BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Playing violent video games make people more violent.

Let me list a few points: 1. Japan is the world's largest video game industry. Inside of course may include violent games. However, according to statistics in the past few years, Japan is one of the countries that have the lowest rate of people becoming violent or performing violent behaviour. This can prove that playing violent video games don't really do much in being violent. 2. According to a 2002 US Secret Service study of 41 individuals involved in school shootings found that only 12% were attracted by violent video games, while reading violent books or watching violent films took 24% and 27% respectively. These numbers show that violent video games are not to be blamed. 3. According to a 2001 US Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life. However, not media exposure (including games, movies and books). 4. * What actually causes people to become more violent is not video games, but the quality of the society, the social atmosphere. Video games only mislead you to a wrong way of thinking. They only misdirect you to think that maybe killing is right or something like that. However, not literally become violent, which is like beating or killing. Misleading ones thoughts is different than making you or causing you to beat or kill or become violent. 5. What make people more violent, is actually your mind, the hatred, the revengeful heart. Maybe you have experienced something not good. For example, being bullied by the entire class. Maybe making songs of you, putting a "kick my butt" sign behind your back etc. This might have made you very unhappy. However, you are now mature enough. You have got the power to revenge. So once you got such message of wanting to revenge, you have an uncontrollable force, a force that is strong and tough, which ends up into violence. So there's the answer, violent video games aren't the roots of violence of people. BTW. Thanks for the sources you find. Anyway, could you send me some of your points if you were my side through this debate. Thanks.
Playing violent video games make people more violent.

I will accept your debate to help you prepare although I feel the same way I will try my hardest to disprove the theory that this is true or if it is even proven the fact that video games do not make people violent. Why do they say violent video games make people violent? The reason for this is because of the fact that people that play violent video games get so addicted to these violent video games that they lose themselves in these video games and lose between what's real and what's fake Not everyone can handle violent video games. That is why violent video games are suppose to be for a mature audience. (17+) http://www.nytimes.com... If the person is correct on this article that and I quote - "The young men who opened fire at Columbine High School, at the movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and in other massacres had this in common: they were video gamers who seemed to be acting out some dark digital fantasy. It was as if all that exposure to computerized violence gave them the idea to go on a rampage " or at least fueled their urges." Then that could prove something there although he goes more into detail that studies have shown it is unsure about the fact that video games were the result of this. However people can get lost in what is real and what is fake. These are paradox's http://dictionary.reference.com... par"a"dox [par-uh-doks] Show IPA noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth. 2. a self-contradictory and false proposition. 3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature. 4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion. http://www.wired.com... This suggests there really is a conclusion to this yet and more research has to be done. US president Obama Proposes funding for game violence studies. This article summaries the top 25 studies for violent video games that dates back to the 80s http://kotaku.com... Look at these studies and the conclusions. Some showed after playing violent games there are no difference from playing regular games without violence. Other tests showed teenagers acted out more aggressively after playing violent video games.
The concept (ideally) of communism is more beneficial to its people than that of capitalism.

"Government controls all the means of production." What production? Five women wearing babushkas fighting over a turnip? "This takes away from competition…have anywhere from 2 to 20 companies all competing for the same thing. This is highly inefficient." Actually the reverse is the case. Competition breeds efficiency. The less efficient production methods eventually lose out, unlike government, which sustains inefficiency. There's no direct market feedback, no correction, no penalty for bad decisions. "This control allows a communist government to produce anything more efficiently." Competition also spawns innovation. You never see new technology from the commies. "For instance if we look at our current system of competition. We can see that 5 companies may all be attempting to market the same product. In a communism its only the government with the money of all 5 companies. So now instead of wasting money due to competition we can save that money and use it elsewhere." How does the government determine which production method or product is best without prior competition? "This efficiency in turn would allow a communist government to dominate the market." Commie run governments never dominate the market without using slave labor and poor, dangerous working conditions. "A communism would promote new technologies." It's obvious that is not true. "Under a communism the number one goal is to further the community…promote societal welfare." Number one goal is to hold on to power. Government-industry relations are incredibly corrupt with pay-offs, bribes, a recipe designed more to sustain power than find the most efficient production methods. "A communism would grant its people all of the necessities of life for free." Liberty? Freedom of speech and of religion? Timely healthcare services? I've never seem an example of that. "Excess money would be used for two things…." To increase military spending and line the pockets of the elites in the politburo.
The concept (ideally) of communism is more beneficial to its people than that of capitalism.

