BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video-Games Are Beneficial Towards Children

Video Games are indeed beneficial towards children mentally, physically, and psychologically. Video-Games have many benefits that many people are extremely ignorant of. Many benefits that video games offer to children can actually benefit them later in their life when they are adults, help them in their everyday lives, and do good for their bodies overall. There are many adults that are ignorant of such benefits and refuse to accept such benefits because they are gullible enough to believe in the negative stereotypes, myths, and stats that anti-gamers have created over the decades. The most obvious and main benefits include hand-eye coordination, development of important life-skills, and increasing your overall brain performance. Other benefits that are less obvious include increased intelligence, improved eye-sight, slowed down age process, social skills, diverse imagination and creativity, insight of many different concepts, improved literature skills, and also increased skills needed for many jobs such as surgeon and military soldier. These and other benefits can help children in many different ways that other activities cannot. (Please put what you put in the opinions section as your rebuttal or something similar...)
Video-Games Are Beneficial Towards Children

Both Lego's and Minecraft are beneficial. They are just beneficial in different ways. Like you said with Minecraft, you can build up to your imagination. But with Lego's, you aren't looking at a screen and are placing the blocks with your hands. I don't want to lie and say I think Minecraft isn't beneficial and if you would accept my point that Lego's are as well, we can mediate a compromise. Video games are beneficial for children. Not as much as other things as you have said, but they are. And according to the title you have won. Congratulations!
Video-Games Are Beneficial Towards Children

I think you are not getting the point. I said video games are beneficial to children and not to the point that no other activity can compare. I know that I just contradicted yourself, but so have you, so now we are even. Comparing the literature in books to video games is like comparing copper to diamond; it just doesn't work like that. Also, like I said, only the more mature rated or mature oriented video games actually have any sort of complex language. Games that are meant for casual or non-gamers, young children, or that use little to no text are not meant for children to develop reading skills. Yeah, I know that mature rated games are inappropriate, but mature oriented surely isn't (i.e., Metroid and Super Smash Bros.) Now about Minecraft being compared to Legos. Lego actually does not have nearly enough shades and textures as Legos. Does Legos have every single shade that is part of the CMYK or light spectrum? I don't think so. Neither does Minecraft, but it's still alot compared to Lego. As for the textures, there are many different textures for the blocks alone; I'm not even going to mention the textures for the characters, items, monsters, and weapons as that would take forever. Just for the generic block alone, there are textures (or shades) of every color of the color wheel/rainbow and there are textures for every material/resource available, which include wood, stone, sand, water, lava, snow, bed-rock, diamond, coal, steel, dirt, grass, leaves, glass, and much much more. When I mean moving the character, I mean moving the character and the camera simultaneously, not something the average person can easily do. Pressing the arrow keys or the W, A, S, D keys alone is pretty easy to pull off, but that alone cannot allow you to move the character. You must also take the camera into consideration as pressing the left and right commands only makes you shift left and right. You do not actually turn around or rotate and start moving in that direction. That's why you must use both simultaneously; and believe me, try to only use the moving keys and not using the mouse to move - you will most likely fail in survival mode or build oddly-shaped things in creative mode for not controlling the character properly. There are also other things that you must do in order to succeed or to play Minecraft to the fullest. Like I don't know, maybe trying to stay full from hunting animals and eating plants; trying to avoid and/or kill the monsters that lurk out at night; trying to build structures that are only limited by your imagination (Lego can never do that, it is limited to the amount of blocks you have); knowing how to use mods to mess around with it (mods are allowed and are actually provided by Mojang themselves); avoiding places or things that can deplete your health; gathering resources to build a shelter, weapons, and other useful stuff to stay alive at night; and so much more stuff that not even the most hardcore of Minecraft gamers know about yet?
Video-Games Are Beneficial Towards Children

Okay, as for reading skills, video games can be a supplement. I know of plenty educational video games for toddlers that can help with reading. But I still don't believe Minecraft is as beneficial as something similar to Lego's. You can decide the colour shade of Lego's there are a lot of them. As for texture, what texture is there in Minecraft? And some lego's do have different textures. And moving the character? Is pressing w or a or s or d really that beneficial? And deciding what resources you need? There's critical thinking there sure, but many many other things that are not addictive can help with that, like puzzles or crosswords. And complex language? No, video games are NOTHING compared to books. I taught myself how to read and I know plenty of people who read books. Books vs Video Games? No contest.
Video-Games Are Beneficial Towards Children

