree with whichever side I picked. In other words, since the resolution is so vague, had I argued that concealed carry restrictions decrease crime, he could have easily said "I agree with that! " This ambiguity is harmful to debate, and is another reason to vote CON. In conclusion, I have established that the vagueness of the resolution and definitions provided (or not provided) by the instigator essentially render fruitful debate impossible. Additionally, if you define "concealed carry handgun laws" as I have, for the reasons I provided, our mutual agreement is agreement with the CON side. I therefore urge a CON ballot.
Conceal handgun laws reduce violent crime

I am NOT saying the law itself reduces crime, but its outcome does. The reasoning here is clear. If I see any semantics on this point you automatically lose. If there is any semantics with the title, you automatically lose. If you use semantics on the following definition, or this sentence, you lose: "Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity." http://en.wikipedia.org... The definition on conceal carry handgun laws is common knowledge, so no trolling. Rules: No semantics, on the things mentioned above. If you do auto FF No trolling, sorry imabench ;) [or the real trolls] If you do auto FF 1st round acceptance, if you fail to do this I get conduct. 1st round definitions, rule making (by instigator) and other things, no arguments. __________________________ I have debated this a lot recently, but my opponents have FF'd. If needed it is no conduct or rule violation for an external source page: (http://www.debate.org...) Violent crime: rape, murder, assault, robbery BOP even. I need to prove 3/4 of the things above, and that definition expanded as long as it is actually considered violent crime. Neither side must prove 100% decrease or increase. But voters, look in who makes it more convincing. Good luck!!
Anyone can be a celebrity

< > Probably, but you have agreed that money can by celebrity. < Terri Schiavo: She collapsed and was rushed to the hospital, losing oxygen on the way, causing severe brain damage that caused a nationwide controversy about her well-being and the decision of her parents vs. The decision of her husband, the person she chose to care for her over the people that were legally responsible for caring for her. Her husband wanted her feeding tube removed, but the parents thought she was still conscious, so they insisted she keep on living in pain.>> So far, so good. < > Nothing like Paris Hilton, as she was not wealthy and did nothing to gain her celebrity, whereas you've already admitted that Paris had "by doing this and OTHER STUPID THINGS (I.E DUI, jail)." < > You're right, this was not unpredicted, as many people knew that this would happen eventually, as many know it will happen again. There are many different roads to celebrity and if this occurs again, the victim and the victims family will become celebrities. It is what it is. < Scott Peterson: He supposedly killed his wife and his unborn baby. His fame comes from being a serious and nationally televised criminal. He supposedly killed, books were written about him, and he went to jail. I wish to quote from the wikipedia page you gave me the link to: .............>> This is the third instance that link three different individuals, in three totally different circumstances from three different socio-economical backgrounds and incomes achieving the same thing: celebrity. Anyone can do it. < the state or quality of being widely honored and acclaimed.>> You are wrong. I went to dictionary.com and got the exact same definition that I posted above. I thank you for acknowledging my definition through your own source. Here's the link: (at dictionary.com look up "celebrity") http://dictionary.reference.com... ceï¿½lebï¿½riï¿½ty Pronunciation Key [suh-leb-ri-tee] –noun, plural -ties for 1. 1. a famous or well-known person. 2. fame; renown. Also, it does not matter if you've limited your understanding of the English language. Everyone else knows what "celebrity" means and they also understand that anyone can achieve it. You can either acquire great wealth, you can suffer a terrible accident and have people make a spectacle of you, or you can commit a heinous crime which brings you celebrity. In fact, many have committed crimes for the sole purpose of gaining celebrity. Celebrity can be had by anyone through a number of different means. Accept it.
Anyone can be a celebrity

In Round One, you wrote: <> I would first like to submit the definition of celebrity, as told by the American Heritage Dictionary: ceï¿½lebï¿½riï¿½ty Pronunciation Key [suh-leb-ri-tee] –noun, plural -ties for 1. 1. a famous or well-known person. 2. fame; renown. I think anyone can become a celebrity and many people become celebrities all the time. One does not even require talent to become a celebrity. Paris Hilton became a celebrity because she was born into a wealthy family, but she didn't do anything to earn her initial celebrity. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Scott Peterson was a nobody until he became a suspect in the killing of his wife and unborn child, of which he was later found guilty. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Terri Schiavo did not do anything, whatsoever, but became a major, hot topic celebrity in the USA because society chose to let her starve to death, instead of doing the humane thing. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Celebrity not only can be achieved by just about anyone, but it is often thrust onto individuals, often leaving the person with no/little say in the matter.
Anyone can be a celebrity

