BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video games don't equal violence

Well, you are right, but listen to this: 97% of 12-17 year olds in the US played video games in 2008, thus fueling an $11.7 billion domestic video game industry. In 2008, 10 of the top 20 best-selling video games in the US contained violence. Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts. Video game advocates contend that a majority of the research on the topic is deeply flawed and that no causal relationship has been found between video games and social violence. They argue that violent video games may reduce violence by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play and by providing a safe outlet for aggressive and angry feelings. California passed a law in 2005 that would have required violent video games to include an "18" label and criminalized the sale of these games to minors. On June 27, 2011, the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association that the law violated free speech rights. On April 20, 1999, two seniors kids walked into their high school carrying rifles, and they opened fire. They shot tons of people, killing 12 students and one teacher and the people were appalled. School shootings had happened before, but this was a violence shooting and in the ensuing search for answers it came out the shooters had spent a lot of time playing violent video games. (Source- how stuff works) Since then, the entertainment proclivities of the shooters are one of the first things reported by the press. There was a 20-year-old who killed 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut in 2012 played violent video games. So did the 24-year-old high- schooler who shot dozens of people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater in the same year. An estimated 97% of America's young people are playing video games, with many of the popular ones that feature violent content.What seems to some to be a connection between violent game play and actual violence has many wondering about the effects of immerse violence on young children's minds. Video games have really only existed since the mid-1970s, so there's not much evidence for or against their violent effects than there is your surroundings like TV violence of movie violence, but the rise in dramatically violent shootings by teenaged gamers is bolstering the side of the argument that says video game violence translates in some way to the real world.
Video games don't equal violence

Well video games are not the cause of our violence, nor does it equal any.ARGUMENT 1Video games are made for the entertainment not to cause havok to our societyARGUMENT 2Crime rate has decreased and video game sales go up rapidly by a second and most of those games are shooting games.ARGUMENT 3School shootings are caused by mental illnesses. Not causes of video games. It is the parents to blame for havok. And scientist has also researched and ran test that video games do not connect to the real world violence. REBUTTALSome video games do equal violence. They sometimes include shooting guns and especially, if you have a sibling, they learn from the older siblings.No it doesnt that is not true dont listen to everything on the news. A child would not even be affected by video games. Although it may make them unintelligent and agressive but it has no real world link to the human bodies and crime. Video games are not the only blame the society and the parents are. And siblings do not obtain bad influences when playing video games. If it does how come when a 4 yr old child came to my house I let him play a fighting game with blood and he didn even cause any criminal behavior only crying because of losing.Once again my opponent did not provide a single sourcehttp://kotaku.com...
Video games don't equal violence

Video games can also make your eyes bad and make you addicted to the video game. Video games are not so great to play and it gives children bad education. It can also teach you to use the gun shapes with your hand and you can get suspended for that. A lot of crimes have been made because of the video games that are violent. The violent video games can also teach children to curse. I know I haven't said a lot for this round, but it's all off to the voters. Thank you for this challenge.
Video games don't equal violence

Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women. Critics argue that these games desensitize players to violence, reward players for simulating violence, and teach children that violence is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts.First of all dont always believe in the news. the news could be unreliable and it doesnt even give two sides of a story this is the reason most people think violent games cause havok when it doesnt. Also if Video games are so bad and it teaches children violence how come China a place with twice more games than U.S and most of those games are shooting. How come the crimerate is very low.First of all the supreme court went against the act of banning violent video games. On April 20, 1999, two seniors kids walked into their high school carrying rifles, and they opened fire. They shot tons of people, killing 12 students and one teacher and the people were appalled. School shootings had happened before, but this was a violence shooting and in the ensuing search for answers it came out the shooters had spent a lot of time playing violent video games. (Source- how stuff works) Since then, the entertainment proclivities of the shooters are one of the first things reported by the press. There was a 20-year-old who killed 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut in 2012 played violent video games. So did the 24-year-old high- schooler who shot dozens of people in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater in the First of all there has been many test so many test and these test has been redone over and over and it shows that school shootings are caused by mental illnesses. That is a big misunderstanding and video games can lead children into less physical fights. Adam Lanza was mentally illed so he saw a gun and he was unstabbled. Like said there is no link with games and the real world violence.If you said 97% is playing violent video games why isnt most of them causing crime and saying it is from video games? Video game sales increase during 1994-2010 and there has been a decrease in crime.
Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

