BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gun control

Definition? You asked for it. Gun control (or firearms regulation) refers to laws or policies that regulate within a jurisdiction the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians. Background checks obviously do not and have not limited the manufacturing, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians. When a country is known to have gun control, they are known to have licensing and lower manufacturing of guns. This is obviously not true in the U.S. As you said before, we are a country with the least amount of gun control with Serbia following. Is the U.S. considered a country with gun control legislation? NO. I mean we are famously known as a country to have little to none gun control. So you just contradicted your own argument. Funny. And by the way, Background Checks are not very strong in the U.S. So your arguments are laughable. A huge manifestation of this is the Orlando shooting. Omar Mateen underwent 2 background checks that obviously DID NOT work, as he then went on to kill 49 people with a lethal weapon. The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010, based on red flags raised by the background check system, according to the most recent data available from the Department of Justice. That's just 1 percent of the more than 6 million applications. The most common reasons: nearly half were felony indictment or conviction; 19 percent were fugitives; and 11 percent were those who had violated state laws. The rejection rate has been essentially unchanged over the years. (There is a right to appeal.) The system is weak. And it is obviously not gun control. If it was a form of gun control, then our nation would be considered a nation that has gun control. Easy logic. Maybe not for you. It might be too much information for you to process. By the way, do you even acknowledge your hypocrisy here? You said that I did not respond to you while you did not respond to any of my basic points about how actual gun control doesn't work and has been ineffective throughout the country's that I have mentioned. As well as my points on how gun control does not work within our country. And cut that "I thought that we would be debating the generally accepted view of gun control." Come on! We all know that gun control is policy that pushes for taking guns away from the public, cutting the manufacturing of guns for the public, and forcing people to get licenses which is intentionally made so it is practically impossible to attain a gun. And as shown by my previous statistics. It saves some lives, but doesn't make it hard at all for criminals to attain a gun. As of the status quo. As Obama even said, someone you are probably a supporter of, "It's time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun," Obama said. "If you want to buy a gun " whether it's from a licensed dealer or a private seller, you should at least have to show you are not a felon or somebody legally prohibited from buying one. This is common sense." There you go. So it was probably a bad idea to put forth a brief statement with little to no stats.
Gun control

Well, since you didn't define gun control in your opening arguments, I understood that we would be debating the generally accepted definition of gun control.Gun control:regulation of the selling, owning, and use of guns. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Because background checks and the like regulate the selling of guns, they are, by definition, gun control. It is what is commonly referred to when people talk about gun control. No, not all forms of gun control work. But some, such as background checks for gun and ammunition purchases, do work, as shown by my statistics. So when you make broad statements such as "gun control doesn't work", you can't address just one narrow form of gun control. You have to address the whole field and prove that all forms of gun control do not work, not just one. You have made the claim that all forms of gun control do not work, and I have made the claim that some forms of gun control work. Thus, you must prove that all forms, including the ones I mentioned in Round 1, do not work. I simply must prove that some work, as shown in my Round 1 arguments.Since Con has neglected to respond to any of my arguments from last round, I extend.Eagerly awaiting my opponent's response!
Gun control

Thank you for debating firstly. Secondly, background checks have nothing to do with gun control. Licensing does. That's what gun control is. Making it incredibly difficult to attain a gun. Background checks are easy. What I am against is the extraction of any type of gun from the public. As you can see by statistics, it does not have any effect on the gun violence, violent crime, and homicide rates. Let me provide that for you. UK: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing. Scotland is basically the same stat except after the gun ban the crime shot up exponentially and has stayed. To give you some more country's, Mexico, Cuba, Japan, England, France, Scotland, and Ireland are all great examples in which gun control has not worked or has not affected anything, at all. Now let me give you examples within the U.S. First of all, California has many of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, yet those laws did absolutely nothing to stop the San Bernardino shooting. It is also recorded in Chicago, that a person is shot every 2.8 hours despite the intense gun restriction. As well as Washington D.C., which has a similar stat.
Gun control

