BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Guns Decrease Crimes, Less Guns Increase Times

That entire website is completely misled. Firstly it uses Switzerland as an example, as often pro-gun people do. In Switzerland, it is legal to own a firearm and not hard to get your hands on one, mainly due to national service. However the crime rate is low. This is because Switzerland is a very middle class society, compared with the US which, in general, is far poorer per person. In Switzerland, the average male is worth $512,562, compared with the USA where the average adult is $301,140. However the only reason this figure is so high is because of the richest 1% raising the average dramatically, who own more than the other 99% of the nation combined. As such, the USA has a far higher rate of crime than Switzerland does, and the fact that more Americans have firearms to hand (88% of Americans compared to roughly 25% of Swiss people) results in the statistics I have just presented to you. On the other hand, Brazil has strict gun laws yet extremely high gun-homicide rates. Yet in Brazil cities such as Sao Paolo and Rio de Janeiro are filled with drug cartels who are often better armed than the nation's police. Moreover, in Brazil civilians do not buy firearms because they know that they will be useless in self-defence against the cartels. Brazil has strict gun laws because it has major gun problems which it has yet to solve. Trying to make a correlation between the gun-homicide rate and the strictness of gun control in Brazil actually disproves your own argument, because gun control is strict in Brazil because of high gun homicide rates, not the other way round. Furthermore, that website you referred me to is falsely claiming facts which are simply not true, and are not supported by official figures. It is clearly a website set up by gun lobbyists to falsely educate people about the real truth behind guns. They say there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun crime: well, that is simply incorrect. All you have to do is look at the statistics. I believe my opponent is honestly more intelligent than to fall victim to such a vile and corrupting website as that, which tells people something is "fact" when it is simply incorrect information. And the fact they then have the nerve to ask for money to fund their project?! I digress, but to conclude, there is a correlation between gun ownership rates and gun crime rates in MEDC democracies which are not plagued by the War on Drugs. If you won't take my word for it, or my evidence, you don't have to. You can look it up for yourself, and I guarantee you that the countries with higher ownership rates will have higher gun crime rates, and if not please tell me what country you have found which does not fit this correlation, and I will explain to you the extenuating circumstances which account for this.
Guns Decrease Crimes, Less Guns Increase Times

Your assertion that places with more guns have less violence is just plain false. The USA experiences 2.97 homicides by gun per 100,000 people - the highest rate of any developed democracy - and 88% of Americans own a gun. Let's contrast this with Japan, where there are 0.6 guns for every 100 people, and 0.01 deaths per 100,000 people from firearms. Or how about the UK, where it is slightly easier to get hold of a firearm? In the UK there are 6.2 guns for every 100 people, yet 0.07 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people. This is not a coincidence, this is a simple and logical correlation between number of guns owned, the availability of guns and the number of people killed by them. Therefore places with more guns without a doubt have more violence than places without them.
Abaddon the destroyer in the New Testament is probably one of God's angels

SECOND REBUTTALIn support of his contention, my opponent now states that Abaddon is "king of the abyss" and therefore, if he were evil, would still release the Devil.In response, I would merely point out that Abaddon is not King of the Abyss, as my opponent asserts, but "king over" the locusts (Rev 9:11) and "angel of the abyss," (Rev 9:11). His is a misreading of the text. Therefore, Abaddon has power over the locusts only, and not the entire abyss. Thus, he might easily be a fallen angel, and not one sent from God.In addition, there is no reason to make the connection between the locusts of this incident and the plagues of Egypt. The locusts of Revelation are unlike any Earthly locusts:"The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle." (Rev 9:7-9)
Abaddon the destroyer in the New Testament is probably one of God's angels

Rebuttals : even if another angel captured the Devil, the fact remains that Abaddon is the king of the abyss in chapter 9. if he were evil, he would still release him. God's angels will always do His will (Psalm 103:20). The locusts are also parallel to the ones in the plagues of Egypt. This shows that most likely, Abaddon is an angel working to bring justice.
Abaddon the destroyer in the New Testament is probably one of God's angels

