BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
developers should be allowed to put as much violence as they please into their games

While I do believe that video game creators should have complete creative control over their product, I also think that they should consider limiting gratuitous violence and gore for several reasons: 1) As video game designers continue to ramp up the violence and gore in their games, we the players become desensitized to it. Instead of feeling that sense of awe and chills down your spine when you execute a particularly gruesome kill or a cutscene takes a creepy, bloody turn, it just all kind of blends into the background and becomes part of an average mediocre gameplay experience. However if violence and gore is sprinkled in sparingly, it is much more effective in enriching the experience. 2) Along the same lines, as we become more accustomed to seeing blood, gore and non-stop violence, we will be influenced (even only slightly and subconsciously) by those images in our everyday lives. This does not necessarily mean that we will run around killing people, but it may mean that over time we will become less empathetic to those who are suffering in war times or who have experienced violence in their real lives. 3) I truly believe that video games are evolving into the most immersive, exciting vehicle for great storytelling, and in games that go overboard with wave after wave of bloody combat it takes away from that immersive storytelling experience.
developers should be allowed to put as much violence as they please into their games

Video game violence debating...... Video game violence debating never changes................. I have seen two debates on this subject so far, both of them had a N00B gamer going up against a L33T Jack-Thompson-supporter. I just felt like evening the odds a little. (not saying I'm a L33T, myself, but at least I'm not those guys. Their sloppy debates still give me nightmares...) Instead of starting off this debate, I think I will wait to see what arguments you put out there first, if that's fine with you.
war

Yes ww2, but what about vietnam, people died just because they didn't want to be communist and they still did anyway. on-defensive "preemptive" intervention and for withdrawal, instead of making arguments that can be easily used to justify future unjust wars and current catastrophic occupations. If we don't, our own attempts to advocate peace might help ensure that we'll never extricate ourselves from Iraq, and we'll be at perpetual war with the Middle East.
The one who passes the sentence should swing the sword

C1: Sensitizes people to killingWhen executioners kill people, the ones who made the decision to kill are distanced from the actual killing. This makes it more likely that they will convict than if they knew that they would personally have to perform the execution. Having a judge or jury member giving a lethal injection, kicking a stool from under someone being hanged, or pulling the trigger in a firing squad is a ton more difficult if they have to look the convict in the eye, hear their last words, and then execute them personally. Death is gruesome, and the judge and jury should experience the unplesantness of their decision. Separating the decision makers from the executioner allows each to push the responsibility on the other. The decision makers don't experience death first-hand and the executioner simply follows orders and assumes no responsibility for the death.Executioners who have experienced the horrors of death would go out of their way to prevent it. Jerry Givens, who worked as an executioner for 25 years in Virginia writes "Even when I was on the job, I was always asking, what can I do to prevent these guys before they get there? I used to bring kids down from schools. I would allow the kids to sit in the chair and explain that I want to see kids get an education and remove themselves from violence or you'll end up here. I know it helped. I used to get letters. They would write back saying thank you for steering them in the right direction" [1]. Being out on the field, and actually performing executions educates people to the grueseomeness of the death penalty and makes the judge and jury less likely to convict. The impact here is an increased chance to abolish the death penalty. Abolishing the death penalty saves innocent lives from wrongful convictions and inhumane executions and exposing the decision-makers to the inhumane-ness of the DP contributes to better education about its realities.[1] http://www.theguardian.com... This contention is the core of my offence. If I also need to defend why the DP should be abolished, I will expand in my next round. But first, I'll wait to see the direction my opponent takes and whether he intends to turn this into a debate on the death penalty, and respond from there.
The one who passes the sentence should swing the sword