Sweet so... Ideal communism. Government controls all the means of production. This takes away from competition. For instance right now in our society we may have anywhere from 2 to 20 companies all competing for the same thing. This is highly inefficient. This control allows a communist government to produce anything more efficiently. For instance if we look at our current system of competition. We can see that 5 companies may all be attempting to market the same product. In a communism its only the government with the money of all 5 companies. So now instead of wasting money due to competition we can save that money and use it elsewhere. This efficiency in turn would allow a communist government to dominate the market. What country with competing technology sectors could possibly compete with a country that can develop new technology with the efficiency of a communism? A communism doesn't have to deal with the competition, it can focus on developing new technologies. A communism would promote new technologies. Where as in our current quasi-capitalistic system people are told from day one that the American dream is to get rich under the ideal communist system people would instead wish to help their community. Under a communism the number one goal is to further the community, as to help the community is in turn to help oneself. Any cut in production costs within the community is more money the government can use. People in a communist system will do what they can to promote societal welfare. A communism would grant its people all of the necessities of life for free. Food, water, transportation, education, housing, electricity, clothing all free. The necessities would all be run by government and given to the people for free. Excess money would be used for two things. A. Given back to the people. It wouldn't even have to be in the form of money, perhaps even token or tickets would work. An equal number for each person that could be used to get luxuries beyond the necessities of life. Restaurants, pets, fancy furniture, PS3 etc..... Everyone has the same allowance, so it comes down to who you are and what you want. B. Put back into the production in order to develop new ideas. This in turn is used to compete with other countries and pull ahead of them. Leading to the communist government being the worlds #1 most efficient producer in many fields. Thus it is cheaper to buy things from the communist government. Communist government then gets more money which can be used for two things. (Sound familiar?) I stand open for your contention so that I may rebuttal it.
Death penalty should be imposed as law in the Philippine government.

The Death Penalty is meant as a punishment. Most people sentenced to the death penalty are accused, and found guilty of, crimes of extreme severity. Since getting the death sentence requires a serious crime, capital punishment is rarely used. Capital punishment can be used as a deterrent for future crimes, which can lower (serious) crime rates.In the US, crimes punishable by death include 1st degree murder, acts of terrorism, chemical warfare, espionage, etc. Some of these crimes include people that could certainly be dangerous to keep alive, such as a terrorist leader. These types of people most likely have connections outside of prison, and could plan a breakout or another attack. Prisons could also act as a hub for said criminals. A prison not only keeps the criminals in, but it also keeps said people safe from outside threats.In the case of espionage, foreign threats could be increased by keeping a spy alive. They most likely would have potentially harmful information that could end up in a global catastrophe. Even if we imprison said spy, their home country/group can still figure out ways of getting information out, while also putting more spies in. This removes the danger of sending spies into one country.All in all, Capital Punishment could reduce the public danger, keep foreign security secure, and reduce the amount of federal crimes.
Death penalty should be imposed as law in the Philippine government.

Death penalty should not be imposed as law specially in the Philippine context. as Human being we need to consider the right of the accused. though he had committed grave sin he had still the chance to chance into a new life. because even how sinful the person was. Still he had this innate nature of being good and this could not be separated from him. All we have to do is to give him the chance to live a new life and the government should provide guidance and counseling for the accused to be guided and not to be killed. Because we do not have the right to kill a person because it it against the law of the lord and also it is a violation of the human rights.
This House Believes That On Balance The Holocaust Was Detrimental To Society!

I am going to have to apologize to whiteflame, and skip this one round. Certain circumstances make it hard for me to post a round, but we will still have two rounds to hash it out. Sorry again, just something happened. I have my round half written so I guess I can post that, and the I'll start it seriously from the next round. I thank whiteflame for this round. As per the rules my first round will feature positive material only. If any positive material seems a rebuttal of Marc's round then it is purely coincidental. I should like to add one thing once more, I realize this was a horrible tragedy, reading about the tortures is truly saddening, I hope to only experiment with this view. Thank you for reading without bias. To start with I'd like to discuss the onus. While the resolution uses the words "on balance" Marc has the greater burden. I only need to show that in certain cases the Holocaust could be considered not detrimental, while he needs to show that the Holocaust was detrimental in all cases. To be clear he needs to show necessarily X, while I need only show not necessarily X which is the same as possibly not X. In Logic it is []X, while I need to show ~[]X which is <>~X. Next lets get some fundamental facts clear. Often you will hear people come up with fantastically exaggerated numbers. To quote Mr. Raul Hilberg (who I invite you to look up) the foremost research scholar on the Holocaust, the death toll was not more than 2.8 million.[1] While Hilberg originally gave a larger number in 1996 he revised the number based on new evidence, and throughout his articles, and essays gives evidence. I invite my opponent to inform us where the other 4 million deaths occured, since there is no evidence on them. In fact scholar Yehuda Bauer another researcher has also concluded that the death toll could not be more than 3.4 million, and that is pushing it. He believes that the true toll is near 3 million, as there is no evidence to show otherwise. [2] This is not to say this is not a large number but when we get into calculus of benefit, it would be better to see why the Holocaust did have benefits in the larger picture, comparing to the harm of the death of 3 million persons. I'll talk about how these decrease further when we consider the world wars in my negative case in my next rounds. In summation however when the Third Reich came under attack, two million civilians were murdered.[3] There is evidence to suggest that many of those who died in these ethnic cleansing died may have died anyways. So it cant all be blamed all on the Holocaust. [1]'Holocaust' by Raul Hilberg; Microsoft 'Encarta' 1998 [2]Holocaust: A History by Yehuda Bauer
This House Believes That On Balance The Holocaust Was Detrimental To Society!

