BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The content of Video Games

We are now at our final round of debate. I'd like to summarize by saying while I agree there is no direct evidence of the cause-and-effect relationship between violent video games and teen violence, we can NOT afford to think that having violent video games readily available for people of all ages does not pose certain degree of concern. The concern is it occupies the mind of immature and mentally unstable teenagers with aggressive thoughts and might trigger violent behavior, causing great harm to other people and demoralize the rest of society. Just because there is no direct evidence does not mean it is not the case as I postulated. We are actually quite used to believing things without direct evidence - most religious beliefs fall into this category. Another similar example: when one plays Sudoku, sometimes there is no obvious hint what number one should put down in a cell, but by indirect deduction, we reach the conclusion that there are no other possibilities but to put down a certain number. I believe that violent video gaming contributed to the Columbine incidence because no other possible causes made profound sense to me. The two teenagers engaged in playing Doom constantly. This couldn't have been a good thing. Yes, there might have been other contributing factors. But who is to say that the violence they practice in their virtual world did not become the "last straw on the back of the camel" and played into their final act? One day when you have kids of your own, you might have second thoughts of allowing them unrestricted access to violent video games. Don't you agree?
The content of Video Games

According to the Columbine example, it may look as though these video games caused these teens to "crossover" but we have no hard evidence that it actually caused them to go out and do so. While they may have come from good families, and they received and gave the "average" bullying, and that might not have affected them as much as the game DOOM, there could have been more factors. Not only are there multiple factors there is a perception of schools that is wrong. According to Dr. Lawrence Kutner (http://www.huffingtonpost.com...) the violence in schools has gone down a lot. But there is much more coverage of schools which causes people to think that school are more dangerous. If you take a look at the game, DOOM, it is much less gory and violent compared to games such as Gears of War, or Call of Duty. Yet, violence has gone down, this proves the non affecting effects of video games.
The content of Video Games

You seem to be saying that in war-torn places, kids are exposed to real-life violence and such exposure is linked to real-life teen violence; but in places where there are no wars and where kids have access to electronics and the Internet, teens who play violent video games will limit the violence to the virtual world and will not transpose their participation in violent acts from the virtual to the real world. In other words, as far as violence goes, you think there is a partition of the virtual and the real worlds. There are no crossovers. From a logic standpoint, to prove you wrong, all I need to do is to cite one example of crossover. Such an example is not hard to find: e.g. the Columbine High School Massacre that took place in 1999. In this event, 2 teenagers, after a long period of planning, finally walked through the school hallways one day and killed over a dozen schoolmates before killing themselves. They were known to be gamers and, in the afternoons, they used to played the game DOOM, a first person shooter game that not only pioneered immersive 3D graphics and networked multiplayer gaming but also engaged in graphic and interactive violence. The two killers did not come from broken homes. They experienced a normal amount of bullying, both receiving and providing. The only constant source of mental images of violence came from the virtual world of DOOM. Eventually, through mutual encouragement and collaboration, they decided to put in action a violent way to die for themselves and for some of their schoolmates. They crossed over. I am not saying all gamers will cross over. I am saying we can not afford to have even a single person crossed over because of the potential devastation. When we experienced an event such as Columbine's, we drew the conclusion that violent video games do contribute to teen violence in real life.
The content of Video Games

I know that we're not here to discuss the crime rate but the 30 year low just helps prove that video games are not a major factor in making teens violent. Another pointer is that video games do not necessarily invoke aggressive thoughts. There are many other factors that would be much more effective such as bullying, abuse, illegal activities, etc. If a teen does happen to have aggressive thoughts, we wouldn't know whether the cause of that would be video games. I will go back to my first example, in the past, teens have lived much more dangerous and violent lives than we do now. Even today, some countries are constantly torn apart by the terrors of war. Do you think the teens there like violence? And do you think if they played violent video games, they would like it?
The content of Video Games

It's a good thing that the rate of teen violence has been decreasing. But we are not here to debate whether the rate is higher or lower than before. Instead, we are here to discuss whether there is a direct correlation between engaging in violent video games and acting out violence in real life, for teenagers. Psychologists have shown that youngsters spend a significant amount of their spare time playing video games, boys more so than girls. While not all video games contain violence, the most popular ones do. More importantly, playing violent video games has been linked to having aggressive thoughts (http://www.apa.org...). In my opinion, having aggressive thoughts is, for a teenage, the first step toward becoming violent in action. Since violent media games lead to aggressive thoughts and aggressive thoughts may lead to violent action, by the rule of transitivity, for sure violent media games contributes to teenage violence. There is no doubt about it.
Compulsory education is a form of kidnapping designed to train children to accept the class hierarch