Resolution: The one who passes the sentence should swing the sword. Members familiar with the Game of Thrones TV series or the associated book series (A Song of Ice and Fire) will recognize the following quote from the character Eddard Stark "The man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die. "This debate is about the relevance of this quote in the modern world. General Rules:1) BOP is shared.2) If the resolution is unclear, use the comments section to clarify it before you accept. The debate is a clash of ideas, not a back and forth on semantics.3) Legitimate semantic disputes should be resolved in the body of the debate for the judges to weigh.4) Any citations must be provided in the text of the debate.5) Violation of R1 terms constitutes a loss. Debate Specific Rules:1) The resolution is to be interpreted metaphorically, not literally. In the modern world, the DP isn't normally carried out by swinging a sword but whatever method is used, the metaphorical meaning is apparent. No trolling or trivial semantics. 2) Practicality is not a consideration. If the sentencer is not able to lift a sword for instance, then, the sentencer cannot carry it out but that's outside the scope of the resolution.3) The carrier of the sentence must take no pleasure in its administration. The risk of pleasure is outside the scope of the resolution. 4) In the modern world, the sentencer would often be judges, a jury, or in rarer cases, heads of state. If a jury determines that a person should be sentenced to death, one of them (the ones who voted for the DP) must randomly be selected to flip the switch (or however else the country imposes the DP). Time/Character limits:1) 6000 characters per round.2) 48 hours per round.
Why the Bible is turning to dust and God is becoming only a word

All due respect to my opponent, but I have already answered the question. Christianity is weakening, or becoming ignored as you say, because it isn't providing incentives to follow it. It used to be, you followed the religion or were punished in Europe. That's a pretty compelling reason to follow it. However, now, there is only the nebulous concepts of burning in hell, or being rewarded through heaven, neither of which can be proven outside of christian teachings. Even ignoring that, multiple religions offer a heaven/hell dichotomy. Christianity offers nothing to compete with these religions. I would remind my opponent that this debate was stated as a "Christianity Is/Isn't becoming weaker/ignored". If you want to change it to WHY is it doing so, and argue as such, we can do so. But yes, the statement the Christian Church is becoming ignored is explicitly tied to it becoming weaker, as I have argued. The less reason people have to go to something, the less likely they are to go.
Why the Bible is turning to dust and God is becoming only a word

You're right, but when I was referring to the punishments that many people gave to the non-Christians and "violators" of the bible I was not saying that People should continue hanging people, I was also not implying that only the church was getting weaker, or the influence that surrounds it. I was trying to say that The Christian religion is beginning to be ignored, that is why I gave examples of people who do wrong and then go to church. I think it has a lot to do with influence like you said, but it also has to do with the power of the economy, and although people don't realize it we are beginning to worship money more than God.
Why the Bible is turning to dust and God is becoming only a word

The Bible and God were always above all else. In the late 1800's and early 1900's people were hung if they did not live within the standards of the good book and if they didn't believe in God they had better keep thier mouth shut or they would be burned at the stake. As time passed the Bible and God lived on... Until now. The world is falling to ruin- that much is certain but you know that it really is falling to ruin when people will go to church and then go and get drunk in the same day. Or how a man will be commiting adultery and then say he's so christian. Or how people are starting to go to church just for friends and not for the purpose of god. It is almost like people forgot the meaning of religion.
Why the Bible is turning to dust and God is becoming only a word

I acknowledge this is as a tautology (Saying if you are x, you x). I do agree, tautology aside, that if you say you are a Christian, you should 'practice what you preach' so to speak. That is not the problem. Here's the thing, people are not born believing in Christianity. There needs to be a compelling reason for some to take up the faith, and it needs to be something that is not also provided by any number of other religions. Christianity needs to offer things that are unique, or not offered by alternatives. They haven't. That is why, as the political power of the Church waned, less and less people started joining. Without the consequence of being immediately punished, and with the lack of strong unique tones to Christian religion to make it more appealing than similar religions, A request for utter devotion, in any case, is a strong demand for some people. Also, as the world becomes more and more connected, people are exposed to alternatives (Christianity used to be the only 'real' choice) and some of them are going to take up those alternatives, due to something in them resonating with the individual. Seeing as how this is the final round, I do acknowledge the weakpoint in my argument would be that certain sects of Christianity argue that EVERYONE is born believing in God, and are simply tempted away. However, in order to use that as a argument, you would have to argue that it is impossible for someone to be born and not believe in God. Absolute cases are terribly hard to prove, and in this case you would have to raise someone in isolation, and see if they still had a belief in God after a certain period of time. Regardless of the results, it was a intellectually stimulating time arguing with you Con, and I hope to do so again some time.
500 Word Debate

REBUTTAL:"Credit cards are better than debit cards because the credit card allows the user to spend money more freely. As long as the user makes sure to pay back on time and not borrow too much, the credit card can easily be superior to the debit card."Not %100 true. The interest you pay when using a credit card reduces your options to no more than the ones you have with debit because either way, you must somehow pay for the transactions.
500 Word Debate

