BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

con must have did his own math in regards to the australia mass shootings cause he jjust cites a list of them and the dates. the problem is he must be calculating in years way prior to the modern era, or when the bans were enacted. in fact, elevent mass shootings occurred in the decade before the ban, and none have happened since. and yes their homicide rate was cut in half. http://www.slate.com...i can even cite the actual homicide figures which shows this to be true. http://www.gunpolicy.org...con says the study on whether guns are more risky or not is faulty. i admire con's intelligence in general and as he applied it to the debate, but i'm not leaning just on that study. if more guns cause more death, it can be deduced that even one gun is more dangerous than none. plus con is trying to argue against common knowledge among scientists on the point that a gun is more a risk than anything. con says guns are used just as much in defense as in murder etc. problem, is that he cites the controversial figure kleck, anything with him or Lott is controversial. we should just settle on the point that for every perpetrator who dies in self defense, another thirty people are murdered. there's controversial studies that try to determine how much simply brandishing a weopon changes things for defense, but ive never seen anything credible. at best i saw lott say more than ninety percent of defensive gun use is brandishing a gun. that would mean at best we could say instead of one person v thirty we can do the math and say that for every use of defense of a gun there three homidcides. (murders?) con tries to say if we look at homicide rate of the whole world we'd see no correlation to guns. the problem is he just cited a wiki page for homicides and a wiki page for gun rates. did he do his own math? plus they are questionable sources. i have a study from harvard and a medical studiy that shows the correlation, as again shown in the comments. plus, i dont know how they picked their countires but they may have just picked countires that are developed similar to the USA. this chart shows the correlationshttp://www.amjmed.com...here again is the main studyhttp://www.amjmed.com...(13)00444-0/abstractyou can click main study, pictures, references etc on the tabs i actually notice that con cited lott in the more guns less crime argument. this study i just cited reference him as a reason for the study. they found there is no correlation between guns and crime, but there is a correnaton between guns and homicides. con is citing controversial figures for a lot of his arguements.
the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense. more guns means more overall homicide http://www.debate.org......;would you be open to this if it could reduce murders by say, eighty percent?i reluctantly would probably support bans and confiscation on a nationwide scale. this view doesn't make me popular and i dont like taking people's guns away. and i am open to evidence to contradict my main premises and cause me more caution in my view. i am just openly considering the idea, which is what i think should be expected from everyone. as the oxford link indicates, a gun is a danger to yourself and those around you... you're more likely to be shot or to kill with a gun. most people can accept this much. but then the next step is imagine lots of people with guns. wouldnt be common sense to expect more murders? that's what the evidence indicates, not just common sense. i would expect if we banned and confiscated weopons that gun murders would go down as that's what the evidence indicates. i'm sure with the open borders etc that there would still be some murder, and defenseless people, just not as much. the main reason people need a gun for self defense is because there's so many guns to begin with. ive never seen someone acknowledge "yes we get more murder with gun rights, but that's the way it is for self defense". but it seems that's what the situation is. getting rid of guns should be taken seriously, i just dont know the exact numbers for what would happen. i know australia banned and confiscated a bunch of more serious guns and they knocked their rate in half. and they went from one mass shooting per year to none, that's not a statistical anomaly. that's not bad, if it was more serious confiscating, i could see it knocking say eighty percent of the murders. is that worth it while leaving people defenseless? i suppose it's not unreasonable to think otherwise than what im pushing, but yhou should at least acknowledge the deaths you're allowing for and openly consider both sides.
the usa should ban most guns and confiscate them

