BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The AK-47 is superior to the M16

"if the AK-47 is much more superior than the m16/m4a1 then shouldn't the AK-47 balance the fight?" Nothing was said about balancing a fight, I am arguing that the gun by itself is better. I also never said "much more superior", which implies that having an AK-47 means automatic victory, I simply said superior. "What it really comes down to is not the weapon, but the person you give it to." I agree, but that is irrelevant, because we are discussing the quality and characteristics of the gun itself, not the training of those using it. First off, the AK-47 is smaller than the M16, meaning it is more mobile and is very easy to use. Children can be taught how to take apart, put together and use an AK-47 in an hour because it only has 8 moving parts. Next, the AK-47 round (7.9 g) is over twice as heavy as the M16 (3.6 grams) which means it will cause more damage. The AK-47 also (as Con mentioned) much cheaper. An AK-47 costs $150 on average while an M16 costs around $670 per unit. This means that you can arm over 4 times as many people with an AK as you can with an M16 for the same price, without sacrificing performance. The penetration of an AK-47 (74 cm through ballistic gelatin) is almost twice as high as the M16 (38 cm through ballistic gelatin), meaning that the AK-47 is more effective against armored targets than the M16. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.military-today.com... http://www.theglobalist.com...
The AK-47 is superior to the M16

First off, I understand that AK-47 are cheaper because they are made with stamp metal ( the less fancy ones ) and can still perform amazing when it's dirty and dusty, BUT the m16 has a longer range and more accurate sights. The US kills more insurgents(ARMED WITH AK-47's) than the insurgents kill them, I understand insurgents have less training but if the AK-47 is much more superior than the m16/m4a1 then shouldn't the AK-47 balance the fight? What it really comes down to is not the weapon, but the person you give it to.
Humans are from Mars

Firstly, my partner does not provide a single source in his second or third post. I strongly recommend getting something down and posting in the comments. My partner also said that "there is a theory that...". Yet, he does not provide any name for this theory. Also, theories are hypothesises that are supported by evidence, yet I cannot find any evidence in my partners theory. Why should we accept this? What proof is there? (1) As for King Tutankhamen. In the picture, my partner presents the similarity between what I take to be either an alien skull or Tutankhamen's skull. However, if you inspect a bit closer you will see that, in the skull shown at the top, the face is pointed upwards, while in the bottom image, the King's is pointed strait. This "differing of perspectives" leads me to believe that that thing at the top is not Tutankhamen's skull. Also, this is a piece of concept art with no backing whatsoever. My opponent mentions the difformation of the Pharaoh's skull, yet this doesn't automatically prove that he is an alien. There have been many people known to be born with skull deformities, and Mayans and other ethnicities practiced skull elongating in their babies. http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Counters My partner claims that the ancient humans knew that Earth is the only habitable planet and so the landed here. This rebuttal shoots itself in the foot. If no evidence has been found for life outside earth, which my partner admits by not debating it, then ancient humans couldn't have existed to come here. And therefore humans were the poduct of "mother earth".
Humans are from Mars

Since I mistakenly have myself the BoP, I can only thank my partner for dividing it equally and I will prove my side. There has been no imperial evidence as to existence of any alien life outside of planet Earth. None of the world's governments recognize the existence of aliens. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov... I can't really think of much more, I'm just waiting till the rebuttal stage. Also, I recommend that my partner provide valid sources for his arguments instead of pictures.
Humans are from Mars

There is a theory that we are from mars. The human race tried to land on the Earth and colonize it because of the better climate. While landing the ship crashlanded in Africa creating what we know as the first humans. These humans didn't have modern Technology for so long we just wen crazy and started talking to the next enerations of things like unicorns, Atlantis, etc, etc. While all those things actually exist on Mars. And that is how religon started. Each family talked to the next generation only about their favorite things but all are similar a little. http://www.happehtheory.com... This link shows how King Tut's head seemed longer than a regular humans. Also the curse of the tomb actually happened. Is that just a coincidence that every single person that leisurely walked into that room that day died soon after? Though King Tutankhamun looks too much like a human to be an Alien. his whole lower part of the body seems to be completely normal. This can mean only that King Tut was a homo-sapien from mars. Not only that, possibly he was an adult alien from mars. Also these "Martians" may still exist. After all the more you have invented the faster you invent. So if they could transport homo-sapiens between planets back then, then now they should have such a jamming system that we couldn't even think about it or notice it. They could block our radars just like that! Also the Martian rover was probablly being controlled by the "Martians", sending us false images and test samples, and to think our scientists believed them. Imagine being able to make a whole race believe in gigantic talking trees or something! They could make us look like fools! Also the Hanging Gardens have been a great wonder. Though what happened to it. All artists picture it with water fowing from the top, but the screw pump was invented by Archimedes in greece during the golden age. How could it happen. Well the answer is easy. The aliens showed us high techs to make us remember waht happened. Though humanity took them as gods and the high techs as Magic.
Love is not natural