The Hebrew word abaddon, derived from the verb to perish, is used alongside the word sheol to signify the abode of the dead, a place of perishing or destruction. Revelation 9:11 simply personifies this place in the person of Abaddon, a "king" over the tormenting locusts, and an "angel of the Abyss." Revelation tells us specifically that his "name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer)."Accepting for a moment the scriptural integrity of the Bible as legitimate revelation, I would agree with my opponent that Matthew 12:16 would proscribe Abaddon from acting against Satan, and dividing his kingdom. However, the Bible does not make this claim. Revelation 20:1-3 is not referring to Abaddon, but to another "angel from heaven." My opponent has failed to establish that Abaddon from Rev 9:11 is equivalent to the "angel from heaven" mentioned in Rev 20:1-3. This is the central plank in his argument.I agree that there are angels of the Lord who are responsible for death or torment, but the Bible is not explicit in detailing the allegiances of Abaddon the Destroyer.
Abaddon the destroyer in the New Testament is probably one of God's angels

There is a problem with interpreting this angel as Satan. Look at the following passage: Revelation 20:1-3 " Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while." Chapter 9 already says that he is in the abyss, so how can Satan or any other evil angel work against each other? This would contradict Jesus' statement. Matthew 12:26 "And if Satan is casting out Satan, he is divided and fighting against himself. His own kingdom will not survive." Clearly Abaddon cannot be one of Satan's demons, therefore he must be one of God's angels. There are many types of angels which give messages, participate in wars, blessings, and there are also destroying angels. 2 Samuel 24:15 "So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the appointed time, and from Dan to Beer-sheba 70,000 men died. " 1 Chron. 21:15 is a parallel "And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But just as the angel was preparing to destroy it, the LORD relented and said to the death angel, "Stop! That is enough!" At that moment the angel of the LORD was standing by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite." 2 Kings 19:35 "That night the angel of the LORD went out to the Assyrian camp and killed 185,000 Assyrian soldiers. When the surviving Assyrians woke up the next morning, they found corpses everywhere." Acts 12:23 "Instantly, an angel of the Lord struck Herod with a sickness, because he accepted the people's worship instead of giving the glory to God. So he was consumed with worms and died." As we can see, angels can bring death to humans as well. The abyss is a spiritual prison (Luke 8:31; I Pet. 3:19; II Pet. 2:4; Jude 6.) He allows destroying spirits loose to harm all except those who already were believers. Revelation 9:4 "4 They were commanded not to harm the grass of the earth, or any green thing, or any tree, but only those men who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. " There are instances where God allows evil spirits to unintentionally do his work such as Paul's thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. 12:7) and 1 Samuel 16:14 "Now the Spirit of the LORD had left Saul, and the LORD sent a tormenting spirit that filled him with depression and fear." It's very evident that the angel Abaddon is a specific kind of angel in Revelation which will execute God's judgement on all ungodly men.
Abaddon the destroyer in the New Testament is probably one of God's angels

CONCLUSIONMy opponent wishes to establish that Abaddon of Revelation is an angel of God. In Round 2, he does this by assuming that Abaddon is the same "angel from Heaven" mentioned in Rev 20:1-3, which I have shown to be false.In Round 3, he suggests that Abaddon is the King of the Abyss, which I have demonstrated to be false. In fact, he is king "over" the locusts. See Rev 9:11.Nevertheless, in Round 4, he now asserts that Abaddon "reigns over the abyss." He backs this up by reference to Rev 9:11. This is erroneous. If you read from Rev 9:7, where it says that "they had king over them the angel of the abyss," it is clear that the pronoun they refers to the locusts alone and not to all of the inhabitants of the abyss. He also suggests that the Destroyer of Revelation is the Destroyer of Exodus. However, the Hebrew word used to describe these two entities is different in either case. It is Abaddon ("Perisher") in Revelation, and ha-mashchiyth ("the destroyer") in Exodus.In conclusion, it is ambiguous as to whether Abaddon is an angel of God, perhaps with some responsibility for the abyss, or a fallen angel who is "of the abyss" and leader of a group of demonic locusts. I would, however, plump for latter explanantion.
Abaddon the destroyer in the New Testament is probably one of God's angels