PRO feels the argument has been made, so I will address it.The Argument...So FarPRO's argument so far is basically this:P1: Mandatory education teaches students to accept the status quo.P2: Mandatory education teaches students to sell their labor.P3: Mandatory education breaks up the structure of families.C: Mandatory education is kidnapping.Evidence, or, Lack ThereofI would like to start by pointing out that PRO has not offered any evidence in support of the premises to his/her argument. At this point, they are bald assertions that can be dismissed. I see no reason to argue against them, as I do not carry that burden.Does Not FollowEven if we accept PRO's premises, which I do not, the conclusion does not follow. Kidnapping is defined as the illegal seizure of another person by force or fraud [1]. This is not a description of the education system, so even if PRO can demonstrate the premises, the conclusion does not follow.Source[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Compulsory education is a form of kidnapping designed to train children to accept the class hierarch

I have only two points with which to conclude. DefinitionsPRO correctly defines "compulsory," but fails to see that it doesn't make mandatory school kidnapping. As I mentioned in the previous round, kidnapping is, by definition, an ILLEGAL seizure of a person [1]. If the laws of a particular jurisdiction provide for compulsory schooling, than it is completely legal, and cannot be considered kidnapping. This point alone sinks PRO's case. Still Doesn't Follow As I pointed out in the previous round, even if we accept PRO's premises, which he has not supported with evidence, they do not lead to the claimed conclusion. PRO has not addressed this point, and it stands. Wrapping Up PRO made an initial claim in setting up this debate. He failed to meet this burden by providing evidence for his claims, or even a valid argument. I had no burden, and carried no requirement to debunk PRO's claims. Finally, I would like to thank PRO for setting up this debate; it has been enjoyable. Source: [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Compulsory education is a form of kidnapping designed to train children to accept the class hierarch

compulsory [1] : required by a law or rule : having the power of forcing someone to do something Full Definition of COMPULSORY 1: mandatory, enforced 2: coercive, compelling Key word being enforced I would ask that MrJosh to provide some premise as to his rebuttal. Source [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
My opponent will not be able to win this debate

If he reads that sentence above incorrectly, he would mess up, as I imabench did in his expert tier's finale by misreading. that's right, everyone, my opponent can still make arguments, however, he cannot state that he was very meticulous and read everything carefully, thus, he cannot make an error. Why? That is a new point, and mentioning it would make you lose this debate. BWAHAHA! Now, to the rebuttals. LUCK STUFF Well I certainly have the skill to surmount the dumb beginner's luck thing. Your definition of smartness was not the real definition, it was a false definition. Smart really means clever and ingenuity, as well as my understanding of my topic. Because of my understanding, I will win this debate. As for me having no sources to prove that I will win this debate, well, I have proved my smartness. Plus, you made tons and tons of errors in the last round. No way you can win in S and G! In conclusion I will win this debate.
My opponent will not be able to win this debate

R1.R4 ProbabilityI'm not saying skill in the debate is not a factor. I'm stating the case that the odds are in my favor. My opponent through skill will have to surmount these odds.R2.R4 BrevityMy opponent began with the assertion that more characters is a factor to winning. Efficiency can be a deciding factor between 2 processes. In general people will agree that if a process or product is more efficient it is better.R3.R4 I am StrongerReread my initial post. I did not make an outrageous demand. I simply asked you live by the rules you established. To live other wise would be my opponent saying, "Do as I say, not as I do" Which I thin would make for an unfair debate.R4.R4 Conduct is to be seenMy opponent conceded baby and puppy are cuter than his additions. Then changes his argument to one of smartness. Smartness is also defined as impertinent, insolent. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Is my opponent confirming is confirming his conduct is of sore repute.R5.R4 Better sourcesWhether or not the statistical argument is a valid argument to the resolution is irrelevant to the case of sources. I have offered sources to establish the premises put forth in that argument. If the voters elect that the conclusion drawn from the statistical argument is not convincing enough to infer the resolution, the sources still count.R6.R4 Defeated TeemoCould that be because my debates are not so trivial as Unicorn vs Pegasi, or in 2 cases the debate was similar essay writing debates like http://www.thefreedictionary.com.... No doubt Teemo is an effective debater. But that would be talking about Teemo I still fail to see how that assigns different values of ability between you and I in this debate.R7.R4 I do have the opportunity to winMy opponent asserts, "I believe my opponent doesn't have a good position or chance to win." My position is equally in opposition to yours and valid in this debate. You are correlating my stance on the resolution to a disadvantage. This simply is not the case. Winning the debate is, as you said based on skill, and as I said some on chance. No where in that does it imply the starting points are already uneven. I start at one side of the field you on the other.Now, As far as chance goes you are using the very argument I posted in Round 2. You have attempted to negate this as having an impact and yet here you are asserting it's pertinence? You have made no arguments to define that the chances are different than I have presented. But here you are saying the chances are in your favor. Could you support this claim with sources and fact please.
My opponent will not be able to win this debate