In conclusion, since this is my last round, I see no reason to rebut the arguments of my opponent in the preceding round because most of the things he said there, has been rebutted in my previous argument. My opponent is only given reasons to love and is yet to prove that love does exist. Finally, I still maintain that love does not exist.....my facts, definition, arguments and rebuttals lie in the preceding rounds. Readers, please read meaning into the argument before you vote
Love is not natural

DEFINITIONS: a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person. : attraction that includes sexual desire : the strong affection felt by ... www.merriam-webster.com/../love Love definition, a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person. See more. dictionary.reference.com/browse/love NATURAL:1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. Let me start by saying that emotion is not love. So one might feel emotional and sexually aroused but that is not love which shows that love is not natural. Let me argue from this angle: Love is just an illusion fact. Don't be mislead'. When you see a girl, and your heart accept such a person even without talking to the person is that love? Seriously thats lust. Your mind has been predominated with sentiments and emotions and such things is not love. Based on the explanation of love by scholars, they said: love is a 'natural' phenomenal which needs to be grown, hatched and harvested. But then there are contradicting statements here, since love is natural, why should It be grown again, hatched and harvested? To the best of my knowledge, blinking of eyes is natural, and you cannot grow the blinking of eyes neither will you grow the rumbling of the thunder. Why then should love be grown since it is natural like water?. Let me ask this, if a man who married a woman and they lived for 3years and later on, they divorced due to some problems will you call that love? Because they will keep telling each other 'I love you'. I read one of the popular articles of love written by the 'guardians' and they gave the characteristics of love which they even included 'forgiveness'. Lets be logical, if one of the attributes of love is forgiveness, why is it that some break their relationship without coming back to it? Why is it that when some break their relationship, they simply get another person? Seriously, that is never natural. When something is said to be natural, it means that it is said to be. NO WOUNDER!!! People said: love is something that grows slowly over time, as you bit by bit disclose who you are, hear who they are. As you struggle to accept or compromise and slowly learn that the other can be trusted to work with you and to consider your needs on par with your own. But my arguments still lie on this, why is it that love is not that natural like the blinking of the eyes? I AWAITS MY OPPONENTS REPLY answers.yahoo.com/question/index%3F...
Love is not natural

Love is incredibly natural; and I intend to prove why.BoP is shared.In this debate I'll be using the following definitions:1love : a feeling of strong or constant affection for a person: attraction that includes sexual desire : the strong affection felt by people who have a romantic relationship: a person you love in a romantic way natural :existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial ) :based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature. :of or pertaining to nature or the universe You may make your opening case. http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Should the Death Penalty Be Kept

"The death penalty is a vital part of American justice." Pro argues that the death penalty is a vital part of american justice, whilst in the realities of various other governments there can be more proposals toward different approaches, therefore it is NOT the only vital portion of american justice, whilst regarding the death penalty it should not be sustainable. The death penalty should not be kept, there can be various other methods of sustaining criminals in their current sentence periods. Alternatives can help contribute to less death and in fact, less torture. Not to mention of the racial discrimination involved in criminal participation towards misdeeds such as stealing, raping, murder, etc. Such as the case regarding juvenile delinquents whom had also been given death penalty less likely than adult criminals. This is immoral and unjustified children who committed crimes should NOT be given death penalty instead they should be given the liberty of doing workforce of perhaps a harsher punishment. [1] Primarily, it is considered that the death penalty has been overused for the past century and thus is consistent and impractical. The death penalty does NOT save lives, in fact it merely increases the homicide rates which swell up in prison facilities. [2] It is arbitrary to assume that the death penalty should be kept, and it is comprehensible as to why it should for the sole reason of the highest punishment unimaginable defined by the system of the U.S. government. "Without it, more people would commit horrific crimes because they no longer fear death." With the death penalty, prisoners can STILL fear death, we cannot assume that a prisoner's state of mind is truly sane nor insane. Yes, people can commit a large number of horrific crimes but given the death penalty. It can be overused. The supreme court has ruled the death penalty to be unconstitutional and thus most government officials have done nothing to recognize it.[3] This exemplifies that not only can prisoner's be given the opportunity of liberty through the sake of the free peoples but it can serve as a reminder to help realize that the death penalty is immoral and thus unjustified.[3] [1]http://psycnet.apa.org... [2]http://www.nber.org... [3]http://journals.sagepub.com...
star wars vs star trek