The topic i choose is: "Debit cards are better than credit cards." (Pro)Credit card- A card issued by a financial company giving the holder an option to borrow funds, usually at point of sale. Credit cards charge interest and are primarily used for short-term financing. (www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creditcard.asp)Debit card- A payment card that deducts money directly from a consumer's checking account to pay for a purchase. (www.investopedia.com/terms/d/debitcard.asp)Better- More advisable.
Homework

What exactly are you arguing for? That homework is stressful? That we should decrease the amount of homework students have to do? Both are valid, debatable points, but arguing both points is too broad a topic for one debate. What demographic are we discussing? Elementary, middle school, or high school? What country(s) are we discussing in this debate? In the interest of not wasting this round, I will assume that we are discussing this issue in context of the United States. You mentioned high school, which is generally the US term for secondary education. I will also assume that you are arguing for reducing the homework load for high school students. First, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average number of hours spent in school is between 6.5 and 7 hours (Source: https://nces.ed.gov...). The average amount of time spent on homework outside of school in 2007 was about 7 hours per week, or about 1.5 hours per school night. While this data is outdated, it is highly unlikely that homework loads have increased by 2-4 hours a night in the last 8 years (Source: https://nces.ed.gov...). All told, this works out to be about 8.5 hours of studying a day. If the student gets 9 hours of sleep (which is quite a bit more than average, a quick google search suggests the average is around 7.5hrs), this leaves him or her with around 6 hours of free time, which is enough that he or she could hold a part time job. Assuming the student manages his or her time well, getting sleep should not be a problem for the average high schooler. Second, Homework prepares the student for the rigors of real life; 8.5 hours of studying per day is roughly equivalent to holding a 9-to-5 job. By the end of high school, students should be able to handle such time commitments without being stressed. Lastly, cutting the amount of homework would mean that the teacher would either have to cut down the amount of material covered in class, or the student would practice the concepts less, potentially making them less prepared for tests and hindering long-term retention. Homework is especially needed in mathematics courses; students generally need a good bit of practice doing problems.
Homework

Homework is a very stressful thing. We go to learn for 6-10 hours depending on where you are, hoping to get some sleep but then no we must do homework. A total amount of homework an average middle school-er does is 2-4 hours worth. While in elementary it is done in 20 minutes. And high school it is about 4-6 hours. It is just unlawful sure we need our brains to grow strong but we can just manage to do that in class. In my opinion most schools should have 7 hours or more of school to keep the education flowing. And within those 7 hours should be a study hall or free period where you do something school related quietly. This could over kids great opportunities to succeed. Homework also affects sleep worrying about the 8 courses you have homework from and those 2 tests due in like a week. And you stay up all night because you are so overwhelmed. Yet you are afraid to talk to a teacher because of all this. This should be stopped, and if your with me to better minds in a more easier way and less stressful way vote on my side. FOR SLEEP.
Homework

(By Gman902)"As for the "Pro" in the argument, the homework load really is extremely high. 6 hour homework nights are not uncommon.School doesn't really allow much time for socializing, jobs, or basically anything else. There's a reason the people who have jobs are always in the state between sleep and being awake. It used to be that every grade you got 10 min of homework added. Now, however teachers tend to spike a book at your face and say "GO". As for sleep deprivation, generally you go to sleep even if you have work. if you need an excuse to sleep instead of work, sleep on it and decide what to do. Either way procrastination reigns supreme ;) I'm going to go let my brain cells grow back although it was hilarious reading this (though difficult sometimes while brain cells were committing suicide)." Thank you for the contribution, this man has shown the cons of both sides or our errors. But he really points out the one in yours. School life intervenes with actual life, and you don't have to go through the whole entire school to grab an education, anyone can be smart if they push themselves to it. Teachers rarely have time themselves when they dont explain something, or dont pass stuff in on time. They assign stuff they dont even know about so they have to re-check. Im not trying to go against you anymore con Im just speaking for myself and those who are with me. So if you or your government cannot understand what students are going through, shame on you.
Homework