Rebuttals1. beginner's luckIncorrect. If I was an awesome debater who tried his hardest on every single debate and only challenged noobies, the noobies will still have a lower chance of winning 1/10 debates rather than my wins on 10/10 debates, if I had incredibly strong arguments and scared all the noobs into forfeiting.2. Brevity is efficiencyMy opponent has failed to prove someone can win by presenting fewer characters than his opponent.3. I am strongerI am more confident than the average person. That does not mean I am over-confident. Had I been over-confident I would not have forgiven you in the first round for demanding something from me.4. Conduct is to be seenOh snap! Things just got real. Well, cuteness can never beat smartness. After all, there's a reason Albert Einstien is admired upon his ingenuity rather than his beauty! And plus, smartness can confuse my opponent, making him unable to rebut against my argument. Thus, I will state that because no one has ever been so far as been decided to use even go want to do more like, my opponent will not win.5. Better sourcesNow that you have presented the oxford Dictionary, and if you combine that with your original sources, you have more sources. However, if the statistical argument does not work, you are still two sources behind me.6. Defeated TeemoTeemo has a massive 3,000 elo. My opponent only has 2100 something. Go figure.7. My opponent thinks he has the opportunity to winOpportunity is defined as "a good position, chance, or prospect, as for advancement or success." by http://dictionary.reference.com.... Because of my shots of arguments and rebuttals, I believe my opponent doesn't have a good position or chance to win. I am the stronger debate, with more effort put into my arguments--more characters, and I am the one who posed the points, forcing my opponent to rebut. My opponent has in reality only made one argument, "beginner's luck", which I rebutted. He is rebutting all my other arguments without making his own, and because he is in such a defensive state, this shows he really is bluffing about his confidence, and without confidence, you lose!Onto you, con!
My opponent will not be able to win this debate

I will rebuttal my opponent's reasons in order. R1 Beginner's LuckI am new to the site. I'm likely to have beginner's luck in this debate there by securing a win. "As Paulo Coelho points out, Every search begins with beginner's luck. And every search ends with the victor's being severely tested. " [1] This luck is not really anything supernatural. It can be described in terms of probability. A coin toss is a perfect example. My opponent and I have the same chance to win in this debate (ideally) 50/50. However, my opponent is at a disadvantage. He already has a long list of wins before this debate. Essentially my opponent is on the 10th flip of a sequence of 10 where he already has 9 heads. The resolution implies he is confident the last flip will be "heads" as well. It is more likely by probability that he will lose this debate. [2]R2 Confirming R1I agree with the facts as presented by my opponent. These facts only further support the conditions set by R1. R3 Brevity is EfficiencyMy opponent in round one clearly defines the rules in which I, the opponent, can only accept in round 1. His case is circular. In that he requires me only to accept and then uses this as proof of a deficiency on part. How is it a deficiency if it is more efficient. [4] I by definition accomplished the 1st round with less time and effort than my opponent did. On this point then I am of a higher quality debater than my opponent and should win. R4 Relatively speaking I am strongerI am more confident that I will win. I elude to this in the first round in win I ask my opponent to put his life on the line in defence of the rules. I'm asking for him to put forth a stake of immense value to equal my level of confidence. If my opponent was to ask for me to lay my life down on the outcome of this debate he would have exhibited a greater confidence than me if I had refused to do so. This simple was not the case. He states that being 33 I am likely to have a heart attack stunned by his amazing strength. On this point I have to clarify that I have nearly twice the living experience as my opponent. Meaning I have seem more things than him, and will be less shocked by the appearance or show of force. Lastly, I am a retired combat disabled veteran who served in the combat arms branches of the U. S. Army. Physically and mentally I have already been privy to extreme conditions. Conditions I imagine would make my opponent pee his pants and faint. R5 Conduct is too be seenThis startling point comes right after he implies I am weak and will die from a heart attack. Clearly he is making judgements about me with out knowing about me. At this point we are probably tied. Babies are cuter than puppies. Obviously my opponent is at a strong disadvantage and his points successfully refuted. [1]. http://www.goodreads.com...[2]http://www.fourmilab.ch...[4]http://dictionary.reference.com...
My opponent will not be able to win this debate