Well, "gun control" is such a broad topic, but I'm going to talk about universal background checks mainly. If this is not what you meant by gun control please inform me.Claim one: It doesn't work--According to Columbia University, both universal background checks on gun purchases and background checks for ammunition purchases can dramatically reduce gun violence. Checks on gun purchases could reduce gun violence by 56.6% and ammunition checks could reduce it by 80.6%. (https://www.law.columbia.edu...) over 31,000 Americans die each year from gun injuries, so ammunition background checks could save 25,000 lives each year and gun background checks could save 17,500 American lives each year. So claims that gun control doesn't work are simply false.Next you mention the Second Amendment. Although gun bans are unconstitutional, the amendment does allow for regulation within reason. That's why you can't own a rocket launcher as a civilian. Same goes for background checks. In my opinion, it's perfectly reasonable to not allow people with grievous criminal records or mental health issues to purchase firearms.Finally, you say we need an equalizer, which implies that the more guns a community possesses, the safer it is. So if this were true, the country with the most per capita gun ownership would have the least per capita gun deaths, right? Let's see if this is true.The United States leads in per-capita gun ownership worldwide. There are 112.6 guns for every 100 citizens; more than enough for everybody to have one gun. This is followed by Serbia, Yemen, Switzerland, and Cyprus.(https://en.wikipedia.org...) Thus, the United States should have the lowest rate of gun deaths among developed countries, right? But it doesn't. It has the most guns and the least gun control among developed countries, yet it leads in gun deaths among the same(https://en.wikipedia.org...). This would imply that more guns means less safety. The United States, contrary to your claim, leads in gun deaths among developed countries. Thus, stricter gun laws and background checks do not make citizens less safe, proving your claim false.
Gun control

Gun control.. Come on! It doesn't work! As you can see in Chicago and D.C. As well as in Japan. It is the 2nd amendment right and it shall not be infringed upon. We, Americans, need an equalizer. Something to guarantee our safety. Against potential government tyranny and criminals. As the unfortunate victims in the Orlando night club stated, "We wish we had guns!" And don't bring up the argument that criminals bring guns from other states to Chicago and D.C. Why do you think they go to those areas? They go there because the citizens do not have an equalizer and therefore are easy prey for deranged people and criminals! For example, the Orlando shooting, It was a gun-free zone. Thus they were easy targets.
Battlefield Vs. Call of Duty

Your argument on map size is purely on your opinion, and probably many others. My map size argument is based off of the facts (and my opinion of course). You don't always want close range combat (especially if your a sniper who actually wants to snipe) and like I said there are parts of the maps on battlefield that are close range, like in buildings (especially with flags in them on conquest). If you really want to have a close range game though, play rush, where there is always someone near the bomb. Oh, and if you want t read my first argument again to see my points on vehicles. Some including: There are allot of them, you don't have to earn them, and you can drive them. Is much more needed to prove my point there? Even then though, by saying that vehicles distract you from the "lack of combat" is to say to the people that do understand that the combat in itself is awesome, that the vehicles make it even better. Also, when talking about the subway, you contradicted your other argument. In the subway, there is only close range combat. True though is that you probably can't fit a vehicle in the subway.
Battlefield Vs. Call of Duty

Why didn't I comment about the vehicles or the realistic (compared to Call of Duty) amount of damage? Because there wasn't one. All you said is how you feel that those are good things. You didn't make it a contention of tie it into the previous one. As to the fact that there are more people, if the map is 3200 times as big (Bandar Desert is the largest map in Battlefield history, being around five square kilometers large^1, while a map like Nuketown is only around 1 acre.), and there is five times as many people, (Bandar Desert supports 64 people) it is still harder to get to the action. Although those are the biggest and smallest maps in Battlefield and Call of Duty, respectively, it just goes to show how much bigger Battlefield maps are. And bigger isn't always better. For what you said on the game-mode conquest, just by saying that means you concede that the rest of the game-modes in Battlefield are boring, and by extension, worse. And onto the vehicles. The only reason the vehicles are there is to distract you from how the gameplay is so much more boring than Call of Duty. You claim that you can drive anywhere to help them out? What if they are in the subways featured in some of the maps (also a characteristic of some Call of Duty maps)? Then the vehicles don't help there. Not all maps have these vehicles! Maps like Operation Metro have no use for the vehicles at all! ^1 http://battlefield.wikia.com...
Battlefield Vs. Call of Duty

Did you not read my whole argument? Why didn't you comment about the vehicles or the realistic (compared to Call of Duty) amount of damage. This is because Derking knows the rest of the game is better. Just because his opinion is different for one thing, he says that Call of Duty is better. Also Derking, there are more players in the game, therefore increasing your chances of finding someone to kill. If you really want to find someone though, play conquest and go to the flags that are being stolen, or fought over. If your team mates in a pinch and spawning on him/her would end in both of your deaths, drive to the location in the vehicles that Call of Duty does not have!
Battlefield Vs. Call of Duty