Exactly, finally I meet some people who are not ignorant and refusing to accept video games as a part of daily life. Yes, video games are meant for entertainment; if you want something similar to it that has many obvious benefits, then go use a virtual simulator. In Minecraft, you actually have to not only place blocks, but also move around, change the camera angle, mine for the resources, craft the resources to make the blocks, and other things. With Lego, you only decide how to build - you don't decide how to move the character, you don't decide how to gather the resources necessary to craft them to make it into useful objects, and you don't decide the textures, materials, and color shade. Video games actually can help you develop your literature skills, maybe not to the point of being a scholar if you read actual novels, but still helps nonetheless. Just like how books are made for different audiences, video games are too. The more mature a game is, the more complex language it has for you to read (and more inappropriate, but that is a given). That's why I was able to understand many words that other people my age could not understand when I was 6 after playing Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee. Like I said before, video games are meant for entertainment. I am just trying to point out the many benefits it has that many are unaware or ignore of because they are ignorant.
Video-Games Are Beneficial Towards Children

I agree that video games are entertaining and fun. And as far my first argument, I take back what I said. Some video games are beneficial. Minecraft is a fun, creative stimulating video game. But it isn't real life. You aren't interacting with YOUR environment. You aren't moving things around and that makes all of the difference. You can improve your mind, but what's better? Designing a building or creating a model scale version? You can say "oh well kids are never going to do that" or "kids will never read unless they are forced to". But that's the problem. And video games aren't helping, they create a way out. As for "developing literature skills" maybe when your are a toddler it helps. But as your grow older you realize that reading is so much more than reading. Video games that have words don't have any figurative language, something that takes up over 50% of the English, or any other language. And as for it being easier to read, you can buy e-books that can enlarge the text. And on paper, the words don't ever appear or leave! Video games are for entertainment. Any benefits are just a side effect.
Video-Games Are Beneficial Towards Children

While video games have negative side effects (as all things do), the benefits certainly outweigh the costs. Yes, video games are not realistic as they are designed to be entertaining and fun. If they were realistic, they would be called virtual simulators, which are extremely beneficial and are used by surgeons and soldiers respectively as modern training tactics (not all use it as it is fairly new). They may not be as beneficial as exercising, but video games were never meant to let people exercise, despite the numerous (failed) attempts at doing so such as the Nintendo Wii, PlayStation Move, Kinect, and Arcade Fitness Games. Lego's? What does that have to do with gaming? Anyways, there's a game called Minecraft, and you may want to look into that if you think Lego is more beneficial than video games. As with socializing, I completely agree that it is taking away talking face to face. Let's be honest, we all don't want to listen to those little kids and hardcore fanboys screaming and raging through our headsets just because they were emotionally offended by our opinions, right? People like them are what ruins the reputation of gaming. Yes, reading should be the basic foundation of developing literature skills, but again, let's be honest, no kid (except for parents who force them to) is going to read books on their spare time. Also, text in video games are much bigger and easier to see, allowing the readers to read it much easier as it also appears on-screen very slowly! One more thing before I am done my rebuttal, you contradicted yourself when you said that video games are not beneficial by saying the opposite at the end of your argument. I understand that you won't learn much when compared to other activities, but you have to understand that video games are entertainment devices, not virtual simulators meant to specifically be very beneficial to us.
High Schools should not require high-level math courses