Ok so my opponent conceded the first 2 rounds of the debate and decided to bring a completely new contention the very last round. The problem here is that he also basically concedes that if I were to demonstrate that Trump is greedy enough to just not care about it then that's sufficient to win the debate. A quick Google search reveals an article in which Trump literally states "I am very greedy" [1] It's a well known fact that Trunp is excessively greedy, he even says it himself. He's a businessman who brags about his wealth constantly. Why not assume that he's greedy enough to do this? My opponent doesn't provide any counter evidence to his immense greed over the course of the debate and concedes that he'll go to excessive measures for more power so I suggest that this refutes his contentions. Thank you. [1] http://thehill.com...
Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

In other words you claim Donald Trump is a compulsive liar who will say anything to turn heads. The fact that Donald Trump words suggest that Donald Trump thinks Climate Changeis a hoax does not matter. I'll accept that. Politicians are know to lie. I know its the 3rd round, but you literally have not given me any option, other than to create a new argument in the 3rd round, so here it goes.Actions speak louder than wordsDonald Trump destroyed a scientific area of interest and natural habitat in order to build a golf course in Scotland. [3][4]Clearly, both in actions and words Trump has no respect for the environment. My opponent has shown that Trump is a compulsive liar, so his words should not matter. I think the only out for my opponent now is to prove that Trump knows that climate change is real and a threat, but is so greedy that he destroys the environment anyway. Thanks for the debate. Sources3. http://www.imdb.com...4. http://www.nytimes.com...
Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

Alright... So first of all, the burden of proof means YOU have the burden of demonstrating your claim to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. *I* just have to demonstrate that it's not necessarily true. Dividing it into percentages or fractions doesn't make any sense. Think of it like a courtroom, the defense is just trying to refute the claims of the prosecution, and doesn't carry a higher burden than that. Anyway, my contentions haven't been addressed at all... My opponent just re-read another statement with Trump saying he doesn't believe in climate change but my original contention already refutes that as it discredits the words of Trump and actually looks deeper into his intentions as a presidential candidate. My opponent's guilty of oversimplifying the situation here. Thank you. Good luck in your last round.
Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

If you want me to have burden of proof sure, 51% for me versus 49% for you burden of proof. In your own link there is further proof that Donald Trump is not a believer in climate change and thus thinks its a hoax. "Trump, who is now the GOP"s presumptive nominee, has said he"s "not a big believer" in man-made climate change, and has vowed to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency if elected president. " [2] Vowing to eliminate the EPA? Come on this proves that Donald Trump believe climate change is a hoax. 2. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

My opponent unfortunately makes some shallow assumptions, in that they believe Donald Trump legitimately believes everything he's said. Remember, my opponent has the burden of proof, and as such must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump actually believes this during the course of this debate. Failure to do so means a lack of his fulfillment of his burden of proof and thus means the negative wins the debate. I don't need to show that Trump DOESN'T believe this, just show that there isn't enough evidence to demonstrate that he does. I can further explain the burden of proof in a later round if this becomes an issue or is confusing somehow, but I'll leave this where it is for now and move onto my main contentions. As I said earlier, my opponent just quotes Trump at face value and assumes that is enough to assert that this is what he believes. However, it's a well known fact that politicians in general will fake beliefs to pander to a specific audience. Looking back at his history as a candidate, it's common knowledge that Trump already had his supporters locked down early in the republican primaries and really couldn't do anything to lose his supporters, even claiming he could shoot someone in the middle of the road and not lose support. A potential reason for him faking belief in climate change then could be to pander to Cruz supporters, of which only 38% believed in climate change. This is a clear reason for Trump to pander to a specific audience in order to get votes, which gives us a motivation for Trump's actions. . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Trump even has told people that he has a strategy of saying odd things in order to attract the audience of different groups. Take for example what Carson reported after discussing the matter with Trump himself: "I needed to know that he could listen to other people, that he could change his opinions, and that some of the more outlandish things that he"s said, that he didn"t really believe those things," Carson said. When asked which statements Trump might back away from, Carson demurred". "I"ll let him talk about that because I don"t think it"s fair for me to relay a private conversation," he said. Read more: . http://therightscoop.com... How can my opponent say for certain that Trump fully believes this if there's evidence of him saying that he'll back away from some of the more outlandish claims, and that he doesn't necessarily believe all of it? My opponent even recognized in the comments section that this is a somewhat outlandish and silly claim for Trump to make. We've seen Trump back away from policies such as the muslim ban, so why assume that this is his actual belief? Unfortunately my opponent uses mostly personal speculation and does not consider the large body of compelling evidence casting doubt over Trump's actual beliefs. With that I'll give pro a chance to respond to my contentions. Thank you!
Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just.