Star wars did have some very unique special effects for it's time and with a budget of 3,900,00 USD they certainly did the best they could.[1] Unfortunately, they should have left some money for an editor. (See YouTube video #1) and (YouTube video #2 - Time stamp 1:41 through 5:10).Star Trek followed suit with a powerful motion picture, with a massive overall budget of 46 million USD. The team hired Douglas Trumbull, the genius behind "The Space Odyssey". This special effects magician engineered the most convincing space scenes of the era. [2] You can watch the making of of the motion picture on YouTube video #3.While the battle of "which is more entertaining" is largely left to opinion, the question of "which is better" is undoubtedly in the hands of the creators. This battle, without any doubt, is a clear victory for team Star Trek.They yielded better alien costumes, more advanced space scenes, higher quality alien landscapes, detailed alien languages, huge special effects budgets and techniques that shaped the industry. Star Wars, by comparison, was "made for TV" quality.Over to you Pro. http://io9.com... [1]http://douglastrumbull.com... [2] http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
star wars vs star trek

ok so star trek has made real stuff but star war did a grand Job making star war look real Light saber- [1] The technique used to create the lightsaber effect is pretty straightforward, but tedious. On the set, the actors use props composed of handles that have aluminum rods attached to them, and these rods are the length of the lightsaber "blade." The handles are plastic models and the aluminum rods are painted red or green or blue. The actors use these props as though they were lightsabers.After the film is shot, it is taken to the special effects department. The film is developed normally. In this film, the actors look like they are fighting with painted broomsticks instead of lightsabers. A special effects artist now has the job of making those broomsticks look real. The artist looks at the film frame by frame, and projects each frame that contains a lightsaber onto a clear piece of plastic (an animation cel). The special effects artist draws the outline of each lightsaber blade in the frame onto the cel. Then, for each frame, the artist paints in the correct color for the blade using a bright cartoon color. Eventually the artist has a stack of these cels, one for each frame of the movie containing a lightsaber. The cels are clear everywhere except where the lightsaber blade is seen in each frame. [1] http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com... The force Fields work the same as star trek The star wars saga has lots of people not just White men just you do not see them because of their costumes and most of the woman were governors or slaves to other Aliens Star war was made in many places like where Luke live in the movie a new hope that was in a real place and se of the other movie were made there too. Back to you con.
star wars vs star trek

The supremacy of Star Trek, measured by its cultural, socialand scientific impact on Human society: Science: Tricorders – University of Arizona researchscientist Peter Jensen invented a fully functioning tricorder. The portablesensor unit measures “temperature,humidity, air pressure, magnetic fields, surface temperatures, colors, ambient light level, ambient polarization, acceleration, direction, distance(ultrasonically), and of course it has a GPS receiver.” [1] The unit caneven test power outlets by placing the device in front of it. An inductorcircuit measures the fluctuating sine wave of traditional 60Hz outlets anddisplays the waveform on a built-in oscilloscope. This is, of course, keepingwith the Star Trek tradition of wireless sensor technology. Phaser – The development of lasers or “photoncollimator devices ”is nothing new. Burning lasers have a varietyof functions in a variety of devices. A weaponized version, however, has onlybeen researched at the military level ( MDEAS - MultimodeDirected Energy Armament System [3]). That doesn’t stop Star Trek enthusiastsfrom making their own. (See the YouTube video of home-made phasor, as it blaststhrough a balloon on the other side of the room). Force Fields – British military intelligence is developing a StarTrek style force field, which will use electromagnetic pulses to repulseprojectile explosives, like rockets and missiles. The Defense ministry claims “it is possible to incorporate material knownas supercapacitors into armour of a vehicle to turn it into a kind of giantbattery. When a threat from incoming fire is detected by the vehicle, the energystored in the supercapacitor can be rapidly dumped onto the metal plating onthe outside of the vehicle, producing a strong electromagnetic field.” [4] Conclusion - Star Trek -3, Star Wars -0. Social / Political: Racial/Gender/Political Harmony - Star Trek changed the social climate in America,advocating utopian principles like racial equality, bi-racial marriages and genderequality. Star Wars did not feature a single female Jedi and the only BlackJedi from the original films (James Earl Jones) was forced to be portrayed as awhite man, something that has offended many, many black patrons of the series. Afterall, we can’t have a bi-racial Luke Skywalker, now can we? In fact, Samuel L. Jacksonis the only black Jedi portraying his actual race in the entire saga and ittook more than 50 years to make that happen. Star Trek was half a century ahead of its competition: “Roddenberry envisioned a multi-ethnic crew, including an African-American woman, a Scotsman, a Japanese American, and most notably, an alien, the half-Vulcan Mr. Spock. In the second season Roddenberry added a Russian crewmember at a time when the United States was engaged in a tense cold war with the Soviet Union. Blacks and women were also shown as scientists and doctors on the ship.” Conclusion - Star Trek – 4, Star Wars-0. Over to you Pro. http://dvice.com... [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2] http://www.wired.com... [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [4] http://www.youtube.com...
star wars vs star trek