Point #1: High-level math classes are not applicable to most people's lives. Only a small minority of people choose careers that need knowledge of what is learned in these classes. It makes no sense to require them in high-school when they will only be wasted on the students, who will probably never apply the knowledge therein. When a student takes a high-level math class for no other reason than to graduate high school, while the student knows that they will never need it in day-to-day life or in their chosen line of work, an opportunity cost is paid. The student could have picked a class that would have included knowledge that the student would use. This is a failure because the student ends up not as prepared for college or their profession. Point #2: Different people have different talents. Schools, instead of requiring high-level math classes, should have students determine their own affinity for math. With a math class that is specifically geared for this purpose, each student can decide for him/herself whether they want to continue learning math. It is wasteful of both the student's and the teacher's time to require students without the right mindset to learn the math. For college preparation, It is much more useful to build talents rather then trying to force a subject the student does not understand. Point #3: Many students hate math, and it drains those students' energy. Math is one of the more difficult subjects for students. Especially for the students who cannot understand the concepts, this wasted energy used up by students who are only trying to graduate could have been spent doing something they are more passionate about. Other classes could assign more homework without these math classes being required, since the best math students don't need to spend that much energy at all to do the work. More energy means more learning available in other classes, and more overall learning for those students who do not want or need high-level math. Point #4: Only students that are going into technical fields need these courses. High school is, by your primary definition, is to prepare students for college. Two ways it achieves that goal is to either A. Prepare students to choose a field (alternatively, a major in college) or B. Teach general knowledge that might be useful to all students. Do high-level math classes help in either of these ways? I think not. Students learn a sufficient amount of math in middle school to decide whether or not to choose a math related major, and high-level math classes are certainly not information that applies to all careers or everyday life. College is the perfect place for math classes to go, since math is only applicable to certain fields. Even students that might need these classes, but don't take them out of laziness in high school, can easily learn them in college. Those that don't go to college don't need to know these math concepts either. For those that hate math and do not need it for a career, required high-level math classes in high school make no sense. High-level math classes should be optional in high school in order to graduate.
High Schools should not require high-level math courses

I will argue that high schools, (which I will define as the public high schools in the US to make our debate more direct to a situation) should require students to take math classes beyond Algebra I. The purpose of high schools is primarily to prepare a student for college, and secondarily functions of workforce preparation, socialization and community building. And that's about all that I want to define as of right now. http://www.futureofchildren.org... Since it is the first round, I will refrain from exhibiting my arguments. My challenge to you, is that you show that the concepts taught in Geometry, Algebra II, or beyond are not useful and applicable to the life of anyone functioning properly within the United States.
Homosexuality Is Immoral!

I shall now point out the flaws with my opponent's case. R1: Actually I believe that since the resolution assumes a universability. I should like to quote Aristotle here, who says something on the lines of (because I cannot remember the exact line): when we say men are mortal, or such, then we take an assumption of all men being mortal. For how could logic or any other field not assume such, for humans are keen, naturally disposed, to assume this all. It then follows that when we say men are mortal, we must apply this to all men, for men in itself is a concept of 'all'. So men are mortal shall be in our syllogysm: all men are mortal. Homosexuality is Immoral is all Homosexuality is Immoral which is all A is I. By this we realize that this concept of homosexuality, since it was not specified, also has a necessity to be universal. My opponent is playing a semantics game here, one he will so surely fail. He must show that homosexuality is moral everywhere, particularly since this is a normative resolution. R2: My opponent makes a faulty assumption here. While the definition does refer to a code, it no where talks about the legal code. Secondly since my opponent chooses this definition it is plain that he also understands he argues for 'descriptive' and no longer 'normative' morality. Which means his moral thesis is no longer based on reason, but he is arguing from passion. The definition is very clear in its use of either 'normative' which is based on logic and reason, and 'descriptive'. While the defintion can be used as an aid, my opponent should provide other arguments as I have besides basing their case on defintions alone. Now the code=law point. My opponent must show why this second definition argument has: a. a concept of necessity, that is that it is universal. For the defintion in itself is not universal, and my earlier point already shows that our motion is universal. Either my opponent will not go and justify his argument for every society/religion/person or his argument does not stand. Secondly my opponent must show why his conduct=law when a law is made by representatives and a society does not necessarily stand for it. While they might have at one time, they no longer do so. R3: I should like to point out that my opponent PLAGERISES his material from Wikipedia. This is not his written word, it is copy/pasted from wikipedia which makes this rather upsetting. In any case this point is mute because my opponent has not jusitified its supporting premises. My opponents arguments collapse.
Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Thank you for your argument. time to build my case. The term "morality" can be used descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or; a. some other group such as religion, or, b. accepted by an individual for her/his own behaviour.*homosexuality: refers to sexual behaviour between the members of the same sex. My opponent has not clearly defined which religion/society we would be using as a referance. So I will interpret it in my own way, and use the USA as the society to build my case on. And for the codes of Conduct, I'll be using the law of the united states of America. [1]the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties. [2]Sexual activity between consenting adults and adolescents of a close age of the same sex has been legal nationwide since 2003, pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Age of consent in each state varies from age 16 to 18; some states maintain different ages of consent for males/females or same-sex/opposite-sex relations.So, from this we can establish that Sexual Activity between two members of same sex is perfectly legal, it does not break the code of conduct provided by the USA. And from the definition provided by my opponent we can establish that if it is not breaking the code of conduct, it is not Immoral. Therefor the homosexuality defined by my opponent is not Immoral.[1] https://www.google.co.th...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Homosexuality Is Immoral!