<> As will I. < > But you are not a celebrity, as you have done nothing noteable yet. Kill someone a unique and gruesome fashion and you will most likely achieve celebrity. Anyone can do something that can make them a celebrity. < > First, not all celebrities are stalked by paparazzi. Secondly, I'm not disputing that sometimes you have to do something, like Scott Peterson. < > No, once you accept a source, you then accept ALL definitions from it. It is what it is. I wrote: "Also, it does not matter if you've limited your understanding of the English language." <> And yet here you are trying to dismiss the definitions of celebrity that take precedence over your definitions. It is probably because you did not look up the definition in the first place and forgot what the word truly means, and not what it has become as a result of the media. < > Proof is not required, as it is common knowledge. I just gave great examples to show as evidence that anyone can achieve fame. < > <<1. By my definition, none of these people are celebrities.>> So basically a person is not a celebrity if you do not like them. I guess Britney Spears is not a celebrity if you don't like her. And major movie stars are not celebs if you don't like them either. <<2. By my thoughts and perception (inhibited, or so you say), "anyone can become a celebrity" means exactly my previous example. Waking up and saying Im a celebrity.>> No, that is not the case because there isn't national attention when you wake up and say to yourself, "I'm a celebrity." I stand by my claim. Anyone can become a celebrity through many different ways. Not everyone can be a celebrity that is loved by all though, but we're already aware of this fact too. < > Thank YOU!
Anyone can be a celebrity

As final arguments are better short, I will try to stay brief. You said: This is the third instance that link three different individuals, in three totally different circumstances from three different socio-economical backgrounds and incomes achieving the same thing: celebrity. Anyone can do it. No. not true. not ayone an become one. Lets say I wake up one morning and say that i am a celebrity. Ok, but nothing happened. I wasnt tackled by Paparazzi, or taken up by the media. You have to do something. You said: "You are wrong. I went to dictionary.com and got the exact same definition that I posted above. I thank you for acknowledging my definition through your own source. Here's the link: (at dictionary.com look up "celebrity") http://dictionary.reference.com...; The point I tried to make (but was shot down before its time by you) is that there are multiple definitions on the same website, we just chose diffent ones. You said: "Also, it does not matter if you've limited your understanding of the English language." I most certainly have not. "Everyone else knows what "celebrity" means and they also understand that anyone can achieve it." If everyone knows this, then where is the proof? tons of comments (no)? what? "You can either acquire great wealth, you can suffer a terrible accident and have people make a spectacle of you, or you can commit a heinous crime which brings you celebrity. In fact, many have committed crimes for the sole purpose of gaining celebrity. Celebrity can be had by anyone through a number of different means. Accept it." In fact I do accept it. 1. By my definition, none of these people are celebrities. 2. By my thoughts and perception (inhibited, or so you say), "anyone can become a celebrity" means exactly my previous example. Waking up and saying Im a celebrity. Thank you.
DDT is an effective way to combate malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa

First of all, don't go attacking my sources when you have just about zero yourself. In fact you say "Also, as a warning, I'm not quoting anything in this. It's faster for me." Also, I made a mistake by not referencing my sources, so I will list them and there qualifications. My paragraph about how DDT has been around for decades and there have no bad side effects was written by Richard Tren who is the director of Africa Fighting Malaria, Jason Urbach who is a primary field researcher for Enterprise Africa, Jennifer Zambone who is the DC director of Africa Fighting Malaria, and Roger Bate who is a malaria researcher and wrote "Is DDT Safe? Considering Its Use for Malaria Control. Obviously these people are accomplished professionals who have spent years researching malaria and DDT and are way more reliable then some online tabloid that you semi-quoted. My next part about how the concentrations of DDT used are not enough to harm people was written by the same authors. http://www.fiuc.org... You talk about how malaria rates are rising in Africa. Where the heck did you get this information? It's a total lie. According to the World Health Organization (who you used as evidence but actually supports the use of DDT), USAID, the United Nations, and Africa Fighting Malaria, deaths as a result of malaria have DECREASED where DDT is sprayed. DDT is saving millions of lives and will help these countries economies. You then talk about how water purification is so great. Water purification will not work for malaria because mosquitoes don't always drink out of the purified water. They will drink out of the water that is just sitting around in the middle of the jungle that is not purified. DDT will kill or repel these mosquitoes whenever they comes close to people therefore saving millions of lives. Also you talk about how the United States cannot afford spraying DDT. However you even say water purification will cost 2 billion dollars while Indoor Residual Spraying of DDT by the US federal government will only cost 348 million dollars. Also, all of your information about how DDT harms people pertains to when DDT was sprayed agriculturally. The dosage when used for IRS is completely different and therefore safe.
DDT is an effective way to combate malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa

First, you are saying the United States sets the standard for what is good and bad. Well, using your standard I guess DDT is good since it actually IS being sprayed by the United States. The United States federal government is spraying DDT in Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Zambia. DDT is also being sprayed in South Africa and Swaziland. Uganda and other African countries are preparing to add DDT to indoor-spraying programs. In countries where DDT has been sprayed, deaths as a result of malaria have decreased by astonishing numbers. You then claimed that DTT harmed people and the environment. I will first show that DDT is safe for humans. DDT has been around for decades. Millions have been exposed, and health issues are extremely rare. Since the discovery of DDT countless millions of people have been exposed to DDT in one way or another. In the 1940s many people were deliberately exposed to high concentrations of DDT through dusting programs or impregnation of clothes, without any apparent ill effect. Thousands of tons have been produced and distributed throughout the world and millions of people have come into direct contact with DDT. A plethora of studies were conducted with regards to DDT's safety for humans. Indeed if the huge amounts of DDT used are taken into account, the safety record for human beings is extremely good. Next I will show DDT does not harm the environment. Indoor residual spraying of DDT is not used in high enough concentrations to cause adverse ecological effects. DDT became emblematic of the toxics movement because of its effects on the non-human environment. The fault for this lies in the massive agricultural use of DDT. Dusting a single cotton field, for example, can require more than 1,100 kg of DDT over 4 weeks. In contrast, DDT spraying for malaria control is less intensive, less frequent and far more contained. The current practice is to spray the interior surfaces only of houses at risk. Half a kilogram can treat a large house and protect all its inhabitants. The dosage of DDT applied for indoor residual spraying is completely different and has no environmental side effects. In fact bird populations have increased since DDT has been sprayed. Finally you said that water purification was the solution to solving the problem. What you are saying is that if you cannot solve the malaria problem completely then nothing should be done. Sure, indoor residual spraying of DDT will not completely eradicate malaria, but it will save millions of lives every year with no bad side effects. You are just advocating an all or nothing situation.
DDT is an effective way to combate malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa

Are you a policy debater? Just wondering. Also, as a warning, I'm not quoting anything in this. It's faster for me. Anyway onto Malaria. If DDT had no bad side effects, it would be implemented right now in the status quo. However, it's not. There has been evidence given that DDT has harmful side effects not only on the environment, but the people around it as well. There was a reason why the United States stopped using DDT, and that reason must still stand today. Also, Malaria is a disease which lingers in the water. This is also a huge problem, because often the mosquitoes get the disease from the water, then transmit. This causes a huge problem. Without water purification, there is no way to solve for the Malaria problem. I believe that water purification is the best way to go in the idea of stopping the spread of Malaria, as well as eradicating the disease.
everybody is agnostic by default, no one is born insane

I would like to clarify "no one is born insane" so we don't get into a semantics debate. I will not argue that people can in fact be "born" insane, because I'm pretty sure you are using the word insane as having radical religious beliefs etc. Let me know if you would like to include that in your argument or not. I'd suggest that we have arguments in round 2 and rebuttals and closing statements in round 3, please don't introduce new arguments in the last round to keep it fair. Thanks, I look forward to the debate :)
Eminem was better in the 90's then he is today

thought we were in 90's people wont buy nonsense ....people are not fools there are lines and rhythm that still make people go crazy and more than before...that's versatility of an artist and he is good at it making room rap in mainstream music.humour was good but now you don't get that boyish humour his style has grown..you cant humour like the one in Marshall mathers that so will not fit on a 37 years old artist thats solid and tough.. http://www.youtube.com... this one different...and thing og today http://www.youtube.com... If you think he was not serious before take these http://www.youtube.com...
Eminem was better in the 90's then he is today

Calling him a joker,he is not in laughing business friend. he has evolved to laugh on himself...still kills his fellow mates. recovery was way better and he is 37 he just cant be the same young guys rapping about high school guys and girls. his verses are tight and and his subjects are way better than his fellow rappers who just keep bragging about themselves and his lyrics have grown more meaningful and tense ..and more his verses were more about himself and his life ,and his life has changed over the years. RECOVERY-It is the best-selling album of 2010 and has sold 5.7 million copies worldwide. people love him fore something...his music
Eminem was better in the 90's then he is today

Change is what every artists wants in order to reach a wider audience. In the last decade eminem's popularity has grown past any other artists,he has brought rap from america to a wider audience . serious may be but not boring ...his collextion has grown wide and better and richer in taste ... he still brags about himself,last decade gas good but the present scene atmosphere is tense ...people have problems ...he writes about relationship..his music still keeeps people up on their toes and selling records have already proven that
God probably does not exist

I believe that when God made all things at the beginning he was fully aware of what the results of His creation would be. He knew about us. When we think of the care He took just in creating the atoms and molecules that we needed in order to exist it's breathtaking. Investigate the exact nature of the force of gravity. If it was off even a tiny amount life would be impossible. Without the electro-magnetic, nuclear strong, and color flavor forces atoms couldn't exist. Study the nature of water, without it life is inconceivable. The same is true of carbon. Then what's the most stunning of all. We are awake, we are conscious. We can ask about God and pray to Him. We can relate to each other. There are living beings around us, the animals, who are also aware. I think it's safe to assume that such a God might try to get in touch with us and have expectations of us. These three are a minimum. We must respect the life, freedom, and belongings of others. I think the New Testament does the best job explaining the meaning of life "YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND." and "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."" Jesus taught us these things in Matthew 22:37. Did you ever notice that when we were kids that on Christmas morning we would end up going back to our favorite toy even though we got new ones. Why did we do that? It's because those are the toys that we would use when we would play with others. We were made for love. God is love and we were meant to love Him, our fellow humans, and the animals around us. I think God gave animals consciousness to facilitate that.