I must affirm the resolution, Resolved: Federal government bailouts of major corporations are just. I would like to offer the following definition for the clarification of this debate round: Just –violating no right or obligation (1) My value will be that of justice, defined as the quality of being just (2). The criterion that I will be upholding my value with is that of government fulfilling its obligations. Observation 1: Government obligations are to establish justice, maintain social order, provide for common defense and promote the general welfare. (3) Contention 1: Bailing out large corporations promotes the common welfare by keeping people in their jobs. A: Without government intervention in the American auto industry, nearly 3 million people would be out of a job. (4, 5) B: Therefore, not bailing out large corporations would lead to substantial job losses and would violate government's obligation to promote general welfare and so would not be just. Contention 2: Bailouts of large corporations are just. A: Just is defined as not violating any right or obligation. B: The obligations of the government are to establish justice, maintain social order, provide for common defense and promote general welfare. C: Affirming does not violate any of these obligations and therefore is just. D: Therefore by not violating any rights or obligations, and so bailouts are just. Citations: 1 - Editorial Staff of the National Reporter System. JUDICIAL AND STATUTORY DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND PHRASES Second Series, Vol II: Deposition-Lamp. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1914. 2 - "justice." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2009. Merriam-Webster Online. 28 February 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com...;. 3 - Lay, Vicheka. "The Four Basic Obligations of the Government." EzineArticles Submission - Submit Your Best Quality Original Articles For Massive Exposure, Ezine Publishers Get 25 Free Article Reprints. 28 Feb. 2009 <http://ezinearticles.com...;. 4 - Cole, David, Sean McAlinden, Kristin Dziczek, and Debra Maranger Menk. "The Impact on the U.S. Economy of a Major Contraction of the Detroit Three Automakers."Center for Automotive Resarch. 4 Nov. 2008. 27 Feb. 2009 <http://www.cargroup.org.... 5 - Saporito, Bill. "Is General Motors Worth Saving?."TIME.com. 13 May 2008. 27 Feb. 2009 <http://www.time.com...;.
The Problem of Evil makes it unlikely that God exsits

The Problem of Evil The Problem of Evil is a very valid formal argument. Unfortunately, it is hinges on one extremely flawed premise, which makes it unsound. Your argument goes thus: 1. God wants there to be no suffering 2. God has the power and knowledge to remove all the suffering 3. There is suffering in the world 4. Therefore, God does not exist The problem with this argument is the first premise. You are assuming that God wants there to be no suffering. How do you, or anyone else, know what a perfectly good God would or would not allow? The answer, of course, is that you cannot. Short of having observed other perfectly good gods in action, one cannot logically make a statement about what God would or would not do! One can assume that God would do one thing or another, but that is all. There is nothing in the definition of goodness that necessitates the elimination of all evil. Indeed, it is the exact opposite. Without the existence of evil, WE COULD NOT COMPREHEND WHAT IT MEANS TO BE GOOD (I'm not yelling, by the way, I'm using caps for emphasis, since we can't use italics). Therefore, if there were a God such as the one described in the Bible, there would be nothing more likely than for Him to allow evil and thus facilitate the appreciation of one of His primary attributes! I can further illustrate this with an analogy. Think of the best book you've ever read. Did this book contain no contention, no challenges or problems, and perfect people in perfect situations? Of course it did not. The perfectly good book, then, is not defined by the lack of evil within its pages. It is exactly the opposite. Most of the books we love REVOLVE around conflict and the existence of evil, not the lack of it. Often, the more evil the better. The author could conceivably write a book in which everything worked out perfectly for the characters and nothing bad ever happened, but what would be the purpose in that? The Bible offers an even more fitting example. It often refers to God as our "father". Would a perfectly good father give his child everything he ever asked for, shelter him from all heartache and failure, and provide for him until he died? Obviously not. Therefore, the definition of perfect goodness does not necessarily exclude the existence of evil. Indeed, the existence of evil actually makes the existence of the Judeo-Christian God more probable, not less! Let me elaborate by posing a question. Why do we, as humans, possess the ability to lament, often painfully, the apparently random tragedies that strike our lives and the lives of others? Would it not be more conducive to our survival and proliferation (and thus, more easily explained in terms of evolution) were we to have none of this emotional sense? The only way to make sense out of our ability to perceive evil and lament it (in addition to a number of other facts and faculties) is to introduce the Judeo-Christian God into one's thinking.
The Problem of Evil makes it unlikely that God exsits