Once again, the statistic ignores any time that death of the perpetrator doesn't occur. Pro seems to think the only legitimate DGU involves the death of the perpetrator? What about wounded? Going with the lowest possible estimate, 100,000 non-fatal DGUs per year, the death rate goes from 1:34 to 10:1 and that is being very conservative. [14] The NCVS survey from which that comes is considered to be well below the mark. If we use the CDC's numbers it becomes 50:1. Again, Justifiable Homicide is not the only use, and only counts when someone is killed in the shooting. If there is injury or no injury in the use, then this stat is not considered. Guns are used even by the CDC's estimate no less than 300,000 times per year. Here is the thing, a quote directly from the guy who has written the policy for anti-gun groups for the last 20 years : " "even if we could develop a reliable estimate of[DGU] frequency, it would only be of marginal relevance to the ongoing debate over gun control" (Cook and Ludwig 1996). So if we could get a good estimate of the numbers, it wouldn't be relevant? And that has been the attitude of many people, pro included. For the record, Kleck, et. al. actually wrote a rebuttal defending his numbers, found here. [15] Showing that his numbers are very close to the upper bound annually, and the lower bound is likely somewhere around 700,000, or more than twice the lower bound of the CDC. Pro again points out simple math, but doing so only using DGU fatalities, once again pro shows they only care if someone dies in the process. Again Pro shows the ability to ignore the numbers, the data available to us shows only a 37% decrease and a larger decrease in the US as compared to Australia, of nearly 50%. That is just in rates, but the thing is the number of murders dropped almost 40% in the US as well, while in Australia they dropped a mere 12%. Not only is the US doing better in terms of murder rate decline, but in terms of absolute number of murders decline. Overall deaths do not decline, only deaths involving a gun decline. I have linked multiple sources for that already. As to where my data comes from, simple, take the list of US states, and take the murder rates per state, now take the guns per capita in each state, and do a comparison. Same for international data. Run a trend line, once you do that you see clearly there is no correlation, or a negative one. The same thing that has been reported over and over again in multiple studies, the most famous of which is the Lott one. Pro has ignored, flat out ignored, any data that contradicts their point of view. I have provided multiple sources, as well as a short brief of my own analysis, which is easy to duplicate. There is simply no evidence to support that gun bans, confiscations, or gun control actually saves even a single life. [14] http://www.bloomberg.com... [15] https://www.saf.org...
The Book of Mormon is Scripture

My temple? What? It seems to me that you have no understanding of Mormon culture, yet profess to know all. The church is not divided into temples, but into wards, then stakes. Also, if you're going to base your entire opinion of the church on your deliberate confusion of a possibly new missionary, I doubt there's anything anyone can do to change your mind at all. In reference to the prophets, I was speaking from my own beliefs. If you want to disagree with them, that's another debate that I don't have time for. Their nationality was, respectively, Nephite and Lamanite. And, saying that it is like a comic book because you believe it's fictional- wouldn't fiction, indeed, be more accurate? Also, I challenge you to find a comic book written by a child. Poor metaphor, in my opinion. As to Moroni, we believe that certain beings, when dead, were soon resurrected to become messengers of God. Thus, they are not dead. The fact that scholars don't believe in a language that was changed over many years on a different continent from the one it originated does not surprise me. Same thing with the plate thickness. You're trying to compare a completely different culture with one from a different continent. Furthermore, science once disagreed with it because Nephi used a steel bow and they said they didn't have steel. Unfortunately, they later found that they did. So, I'm inclined to hold out. And your 'seeing stones'? In actuality, it was the Urim and Thummim, a breastplate and bow, I think. In any case, no crystal balls going on. In fact, later in the history of the church, a group of church members were excommunicated and were involved with a funky seeing stone. Before I take any heed at all to your claims of contradiction, I'd like to see a source. You're dumping all this junk on me, but not lending any real credit to your sources. To the racial stuff: The Nephites died out, if you recall. Same with the Jaredites. I'm shocked that you're making such an error, since you're so infallible (and vocal about it.) You claim the Lamanites are descendants of africans? Read it again, because they're descendants of Lemuel, Laman, and the daughters of Ishmael. You say that Judaism and Christianity reference recognizable features? Have you considered the fact that all of our history is from basically the same view point as them? The peoples in the Book of Mormon left no record except for it, and the Lamanites didn't keep any records, being less technological and more tribal. If we had as many other records from their time as we do from the religions you refer to, no doubt it would be much more clear as well. And you're welcome for posing the challenge.
The Book of Mormon is Scripture

Challenging because of your comment on Mormons are Christian. Not mine, but the other one. I would debate about the rest of Mormon scripture, but because you're so adamant about reading their entirety and I'm only working on the other two, I thought I'd keep it to the one I've read and our church is named after. The Book of Mormon: Another Testimony of Jesus Christ is written by several ancient prophets in America and edited by Mormon, another prophet, who it's named after. While my potential opponent claims it's like a 'comic book', in addition to recounting the tale of ancient Americans and the spread of the church there (you know, like a history book), it constantly teaches doctrine, testifies of truth, and is written to the people of our time to teach us. It also does not include pictures. Frankly, I'm surprised that my potential opponent got through 2 Nephi and still thinks it's as action-y as a comic book. Congrats on that, I suppose, but did you also read where Jacob handles that guy who denies Jesus yet has read the scriptures? You know, and then Jacob said he didn't understand it and the guy felt so guilty he wanted to die? It may be hard to believe in miracles, (especially when you're cynical) but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't/don't exist.
is the war in iraq wrong