Call of Duty multiplayer is better than Battlefield, every one knows this, just like everyone knows the sky is blue. But before I tell you why, let me say why my opponent is wrong. The affirmative gave a list of opinions, bid not mention how they related to his case, and did not provide any other evidence besides talking about how it is better to have a bigger map. Extremely large maps like in battlefield make the game boring, as you only get to engage with people a couple of times in the battle. The spawns are so far spread apart that more of the game is spent wandering than actually fighting. And although you can spawn near your friendlies, by the time you spawn you are either out of the action or about to get killed by the horde of enemies that killed your comrade. Because my opponent holds the burden of proof, and he has posted no facts so far, I will refrain from doing so until he does.
Battlefield Vs. Call of Duty

Make sure to read the entire argument before making a statement against it. I also only want a contender who commonly plays at least one game from both series. (Don't include the campaign in the argument, I'm arguing about multiplayer gameplay). Battlefield and Call of duty are both really awesome game series, but which is truly better. Yes, the Call of Duty games bring in much more cash, but I'm going purely off of game play here. Im routing for Battlefield. I think that huge maps overrule tiny ones. A huge map can house both compact areas, fit for close range combat, as well as open areas fit for long range action (unlike call of duty, where players usually use sniper rifles for close range trick shots). I also enjoy that when you shoot someone in the head they die more often than they don't. I like shooting people in the head once or twice, vs four or five times (when not using a sniper rifle trick shot). More so, I like ramming through small structures with the help of a tank and freely flying around in helicopters or planes. While in Call of Duty, you have no control over your aircraft (besides the gun) after earning the thing through your hard work. (This is gonna be fun... Heh... heh... heh...)
Should the "C" average/ no fail rule for eligibility to participate in extra-curricular activities b

Thanks for the Debate. I'm going to debate this topic in front of the school for a class assignments and before I actually did it I wanted to get a view on what my opponents rebuttal might sound like (That is why I had a pre-debate, To prepare me for the real thing) I actually am one of the smarter kids in my school. I didn't get the liberty to choose my topic but I had to work with what I had. Again I appreciate your time would like to thanks you. Wish me luck. Sincerely, High School Valedictorian P.S. I thought that you had some very good arguments and points. Just FYI I actually want to be a Software Developer :} when I grow up.
Should the "C" average/ no fail rule for eligibility to participate in extra-curricular activities b

As one can see in your profile you are 15. You are in high school. It is legal to drop out of high school. If you want to do that then go ahead, ruin your life. If you get injured, have fun. In middle school you shouldn't work out anyways, if you get to much muscle at a young age then it affects your growth. Yet again there are things you need to know for the life ahead. Who wants to hire a fitness instructor with no education? I would go with the one who has education. School also helps kids social life as well. You interact with your peers and make your friendships. "You put up very good arguments, but what if not only I but others that want to per sue there dream of becoming an athlete but cant do it because although we are good athletes we aren't the brightest kids" There is enough time after a school and in fact during school to work out. Don't lie. You won't be able to spend a whole day working out and training. And if you can, you are not working hard enough. Pe class or gym is a time in school to get active. The point is, you will have enough time during school and after school to work out. When you said not I but other may want to do this as well, I didn't really care as I had covered this in a previous argument. It apply sot them as well. Make good choices
Should the "C" average/ no fail rule for eligibility to participate in extra-curricular activities b

You put up very good arguments, but what if not only I but others that want to per sue there dream of becoming an athlete but cant do it because although we are good athletes we aren't the brightest kids. Also if you don't become a star athletes you can fall back on jobs that don't need as much education but more physical requirement. (ie. Yoga instructor, Fitness Trainer, Etc.).
Should the "C" average/ no fail rule for eligibility to participate in extra-curricular activities b

Mate, You need to know some things for life. Such as spelling and grammar. Also: What if you don't become a Star Athelite? Who would even want tohire you if you have no education? If you call yourself an athelete, realize that it's a slim chance you will be in Olimpics, NFL, etc. 1. It is not illegal to drop out of high school in US. 2. If you are dedicated to working out a lot, then you will find the time: My school day is 8 hours. I believe that is the average around the world, (Though it may vary with lunch hours) You then get to go home, do homework for an hour or two, then do whatever you want to. And if you have to work, then choose a job that involves physical Activetys.
Wolverine vs Batman WOLVERINE WINS!!!!!