I did enjoy the debate very much. It's refreshing to discuss something a little off-topic once in a while. I'd also like to welcome you to DDO and congratulate you on your first debate.I would ask the voters to please not vote for my victory, if that is their initial intention. I would push for a tie. This debate should have been in a forum but my opponent wanted to get some experience.To my opponent: 1.> Use heavy sources. Nothing helps a case like a credible, expert witness. This is a scored category and it can often be a free point if your opponent isn't savy at source citation. 2.> Use your spell-check. The quickest way to disarm a lazy voter is to make sure your spelling and grammar are on point. "One to beam up."-GC
There is no proof of a God

Looking at some of these links, non of them have shown with empirical evidence that there is an afterlife. The one article tries to explain that our "soul" is made of electrical signals, and since energy cannot be destroyed (the law of conservation of energy) our souls will last forever. But our consciousness is much more than just electrical signals in the brain. There are chemical reactions, electrical impulses, and specific biological structures in the brain. The claim that "since we dont know fully what consciousness is, or the "soul", it must be the work of a divine creator" is not a legitimate answer to the problem. And IF the soul did persist after death, where is the soul before conception? Furthermore, some of the articles cited are clever philosophical ideas, but are just plainly wrong. For instance the idea of the universe existing solely for US is absurd. The universe would exist whether we are here to perceive it or not. On the argument that a person dies during surgery while under anestetic, they dont actually die. There is still lots of brain activity happening even though the person has no perception of it. The brain still autonomically controls the bodies systems. I will conceit that when a person dies their body is a shell, devoid of consciousness. But the biological energy that creates consciousness simply dissipates into the surrounding space. The fact that we have consciousness does not prove in any way that god exists. No does any passage in the bible; that is simply an appeal to antiquity. Furthermore, at least science is trying to explain the origins of the universe and life through the scrutinization of empirical evidence. Religion claims it knows exactly and truly the origins, based on no evidence at all.
The Root of Faith Cannot be Faith.

The Root of faith cannot be faith itself and the purpose of this debate is to have someone either give me an incontrovertible reason to have faith in one faith over another faith or accept that their argument is circular and they have no real reason to choose one religion over another other than worldly influences which are without any real consequence i.e. "my parents taught me this" or "my society is largely Christian/Muslim ect". Rules: -Ad hominems will be taken as a forfeit. Let's be civil -First round is acceptance only. -Second round will be only opening arguments. -Third round rebuttals and fourth round closing arguments. -As the main point of this debate is to support a faith without the faith itself, you may not quote the Bible or similar religious texts or church dogma and the like. This is because the texts can only be considered valid if you already have faith in them, therefor the faith cannot stem from the texts. -Apologetic quotes or philosophical arguments or your own original ideas are all welcome. -I am not anti-religion or hostile to any faith, do not treat me as such. Assume I am at least decently informed in the Christian teachings/apologetics
The Root of Faith Cannot be Faith.

It was my original intention to clarify the parameters and objectives of the debate in my opening argument but since that was already done in the comments I am simply going to reiterate what was said there and continue with my opening statement. "The goal of my opponent would be to provide an irrefutable reason for that first bit of faith that leads to faith in the bible and the church ext. .. my goal will be to refute any reason and attempt to force the conclusion that there is no good reason to have faith in Yahweh or any other deity" This is the simple way of stating the objectives each respective party should strive to achieve. If you look at the words used, namely "reason " faith " leads " faith " bible/church ext"" it is clear that the objective of my opponent is to provide a reason which necessarily leads to faith in the teachings of a religion and its respective god. The very first statement in my first round of debate read "reason to have faith in one faith over another faith" making it is a clear part of the general objective of my opponent to provide a reason not for the general necessity of a god, but for any one specific god or pantheon which would demand "faith over another faith". That being clarified, we can move on to my opening argument. The definition of faith by Merriam Webster is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" specifically "belief and trust in and loyalty to God : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... My contention based on this definition and historical record is that there is no empirical evidence proving any faith and only scattered evidence supporting a handful of mutually exclusive faiths which is ultimately inconclusive. The only "reason" therefor that logically supports one religion over another must be an abstracted, logical argument which ends in the logical necessity for one particular god over the rest, whichever god(s) may be. It is my opponents job to provide one or many of these arguments in this second round and for me to attempt to refute them in the third. After that he will continue to defend them or concede some of them and the fourth round will consist of closing statements directed at the voters. I look forward to your arguments.