I'll now respond to my opponent's initial arguments. 1. "George w bush did it to make profit and to get re-elected in office, since no pres. has in a time of war. " -This statement can't be proven. -If by profit you mean that he hoped to stabilize the area to protect our economic interests, then yes. 2. "many Americans died were the terriost threat was almost to 10 percent according to bush" -We must look at the reasons for entering the war, especially since my opponent has not responded to my framework argument. Thus this argument does not hold water. 3. "look how long it took to kill osama,jees" -This is completely irrelevant. The purpose of the Iraq War was not to capture Bin Laden.
is the war in iraq wrong

To begin, thank you for challenging me to this debate, I hope it is interesting and productive. Framework: I would like to first discuss the phrase "wrong" in the resolution. What is important to realize is that we must focus the debate on whether or not the initial reasons for entering the Iraq War were valid and rational. Thus if the Con side can prove that the reasoning behind entrance into the war is sound, then the con should win this round. Argumentation: Point 1: Saddam Hussein was a threat to his own people. It is well known that Hussein's dictatorship was particularly brutal and violent. It violated a number of human rights standards in dealing with its own people. Thus upon entering the war with the intent of ousting Hussein and his dictatorship, the United States holds a moral high ground. Point 2: Iraqi stability is important to the stability of the Middle East. It is vital to the United States' interest that the Middle East retains stability. Given our massive oil based interests in the region, whose prices are largely dependent on that stability, it is vital that we protect the stability of the region. This adds a second incentive to the removal of the dangerous and rouge Hussein regime. Point 3: Saddam Hussein's regime was given plenty of warning and time to change. In fact, George Bush, speaking in October 2002, said that "The stated policy of the United States is regime change… However, if Hussein were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I have described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed" Had Iraq modified its policies, the invasion would not have occurred, but as they did not, the invasion and subsequent regime change went ahead as planned. Conclusion: It is clear that the rationale behind the Iraq War was solid and thus the war was not wrong. I will save refutation of my opponent's arguments for the second round, as that is the most fair way to proceed. Thank you.
The existence of gods

My argument that there is no reason to believe that gods exist speaks for itself. Do you have reasons to believe gods exist? Until you provide any, I am logical in saying that there is no reason to believe that gods exist. God/gods either exist or they do not. I am not convinced one way or the other. I just do not know. In this case, should I not default to saying that gods do not exist? They do not exist until proved otherwise? Let me ask you. Do unicorns exist? What would your answer be? What would my answer be? I certainly would not say yes. I would most likely say no. Of course, I cannot know for sure. But the answer is no until I am convinced in the affirmative. "I don't know" is also a valid answer. But shouldn't "no" be a valid answer as well? Answering no does not preclude the existence of gods. It is a valid placeholder until gods are proved to exist.
The existence of gods

I accpet.Definitions:God(s): A supernatural being(s) who created the universe.This is a very popular topic on DDO, I hope to provide you with convincing arguments to assert that:a) It is likey that God exists.b) There is sufficient evidence that God exists.c) Even if there was no evidence we would have reason to believe in God.I'm not sure what you want for a resolution, but looking at your opening post, I assume you don't want a burden of proof.So I propose:'There is evidence for a God.' Or 'God probably exists.' That will keep you happy. A resolution will make this debate easier for both of us, that way there will be less off topic arguments and material.Now, looking at what Con said in his post I would like to make it clear that since he says this: "I am arguing that there is no reason to believe that gods exist." Then he has a BoP on him to prove that also. Con in this debate will therefore attempt to prove why there is no reason to believe the existence supernatural being and I will argue that there are reasons to believe in God(s). Since we have a shared BoP, I invite Con to present his opening arguments and start this debate. Good luck.
The existence of gods

I am arguing that there is no reason to believe that gods exist. I cannot prove that gods do not exist, but I am not convinced that they do. The default position should be that there are no gods and the burden of proof lies on the theist. This kind of process is how we treat everything else. I do not believe in Bigfoot or that pigs can fly either because I am not sufficiently convinced. How is theism different? Can you, the challenger, either argue that 1) there is sufficient proof that God/gods exists or 2) in the absence of sufficient proof, there should be a belief in God/gods as opposed to the opposite?
The existence of gods