"I'm not trying to bring up sources Its about real life opinions." - What? Then why are we debating? If this is just your opinion versus my opinion, then neither one of us can be "Government associates are like older and have not done school homework in a while." - If you would take the time to read my source and how the data was collected, you would see that it isn't government associates answering the questions. Researchers asked "[the] parent most knowledgeable about the student's education," and based that table on those responses. "And this whole topic is an opinion based question" - No, it's not. First, you never specified that it was, and secondly, you posted this in the debates section, not the opinions section. "...so you cannot bring in facts for this." Yes. Yes I can bring in facts, as we are debating this. If there are no facts used, then this debate is your opinion versus mine and therefore it isn't a debate. "where your getting your sources they are unreliable" - I'm getting them from the U.S. government. Would you like to explain why your opinion is more reliable than a government source, even if it is outdated? "When was the last time you have asked a kid how long it takes them to do homework?" - Very recently. I'm in high school. The average time is about 2 hours.
Homework

I'm not trying to bring up sources Its about real life opinions. Homework is about the abilities of the person not the qualities the professor expects. And the whole point of extra activities is for scholarships with homework is is unable to be compatible. Government associates are like older and have not done school homework in a while. And this whole topic is an opinion based question so you cannot bring in facts for this. Homework never took 1.5 hours per night, maybe in china but in the U.S. no. Maybe per course it takes 1.5 hours per night but where your getting your sources they are unreliable. They free time is very minimum and schools do typically encourage students to do sports for their social interactions, and for jobs or scholarships. But with homework from each course this is really hard to get done. Students usually sleep 6-8 hours because of homework since they also want their social time. Unless you have evidence that is up to date, with a specific description about how/what. When was the last time you have asked a kid how long it takes them to do homework? Its an opinion question. Students are capable of getting this done but the length of it is just really unreasonable, which is why schools should cut this length down. Now if you have been seeing your student/child going to sleep late and waking up early for the bus you should have a conversation with the childs/students guidance counselor. If you need sleep and less stressful homework across america let us know in the comments how you feel.
Homework

You don't answer my questions clarifying what we are arguing about here, so my assumptions will stand. "I have gathered information from many students across new england" - This is just your word against mine. I have demonstrated with credible evidence that the homework load is not as much as you say, and you have not given sufficient evidence to show otherwise. I agreed that statistics from 2007 are outdated, but I highly doubt the average amount of homework done per night has increased from 1.5 hours a night to 4-6 hours a night. Also, what do you mean by this statement: "You cannot ask the government who hasn't taking homework for like 20 years"? "The average amount of homework a day for a 7th grader or up is 2 hours length wise." - Irrelevant, we debating about high school (9-12th grade) students, and you also don't give a source. Schools don't typically force students to participate in extracurricular activities. If the student (or their parent) signs up for those programs, they are signing up to take on the extra time commitments. I also agree that the student needs social interaction; however, this can easily be done in their free time, or even in extracurricular activities (to a certain extent).
Homework

(First, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, the average number of hours spent in school is between 6.5 and 7 hours (Source: https://nces.ed.gov......). The average amount of time spent on homework outside of school in 2007 was about 7 hours per week, or about 1.5 hours per school night) Incorrect, I have gathered information from many students across new england and they have said that homework lasts longer than 1.5 hours average. You cannot ask the government who hasn't taking homework for like 20 years and whose statistics are off by 8 years. The average amount of homework a day for a 7th grader or up is 2 hours length wise. Most students go to 6- 10 hours actually to catch up on stuff either before school or after, including the bus rides they have to wake up early for. all this leaving about 8- 12 hours of that day left leaving about 4 hours of freetime as 9 " hours are sleep. Adolescents are notorious for not getting enough sleep. The average amount of sleep that teenagers get is between 7 and 7 " hours. However, they need between 9 and 9 " hours (studies show that most teenagers need exactly 9 " hours of sleep). http://www.nationwidechildrens.org... A job is even more work to handle or extra curriculum activities such as sports or musics. which take up at least 2 hours. And what about the kids need for social life, they need that to all that is so overwhelming. You can say school you can socialize with friends but the only real period you get is study hall or lunch. I understand we need homework but we can still manage to work things out like odd number problems only or only 1 page or half a page. Or 4 assignments and you have a week to do it. Etc. This will be easy to use as for time management, schools need to be more flexible like college where a lot of assignments are due weekly, and you pick your days and times that feel right.