While Abaddon is the king of the locusts, he also reigns over the abyss. Rev. 9:11 "11 And they had as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon." In the Old Testament, the destroyer is also mentioned in Exodus 12:23 Exo 12:23 "For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you." It is probable that they are one in the same person. There is more reason to believe that this angel exists to execute God's judgement on the ungodly. If Abaddon were an evil angel, he would not willingly obey and cease to strike those with the seal of God.
Social Security Hurts the Poor and Elderly and Should be Abolished

1)Social Security and Payroll tax = *not* the same thing 2)So what if I am "advocating Socialism?" I'm defending my position in the debate. 3)You seem to have a massive misunderstanding of greed and human weakness, from even the most well-intentioned souls. 4)You have not really refuted my arguments, or shown how it is that if someone has no money or assets at all, then if Social Security disappears everything will be nice and rosy the next day. 5)If a person cannot work at all because of a disability or such, all of your arguments for abolishing Social Security become void as you have not talked of any kind of replacement system, except for the wonderfully mysterious (and evidently reverential) "private sector." Right - leave it to them and they'll take care of it. 6)Not tangents, points; points which you did not answer. 7)You using the Heritage Organization as a source is quite amusing. A bunch of rich white guys - the most conservative people in the country - I'm sure they can tell the poor exactly how to fix all their own problems because it is so in their interest to do so. I'm sure they'll get around to it after they finish counting the interest on their offshore accounts and add Reagan to the Greek Pantheon. 8)Even by that ridiculous source's numbers of .3%, that's STILL quite a few people for the richest nation in the world. 9)If you provide a job for someone that cannot work, it isn't "charity" at all. If you provide someone with a dead-end job that will never get them out of poverty but keeps them from receiving benefits already available, it isn't charity either, it's another case of the haves exploiting the have-nots. 10)In real numbers, the price of goods and services never goes down, only up. 11)"You seem to think that once money goes into someone's hands, the money stays there as a fixed accumulation." Only for the wealthy, who have enough money already that it doesn't matter - it must be nice to be able to live on interest. 12)"Who do you think built the artificial limbs that have computer sensors to sense heat? Who built the artificial heart? Who created the Internet software for the visually impaired? I'll give you a hint: It wasn't some government bureaucracy. I could go on and on." And you talk about my tangents. What does this have to do with anything? Also, you have to be able to afford these things before you have them (which counts out most poor disabled people. Again, the companies didn't make these to be charitable - they made them to make profits for themselves. 13)"People are the bottom of the economic ladder have done progressively better off as time has passed throughout this Country." Please wake up from Ayn Rand-cult fantasy-land. It was an interesting debate until you politicized it and began to write in the tone of a freshman. Just do one thing for me: don't ever fall on hard times or become paralyzed or poor - you would have to give up your current delusions and come to grips with reality. It might be too much for you. *shrug* Britt
Social Security Hurts the Poor and Elderly and Should be Abolished

Social Security provides government assistance for Seniors and other people unable to work. While this is certainly a noble goal, Social Security has had the opposite effect from what its well-intentioned sponsors wanted it to have because it must be funded with the payroll tax or go bankrupt. Consequently, abolishing Social Security would lead to much more desirable results. Few taxes have harmed poor people more than the payroll tax. The payroll tax is roughly a 12.4% tax on a worker's wages. An employer withholds 6.2% of the employee's wages, and then the employer matches that amount before giving it to Uncle Sam to pay for Social Security. The wage base for the social security tax is $97,500 for the year 2007. The amount is scheduled to rise to $102,000. After Washington receives the money, checks are printed out and distributed directly to retired people. Contrary to popular belief, none of the money is saved in an account for the individual. In fact, the rest of the money is spent on government programs, which is why Al Gore suggested creating a "lock box" to prevent the payroll taxes from being used for other purposes. Had Al Gore explained what he meant by a "lock box" he would not have been embarrassed on Saturday Night Live. Then again, I wonder if Al Gore even understood what he was talking about at the time. Amazingly, government bureaucrats wonder why people who pay these payroll taxes for their entire lives do not have a large savings when they retire, and then rely on their Social Security checks. Hypothetically, if a private investment firm asked you to pay 12.4% of your income to them for your entire life, and then only gave you less than a 10% return, you would fire the firm and the Securities and Exchange Commission would prosecute the crooks for creating an illegal Ponzi scheme. Still, people seem to accept being cheated by their own government. The common liberal myth is that workers only pay 6.2% for payroll taxes. That is not true. By forcing an employer to pay 6.2% as well, the employee bears the burden for both taxes. The reason why the employee pays for both taxes is because the employer could care less whether the 6.2% went to the government or the employee, but it needs to get paid no matter what. Before hiring a worker, an employer must consider how much it will cost for payroll taxes, among other expenses. Every employer would rather give his employee 6% more money if he did not have to pay 6.2% to the government. Moreover, if there were no payroll tax, the employer could hire more workers. Overall, the employees always lose because the money would go to the employee in some form or another if the employer were not required to pay the tax. This is also why "taxing the rich" hurts the poor just as much. Eventually, when people give all of their earned money away to the government, and have none for themselves, future poverty will be created in this Country. It is just a never-ending cycle, and has not shown to benefit the poor; it has made them dependent on Government.
Homosexuality is not against nature or what God has designed