Greetings! To start off, no I am not racist, or a Nazi sympathizer, I just thought this would be an interesting thing to debate. I am in no way supporting the Holocaust, and find it nothing but worthy of condemnation. That being said I would like to debate this topic. I believe the motion is pretty clear: my opponent has to argue that the harm outweighed the good, while I will argue the opposite. The judges for this debate are: airmax1227, debatability, Envisage, bluesteel, Subutai, bladerunner060, Mikal, Wylted, Blade-of-Truth, and thett3. I believe all these judges to be capable, and fair. Just to show there is no bias two judges are confirmed Jewish friends of mine. There are 4 rounds, 72 hr/round, 10, 000 characters available, and Judge Voting with a Select Winner option. Judges must give a reason for decision. My opponent should start immediately, and skip the last round with the words "no round as agreed upon" or something similar. First argumentation rounds for positive material only. This has been sent to whiteflame on his request, let the games begin.
Hillary Clinton cannot be the next president

How to throw Fireball: input U92; U94; U93; U95; U96; U97; U98; U99; V00; V01; U92; U94;U92; U94; U93; U96; U97; U98; U99; V00; V01; U93; U96; U97; U98; U99; V00; V01; U92; U95; U92; U94; U93; U95; U96; U97; WK HP HK LP SK LK MK MP HP LP MP WP HP SP WK WP WK SP HP LP LK LP in less than a 1/666 of second The Fireball can be cancelled into a shirui-no-kensen by inputting U94;U92; U94; U93; U96; U97; U98; U99; V00; V01; U93; U96; U97; U98; U99; U99; V00; V01; U92; U94;U92; U94; U93; U96; U97; U98; V01; U92; U94;U92; U94; U93; U96; U97; U98; U99; V00; U92; U94; U93; U95; U96; U97; U98; U99; V00; V01; U92; U94;U92; U94; U93; U96; U97; U98; U99; V00; V01; U93; U96; U97; U98; U99; V00; V01; U92; U95; U92; U94; U93; U95; U96; U97; HP LP MP WP HP SP WKWK HP HK LP SK HP LP MP WP HP SP WK LK MK MP HP LP MP WP HP SP WK WP WK SP HP LP LK LP before the animation ends. Requires two stocks, two tech bars, two stamina bars, having your lifebar blinking purple and executing a reverse guard cancel first And that's the most basic two-hit combo Why are you still playing Fighting Game 3rd Attack Xecutor champion edition arcade version regulation 1.7? the entire community already moved to the newest game, Fighting Game 3rd Attack Xecutor champion edition arcade version regulation 1.7'. Only for $60! Where's your $400 arcade stick? I'm an Anti-Hillary supporter and I'm ending this debate so that none of the Shillary scums will have the chance to spew their cancer here. Do not thank me
Hillary Clinton cannot be the next president

While it is true that Donald Trump is not the best candidate for president, Hillary Clinton simply is the worst candidate. 1) Email Scandal Now regardless if you believe the email is cause for indictment, you must still acknowledge the facts. On her private, unprotected server, Clinton had 110 dangerous emails potentially destructive to the United States, internal or external. 8 of these 110 were marked as "Top Secret." This means she should not have had them, but her authority was barely allowed to let her read them. On top of this, she consistently lied about it, claiming she did not know they were classified nor that they were damaging. Among this, she deleted 30,000 emails, proving she knew they were incriminating and dangerous. Before her trial, Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on a private jet, discussion topics are unknown. The extremely incriminating trial ended with Hillary winning on the verdict of "she did not intentionally attempt to harm United States security. This is extremely irresponsible of the judge, because he had acknowledged she had broken many federal laws. 2) Bill Clinton and Sexual Assault During his presidency, Bill Clinton had a sex scandal with Monica Lewinsky. She is the most famous because it was during his term, it is little known that she was one of many, and she wasn't even the first. To list a few of his little known victims, Juanita Brodderick, Eileen Wellstone, Carolyn Moffet, Elizabeth Ward, along with many other victims that remain nameless. These victims, some of assault, some of rape, went unknown because Hillary Clinton wouldn't let them speak. she shut them up to keep Bill's reputation. Also, when Hillary was a lawyer, she defended a rapist in court. After her client won, she was quoted saying that her faith in polygraphs was forever ruined because he was guilty. She then laughed hysterically. 3) Money Now, as a solid believer in the concept of capitalism, I have absolutely no problem with her having money. What do have a problem with is her fighting for the lower class, claiming she is "one of them" even though her net worth is 30 million, or 110 million if you include Bill Clinton in it. She is not fighting for the little people, she is fighting to earn her even more money. Donald Trump is fighting to make America Great again, she is fighting for presidency.
Neutral agnosticism versus ALL beliefs regarding God!