The beginning of the universe is interesting. That time can begin is hard to wrap the mind around. Of course, the concept of time is something we humans have constructed and understand. I'm not sure we can really understand how our current conception of time can be applied to a hypothetical beginning of the universe. There is obviously immense uncertainty. So much uncertainty that I don't think there should be a null hypothesis regarding the beginning of the universe, if it even exists or if we could even frame it that way. I'm not an expert on physics nor theology for that matter, but I propose that there is no explanation that is strong enough to justify having it as "the best explanation." I don't think that saying a supernatural being began it all is convincing enough to warrant it being the best explanation. Again, regarding the complexity evidence of DNA, just because something is complex does not mean that the simple "God did it" answer should hold sway. There are some things we cannot explain yet. That does not mean God did it. Your protein and DNA argument is the same sort of deal. I'm not sure if I'm understanding your eye argument correctly. Eyes provide an evolutionary advantage as seeing increases the chances of survival and can quicken reproduction. The mutation that led to the development of eyes proved beneficial. Teleological argument: Can it not be that life occurred without God? There is likely life outside our planet as well given the immense size of the universe. With an unthinkable number of planets in the universe, surely some of those planets will meet the conditions for life. And our planet is one of them. This argument does not support the existence of gods. None of my opponent's arguments are convincing enough to conclude that there is likely a God. Just because the Big Bang theory and evolution does not have all the answers does not mean God is automatically the answer to fall back on. It's a false dichotomy. So you don't think the Big Bang theory is valid. The God theory is no better. You say a supernatural entity created the universe. That is NOT the null hypothesis and that is NOT the best explanation. No explanation and uncertainty is better than an unsubstantiated explanation. I stand firm on my belief that there is no reason to believe gods exist.
1 extended question that destroys science

The idea of aliens being amongst us on the earth is not a bad assumption. Scientists are not allowed to believe in such like deities. So it would be hard for a person to be able to believe in aliens if they haven't seen it with their own eyes. Scientists would probably enjoy taking apart in particular tasks involving aliens so they may or may figure out the truth. God, for example, was said to create this earth. But honestly, how would someone be able to create something so complex like this planet. That's why there are such things as atheists. It's because there is apart of them telling them that it in no way is possible.
The Perfect Murder

Closing Arguments: Pro has essentially done nothing to improve his case or rebut my own argument. In fact, literally only one sentence has been used in response to my story. While I have addressed all of Pros points in-depth and shown exactly how flawed they actually are. I'd also note that in using terms like "classic idiocy" to describe my rebuttals [which are obviously more than valid] and labelling me a "coward" is technically a violation of conduct and should be recognized as so by any potential voters. Instead of objectively responding to my contentions, Pro has exclusively resorted to insults. Merely stating that my own story is a "feeble effort" does absolutely nothing to argue any flaw[s] that may exist within it or rebut my own case properly--which is what is required of Pro. To conclude the debate, I'll just briefly respond to Pros statement regarding the blood covered clothes--which of course would be an issue for Garrie if he is to somehow get away with murder. The first question is how exactly is Garrie going to burn the girl without anyone actually noticing? Again, the key error in Pros case is that they've set their story in alleyway and therefore in an urbanized area with other people and properties around. He's basically saying that Garrie is going to successfully rape, murder, and then burn this girl in a completely public area. I've also highlighted the problem of witnesses, who without doubt would have seen Garrie given his suspect behaviour. Simply put, Pros argument has been consistently full of flaws--all of which he has failed to reconcile. In addition to that Pro has almost entirely dropped my own case and not provided any rebuttals. As well as violating conduct by using insults, etc.
The Perfect Murder

There's no one around. I already stated that. If you actually read instead of gliding over the words like a weak blind man, then you would know that. Obviously you didn't pay attention, so I will reiterate. Ah, why must I always deal with this classic idiocy. Garrie and the girl are alone in that particular vicinity. She screams but no one hears. Garrie can rape away in peace. "Where does Garrie hide his blood covered clothes?" That's your question? How tragical. You know nothing of murder. That's going to be the least of Garrie's worries. He can just burn them when he burns the body of the raped and murdered girl. Simple. As to the people recognizing him, as I stated before, fool, Garrie is a facechanger. He merely delves into the old purse and invests in a bout of plastic surgery. Then he hightails it to Cuba or some exotic locale, and pish-posh, he's a new man. Then he starts all over again. A new girl, a new rape, a new kill. Ta-da. Your story is a feeble effort. When the murder of the woman's husband is investigated, clearly they will investigate her. She will be judged accordingly. Just like silly Susie in your story, you're merely treading water, attempting to keep your head above the waves like a coward. Just release and accept that you have lost.