There is not ONE VERSE in the Bible that says that homosexuality is a sin or that it goes against nature; only the religious customs in Biblical times. I challenge you to show me with the Bible where it condemns this type of sexual orientation or behavior. Furthermore, I challenge you to explain to me how you reconcile the fact that God also made AIS hermaphrodites. These people are BORN physically both male AND female. In fact, and AIS hermaphrodite or "intersex" person has a vagina, female breasts, are hormonally more female that the average female. The do NOT have a uterus, cervix, fallopian tubes, or ovaries. The DO have internal testicles and their DNA is male. If our sexual orientation is determined by God, and he reveals what our orientation should be by our gender, what is one to do that is born with a vagina AND testicles? This is where science and the Bible clearly contradict each other if I were to accept the conservative Christian view of sexual orientation. This is nature's little "curve ball" thrown at Christianity and the Bible, for the Bible makes no mention of such conditions. Who would this person choose as a mate without sinning if homosexuality is a sin?
Abortion on demand is morally and ethically wrong as well as currently overused

Cows, Bacteria, and MoralityGetting to the actual points, I think PRO misunderstands my comparison of a fetus to bacteria, plants, etc. Those comparisons were based on PRO's own criteria. In Round 1, PRO argues that we are not justifying in terminating a pregnancy because the fetus responds to stimuli, while in Round2 he makes pretty much the same argument based on pain-avoidance behavior. I was making the comparisons I did to point out that these behaviors alone (stimulus/response, pain avoidance) do not offer sufficient justification to prohibit the termination of pregnancy, unless we will similarly offer such protections to other forms of life that exhibit the same behaviors. If we are basing an argument solely on a behavior, we have to expand it to anything that exhibits that behavior. In Round 3 PRO has explicitly stated that "the person has to come first," suggesting that humans deserve preferential treatment over other life forms. PRO has not provided reasoning why this should be so. PRO's final argument regarding morality is to claim that abortions are immoral because they cause death, and because they may cause pain to the fetus. However, causing pain and death are not necessarily immoral. A surgeon may cause pain, but (s)he is likely not behaving immorally. Similarly, an anyone may accidentally cause pain, or even the death of another individual, and not necessarily be immoral. Also, if we cause pain or death in the defense of ourselves or our family, we are quite likely not behaving immorally. Since causing pain and death is not necessarily immoral, PRO has not sufficiently made his case. OveruseRegarding overuse, PRO himself has admitted that his arguments boil down to his own opinion. He wrote earlier this round that his points are "simple, in my eyes at least," and he ended with "I think this is immoral. " With no objective ruler to measure use vs. overuse, PRO has not established what constitutes overuse, and therefore, he has not demonstrated that abortions are overused. Coma PatientPRO's question regarding a coma patient is a red herring, having little or no bearing on his arguments. However, if PRO would like to debate that point in the future, I would be happy to oblige. Final Thoughts PRO began this debate with a twofold claim. He claimed that "Abortion on demand is (1) morally and ethically wrong as well as (2) currently overused. " In order to meet his burden of proof, PRO needs to demonstrate both of his points. I have shown that he has not sufficiently demonstrated his first point, and that his only argument for point two is a self-admitted opinion. PRO has not adequately made his case.