I stated the Greeks though rape was LESS BAD than homosexuality.Anyway. This is the difference between atheism and agnosticism that my opponent is failing to comprehend. A neutral agnostic needn't prove that there is or there isn't a god since we neither claim there to be, or not to be one, in existence.7+5=12 can be proven because: - 12-7=5 12-5=7 10+14=24 and (10/2) + (14/2) = 24/2 also because x*(5+7)=x*12 There are many proofs of the math equation.That all bachelors are single is an untrue statement because the definition of a bachelor is a man who is not and has never been married.[1] However one can not ever have married but be single (how do you think teen pregnancy happens).Neutral agnosticism asserts nothing apart from that nothing should be asserted without evidence to abck it up.Now you say this is self contradictory because it needs to be proven.Agnosticism is not self contradictory, it is an axiom.Axiom: an accepted statement or proposition regarded as being self-evidently true.[2]Thus in a court of law, it is self evidently true that the judge cannot sentence the accused to prison if he/she has had no evidence to support the prosecutor's case. He/she is 'innocent until proven guilty'. This is a fundamental axiom of all activities and day-to-day decision making. If your friend says your wife cheated on you, you would immediately dump her. You will make your friend prove it, and perhaps end up ditching your friend. Without the theory of agnosticism the human society would be just as idiotic as any other species, what separates us is the innate ability to reason via communication, and the communication is used to explain theories that are then proven by evidence.I shall repeat the truth: Agnosticism is not the denial of God, nor the belief in no God, nor the doubt in (a) god(s), it is merely the axiom that nothing can be known (even if there is or is not a god) without proof in the form of physical evidence of some kind, the physical proof can represent a mental truth (in the cases of math and philosophy) However most of the time it will simply be proof of somehting being true, such as God's existence. This is why atheists and neutral agnostics are a different breed of theologists; Atheists doubt God simply because we have no proof there is one. Neutral agnostics neither doubt God, nor doubt there being no god, they simply believe that both shall be considered unknown and thus no conclusion can be drawn until evidence is given, untilt hat time we should neither doubt God(s) nor assert that there is one. We should simply believe that evidence is the source of all truth for this is an AXIOM!!!!!!!!!Sources:[1] http://www.wordreference.com...;[2] http://www.wordreference.com...
Neutral agnosticism versus ALL beliefs regarding God!

My opponent can define anything except neutral agnosticism.If you disagree with my definition. do not try to debate it in comments. Do not try to ppose it in round 1. Just do not accept the debate.Neutral agnosticism: The theory that no degree of certainty, especially regarding God, can be achieved without physical evidence.Thank you to my opponent. You shall debate all beliefs other than neutral agnosticism. That is end of it all. Do the hulahoop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Classical Music Battle

Thanks pro. For my piece, I choose Dalla Sua Pace, a tennor aria from Mozat's Don Giovanni. http://www.youtube.com... Lyrics and Tranlation[1] Dalla sua pace, Don Octavio's aria from Don GiovanniDalla sua pace la mia dipende; On her peace of mind depends mine too,Quel che a lei piace vita mi rende, what pleases her gives life to me,Quel che le incresce morte mi dà. what grieves her wounds me to the heart.S'ella sospira, sospiro anch'io; If she sighs, I sigh with her;È mia quell'ira, quel pianto è mio; her anger and her sorrow are mine,E non ho bene, s'ella non l'ha. and joy I cannot know unless she share it.Translation by Camila Argolo Freitas Batista Sources[1] http://www.aria-database.com...
Classical Music Battle

First, how about a little Vivaldi. His four seasons is probably some of the most famous music in the world and is certainly the most famous piece that involves just violins. I will play a part from Autumn. Song: Vivaldi, Concerto No. 3 in F major, Op. 8, RV 293, "L'autunno" (Autumn), mvt 1, Allegro. http://www.youtube.com...