Good. So far no one has broken the rules. REASONS WHY MHYKIEL CANNOT WIN AGAINST ME 1. Mhykiel is very inexperienced, while I am very experienced. My opponent has a mere 7 debates in his history, while I have a massive 80, more than 11 times more than him! Because such, I have more experience on this website and in debating, so I will win against him. 2. I haven't even loss against another debater who is much better than MhykielIn another debate presented here: . http://www.debate.org..., it is shown I didn't lose against Teemo, who has a massive amount of 3,000 elo, an impressive feat for having only done 14 debates. Mhykiel only has a 2,115 elo, how could he possibly best me? 3. I use up my characters more efficiently than Mhykiel, showing more effortI used a total of 321 characters last round, much much more than my opponent's mere 93 characters. Although Mhykiel can obviously catch up, as we both have a limit of 4,000 characters, and 300 is only part of that, Mhykiel will have a hard time, trying to rebut my arguments and having more characters than I. 4. I am serious about this debate and agree with it stronglyWhy is this important? Because I haven't lost any of my "school uniform" series of debates. It was because I was serious and I agreed strongly that I could research it easily, be interested, and post strong rebuttals and statements to win against my opponents. I was so powerful that I blew away my opponents, and they forfeited. My strongness in this debate could have an effect on my opponent's demeanor, and because he is 33 years old, he is most likely to have a heart-attack from reading such a strong argument, and he would forfeit all the rest of the rounds, forcing the win to me. Hey, adults are more likely to get heart-attacks than children! 5. My conduct is not only better than my opponent, but much better than the average debaterMy opponent "demands" that I enforce the rules with my life. That is no way to treat an opponent. It is almost as if I am a worker, or his slave. This clearly shows his conduct is worse than mine. I haven't done anything that might have deducted conduct points: whether personal attacks or forfeiture, none of these apply to me. Now, to even increase my conduct points more, I shall make, not only my voters happy, but my opponent too! This shows my forgiveness, and although my opponent may have terrible conduct to you, I know he can do better, from the bottom of my heart. How will I show my forgiveness? Cute picture of a puppy. As you can see, using five strong points of arguments, and using much more characters than my opponent used, showing more effort, and making it hard for my opponent to catach up to, there is no way that my opponent will win this debate.
Should we be allowed to drive at 14

Well, since you forfeited, there isn't much I can really talk about. You haven't even given an argument, so I will give some statistics for the voters to see. (citations will be at the bottom.) 1."5,864 teen drivers ages 15-20 were involved in fatal car accident. Young drivers between 15- and 20-years-old accounted for 6.4% (13.2 million) of total drivers on the road. An average of nine teens ages 16-19 were killed every day from motor vehicle injuries. 2."So a proportionally tiny amount of bad behavior is one of the major causes of death and injury on our roadways. Every 53 minutes on average, someone is killed in a drunk driving crash (9,878 people in total in 2011). Every two minutes, someone is injured because of this entirely preventable crime. You can learn more about drunk driving in your state." -Teens who drink alcohol are insanely more likely to die in a car crash. I hope my opponent doesn't continue to forfeit, any more rounds, because I have run out of things to type! Citations: 1.https://www.edgarsnyder.com... 2.http://www.madd.org...
Should we be allowed to drive at 14

Ok, lets talk about your "special classes". I think there needs to be more clarification when you talk about these classes. Do they already exist in some places, did you make it up off the top of your head as a solution, or is it a long talked about debate that hasn't been solved yet. I think you made it up as a solution, but clarify me, and back it up with evidence, if I am wrong. Now that that is over with, I want to share something from an online article called . http://oppositelock.kinja.com... and in the article they author says,"Some may argue that their child is very, very responsible. But I would consider myself very responsible, and even I wouldn"t be able to resist the temptation of showing off for my friends or pushing my car"s limits if I drove something fast. Still others just want their kid to be happy and popular. But is that really worth it? I apologize if there are any parents on here whose kids have fast cars, but I"m just going to say it; In my opinion 16 year-old opinion, giving a high schooler a fast, street-racer-ish car is a moronic thing to do, and a recipe for disaster. These are kids that get themselves into serious trouble in Hyundai Accents. Why give them Camaros? As I said, all of them will probably end up getting tickets and getting in accidents anyways, and that likelihood goes up astronomically with a fast car. And unfortunately, some of them will likely kill themselves or someone else. No matter how much you love cars, it isn"t worth it. " I completely understand what this person is saying, even though the topic is slightly different. If the sixteen year olds aren't very mature when it comes to driving, so a fourteen year old would technically be even worse. I have seen how 14 year olds are often not paying attention in class. this means that your special classes wouldn't work very well. And don't say that This is stereotyped to boys only, because girls can be like this too. They might be looking at their phone or even texting while on the road, and this is a recipe for disaster. I just want you to realize that it will only cause more roadside deaths, and we certainly don't want people to die do we?