That video may have showed Wolverine as the winner, but it was subjective as the winner of the battle was decided by the people's own opinions. Even then, if you see the percentages, Wolverine had 52% of the popularity votes against Batman with 48% of the votes, which is fairly close. It was the fans who actually subscribe and watch those videos who decided the winner of that battle. If Batman and Wolverine were to fight in a program used in Deadliest Warrior, where statistics, percentages of actual attributes of each character, their characteristics, and all other data used to compute and simulate a duel between the two of them, Batman would win. . http://www.martialdevelopment.com... This program uses science and math based off the real numbers from testing and experimenting, unlike that series which only uses the fan's personal opinion on who would win. In which case, I have given some reasoning and logic to support my arguments through various sources that compared intelligence and combat. From my source in the previous round, Wolverine had some weaknesses that Batman could have used to win a fight against Wolverine. Concussion Just like the video from my opponent, Wolverine can be temporarily disabled/stunned by electricity just long enough for Batman to deliver an explosion to blow up Wolverine. A strong concussion blow to the head, and Wolverine is out and vulnerable. Magnetic Field Something that Batman can rig up as part of his weaponry against Wolverine as this is his biggest weakness is a powerful magnet. Even we can stop Wolverine as scientists had already built a magnetic field able to levitate a frog. . http://www.popsci.com... If they can do it, Batman can build an even better one. In conclusion, Batman can defeat Wolverine with a large magnet, or stun/explode. Pro did not support any of his arguments with facts or data.
Wolverine vs Batman WOLVERINE WINS!!!!!

"You can't compare dead pool and wolverine except they have healing factors!!! Besides wolverine is so much smarter than deadpool!!!!" Wolverine may be smarter, but their healing factors are equal. Although that would have no matter since Batman will still outsmart both of them. "Wolverine can outsmart batman at what he can but batman is smart but wolverine isn't dumb when it comes to fighting" Wolverine's IQ is above average (around 110-119). http://marvel.wikia.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... However, Batman's IQ is well over 200. http://batman.wikia.com... Wolverine can't outsmart Batman. It doesn't really matter how smart Wolverine is; he just won't be smarter than Batman. "Wolverine will destroy batman because the weapons will just piss him off more just like the hulk!!!" Not unless you blow him up into pieces. Wolverine will kill batman and it sounds like the only way to kill him is with the vehicle with the cannons that's it!!!!! Well, like I said before, Batman has other devices in his utility belt including bombs and stun grenades. Both of which, when combined, has the potential to defeat Wolverine in a fight. To expound my arguments, Batman can adapt to many different kinds of situations for he has an IQ over 200. Smartness does play a role when it comes to battle as the saying goes: "Knowing is half the battle." With enough time and preparation before the battle, Batman can find weaknesses of Wolverine. In Justice League: Doom, he developed a contingency plan that could have finished off the rest of his team. http://en.wikipedia.org... With research and preparation before a fight against Wolverine, Batman can discover weaknesses of Wolverine. http://www.popsci.com... Here is the science behind Wolverine and lists some of Wolverine's weaknesses. I will explain how Batman can use these against Wolverine.
Wolverine vs Batman WOLVERINE WINS!!!!!

You can't compare dead pool and wolverine except they have healing factors!!! Besides wolverine is so much smarter than deadpool!!!! Wolverine can outsmart batman at what he can but batman is smart but wolverine isn't dumb when it comes to fighting Wolverine will destroy batman because the weapons will just piss him off more just like the hulk!!! Wolverine will kill batman and it sounds like the only way to kill him is with the vehicle with the cannons that's it!!!!!
Wolverine vs Batman WOLVERINE WINS!!!!!

"Wolverine can stand up to Batman weapons because he can heal. " Yes, Wolverine may having healing abilities, but that doesn't mean Batman can still defeat Wolverine. Just like Wolverine, Deadpool is another character who has the exact same healing abilities. Batman was able to defeat Deadpool by blowing him up with the artillery from his car, which is still technically a part of his weaponry. . http://www.youtube.com... As you can see at 6:03. Deadpool may still be alive, but in the fight, he was still defeated by Batman. "Screw martial arts all wolverine has to do is put three claws in Batman and he's dead. " 1. Martial Arts plays an important role in whether Wolverine will be able to put three claws in Batman. In order for Wolverine to stick Batman with his claws, he must get close to Batman and stab him. With martial arts, Batman can counter or block Wolverine from stabbing Batman due to Batman's martial arts skills. "Batman has never faced a man so powerful with rage and being strong and somebody that can heel himself. " 1. Heal* 2. Batman has faced Deadpool who can heal himself as shown in the video above. "I can't thing of one thing Batman has in his weapons or tactics or anything that could kill Wolverine" Wolverine and Deadpool can both heal. Batman uses an explosive to defeat Deadpool. He can do the same to Wolverine. With tactics, Batman can stun Wolverine and be able to finish him off by blowing him up. There's not many characters in each round, but I will do as much as I can to expound on my arguments. 1. Batman has a diversity of weapons, including explosives. . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_utility_belt His explosive pellets have the ability to take down walls and are stronger than military grade grenades. With explosives large enough to kill Deadpool, what's the same to say with Wolverine? I will further expand my arguments in the later rounds as there are not enough characters.