First, let me define "God". Under my view God has three main characteristics: 1. omnipotence 2. omniscience 3. omnibenevolence It's worth noting that I think my argument still flies if we substitute "goodness" for omnibenevolence. The argument is quite simple: if God is omnibenevolent (or at least good), he must want there to be as little suffering as possible. Since he is omnipotent, he has the tools to stop the suffering and since he is omniscient, he knows where the suffering is and the best way to stop it. But, when we look out into the world we see a ton of suffering. This either means that God doesn't exist or that he doesn't have the characteristics mentioned. Formalized, the argument is this: 1. God wants there to be no suffering 2. God has the power and knowledge to remove all the suffering 3. There is suffering in the world 4. Therefore, God does not exist Here's an example of the kind of suffering I'm talking about: We as humans have physical brains which appear to be the cause of out minds. God however is a mind (he thinks for example) yet he does not have a brain to generate this mind. This indicates that non-physical minds are possible. Now, our physical minds are a source of immense suffering. They are extremely prone to injury, small chemical or neurological fluctuations can cause immense difficulties and before the advent of modern medical technology, the large heads of children caused the death of a large percentage of women in childbirth. There is no reason for these physical minds to exist – they are needless suffering. An omnibenevolent God would not create physical minds. The most common response to this argument seems to be the "free will defense". I will deal with this if someone wants to argue with it, but you will need to provide a reason why an omnipotent God could not create a world with both free will and no suffering. These do not seem to be logically contradictory, so a being that can do everything could do this.
Animal testing should not be allowed.

My opponent sums up his rebuttal in these simple, yet critically important words, "what-ifs" and "cruelty". All of what my opponent has said about incredible gifts of medicine, physicians supporting the use if animals for clinical research and how none of it is possible with out animal testing. This is the thing that we are overlooking. It is possible without animal testing. Not only is research via animal testing misleading, as I have pointed out through all three rounds of this debate (and was not contested until now), it has had many negative consequences overlooked by the affirmative. These aren't what-if's these are the facts. If we aren't willing to test them on our selves, then how can one justify testing it on something else? This is the fundamental argument that my opponent has failed to produce, therefore I urge the voters to award a negative vote. thank you and good debate :)
Animal testing should not be allowed.

Thoughts on Point #1: Even if animal testing is a double-edge sword, most would agree when I say that testing products on ANIMALS, not HUMANS, is preferable. The end-result may be guaranteed either way, but in both scenarios, humans would be harmed last which means we have least room for error, albeit the non-precocious mistakes of scientists. Also, I am unsure as to how animals may contract HIV/AIDS in the first place, seeing as how its a human-benefited thing only. I am skeptic of the scientist in question's abilities, seeing as how monkeys would not need a vaccine for HIV when it is impossible for them to ever receive such STDs. As for the "positive changes...[which] have not occurred," I may require some enlightenment on that topic, as I have this feeling that animal testing has incurred much more positive and beneficiary changes to the way modern medicine is developed. Not only modern medicine, but also an entirety and array of other consumer-use products, such as cosmetics and clothing (although that is a much more provocative subject). "A survey conducted in the American Medical Association indicates that 99% of all active physicians in the United States believe that animal research has given rise to medical advancements. In fact, about 97% of the physicians also supported the continuous use if animals for clinical and basic research." - http://www.buzzle.com... "Every day, thousands of people are saved from painful diseases and death by powerful medical drugs and treatments. This incredible gift of medicine would not be possible without animal testing." - http://www.writefix.com... If your whole argument is based on cruelty and future "what-ifs" I think that it is clear as to what the majority of the scientific community thinks on this issue, granted that whilst morality is a major concern, animal testing WILL and HAS benefited not only HUMANS but also ANIMALS too. Thank you.