Greetings! Sir, I challenge you to the normative resolution: 'Homosexuality Is Immoral'. If you should choose to accept you bind yourself to the regulations set below. 1. There will be a shared burden of proof.2. The debate will take place in four rounds, where the first round is to set the rules and to accept the debate only. The first argument rounds will consist of positive material only. There will be no new arguments after the first round, and the rest of the rounds will be used for rebuttals, and re-affirming the original case only. In the last round there should be a summary and conclusion of no less than 1000 characters which summarizes the main issues so far.3. There is a 48 hour period to post arguments, the voting will consist of 10 days, the maximum character limit is 10,000 characters, there is a Select Winner voting system, and only those whose Elo is above 3000 may vote.4. If more than 2 rounds have been forfeited, it will result in an absolute loss.5. Each side is allowed to present their evidence in the forms of books, journals, and essays alongside blog entries as long as the links are provided for easy access to these sources and paginations are cited. (I request that no youtube or such video sources be used because they are banned in my country, however this no way restricts either side from doing so. ) 6. The font, I request should be default, however one may change their font, but be sure it is readable. 7. As this is a philosophical debate I am defining the terms philosophically, please inform me if you have any problem with them so that I may change them (you may inform me by message or in the comments) :(1)morality:The term "morality" can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specific conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. The term "morality" can be used descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or; a. some other group such as religion, or, b. accepted by an individual for her/his own behaviour. *[1]*I would personally like to stick to the first definition, however both were mentioned so I added both, please mention if you are willing to keep only the first. (2)immorality: will then be the opposite of morality so is can be used normatively to refer to a code of conduct , that given specific circumstances, would be opposed by all rational persons. (3)homosexuality: refers to sexual behaviour between the members of the same sex. 13. When in doubt the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will be used to clear definitions. 14. None of the parties will take aid from any other person during this debate. [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu.........I
Abortion - Clash vs Shout

For this debate, I am gonna defend the supporting side of abortion. Some people believe abortion is an escape from the consequences of your actions, however I think it can be a way of dealing with these consequences in a way one sees most fit. I don't think anyone should have a baby as a consequence, children aren't consequences, they are human beings that need love, care and a lot of time, and if you are not able to give that then it might be better to consider other options.
Satan Is An Evil Entity

Again my gratitude goes out to my opponent for initiating this debate. However, I must express my disappointment in that my opponent has not responded chosen to not respond to as per the rounds stipulated by him/ her. My disappointment is based on the fact that this debate touches on a key aspect of my faith and that of many others. Engaging and challenging each others worldview is healthy if it can be done on the basis of tolerance and a genuine need to test the truth of that worldview. The real issue is not whether Satan is good or evil but whether we can safely know what is good or what is evil and what the sources thereof are. Now when we look at it carefully - the moment we say that Satan is good, the implications are that there is no evil. If there is no evil, then anything and everything goes. Pride becomes good. Rebellion becomes good, adultery becomes good, theft becomes good, murder becomes good, abortion becomes good (sounds like we're here already) and sexual orientation that goes against natural design becomes good. Everything breaks down and nothing will ever mean anything anymore. This is why I consider this topic important. I expected this debate to do the latter in that we test the credibility and validity of a worldview. It was on this basis I actually requested that we increase the rounds so that we could do justice to the topic at hand. To me it was not about winning or losing - it was about learning and going where the truth leads. without labouring too much on my disappointment, let's see what we can salvage from this experience. 1. Satan (adversary) as per the very sources that makes him known to us, is evil in that he is an adversary to GOD who is the very standard of good. As an adversary, Satan becomes the very standard of evil in that his role is to undermine and eliminate goodness from the world. 2. Satan was once a very highly esteemed angel in the kingdom of GOD but his pride and his ego led to his downfall. 3. Good and evil exists in the world and therefore that demonstrates that GOD and Satan does exist. I know appeal to my opponent to actually set up another debate with the same topic or to start a forum on the topic and let's discuss this. I also would have liked my opponent to actually start with GOD. I suggest the topic "GOD is necessarily good" As a conclusion, I must re-affirm that my opponent has conceded the debate by admitting that Satan is evil. I thank you