BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes

First, the claims of harm caused by video games have not been proven. The most criticised violent video games are generally military shooters. However, these games generally focus much more strongly on multiplayer components of the game. These multiplayer components often require significant levels of teamwork in order for one side to be successful over the other. As such, many of these video games end up teaching players core teamwork skills as well as often teaching leadership skills when players become part of organised gaming groups. Further, numerous researchers have proposed potential positive effects of video games on aspects of social and cognitive development and psychological well-being. It has been shown that action video game players have better hand-eye coordination and visuo-motor skills, such as their resistance to distraction, their sensitivity to information in the peripheral vision and their ability to count briefly presented objects, than non-players. Video games also promote the development of intellectual skills such as planning and problem-solving, and social games may improve the social capabilities of the individual.[1] Given then that video games provide these benefits, banning violent games would harm the industry overall, causing many of the developers of other games which encourage these kinds of skills to lose their funding from game publishers. Put simply, the banning of violent video games would lead to fewer games overall being published and if these games have the effects listed above then a great net benefit is lost in the process.
Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes

From what I have seen in that post you have utterly copied and pasted a whole entire website page which shows you are obviously avoiding the question, the question is " Are Video Games the main cause for Violent Juvenile Crimes " A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time.
WODC: Rap Battle XD

Ding Dong the bells will chime The Great Eagle runs out of time The "World bully" is now no more The "Great Satan" has become poor The tyranny has ceased to be The Nations of the World are free They won't topple more Regimes The tears of joy they form new streams No more Western blasphemies No more drones shall cross the seas Americans they cross the border No longer shall they destroy order The Quran shall be their true book The West is gone, their ways forsook Now they shall live holy lives The Word of Allah forever survives But their rejoicing does not last For militants strive for the past Women are subdued again Hangings due to lesser sin Only Muslims shall live hereThey make the Christians live in fearBlood and Gore is their true creedWestern Conquest is a need All hail the fall of the Western Devil!For now there are none to oppose evil!
WODC: Rap Battle XD

What the f*uck is this sh*t about "they"?That's such irrelevancy, such foul playYou require much help from others You so weak you need your motherYour whole rap now collapses downYou look like such a clown You can't defeat me nowThe seeds of defeat I have sow Now grow up to be big and tallThey consume you and make you bawlYou can't do nothin' about nadaI'm too prepared with my large armadaOur missiles fire and over-killSwords run through you and ruthlessly drill You can't run away, poor cowardI'm the king of rap, uber-empowered VOTE ME.
WODC: Rap Battle XD

The camera's in the Costco and the camera's in the bar They watch you from a yard away and watch you from afar They watch your every purchase and they watch your every check They Feds are omnipresent and they'll put an implant in your neck They watch your every phone call and they watch your every tweet They watch whenever you download that app you think looks neat They watch you on the Ebay and they watched you buy that gun They watch your every moment and they still would watch you on the run From your birth they've logged you from your parents to your genes They logged your fingerprints and your organical machines Your mind's your only sanctuary from the NSA And soon with their mind-reading they'll take even that freedom away You can't fight this intrusion though many souls have tried The SCOTUS is a puppet and its own power has died The army takes orders from the authoritarians What they do flaunts the Constitution though I'm no historian They detain US Citizens in Guantanamo Bay They declare Constitution-Free Zones to all our dismay They don't give a *bleep* about the basic rights of man Those who fight the Feds will find they're not considered American They watch you when you shower and they watch you when you pee They watch you when you're in your bedroom watching your TV Your home is not your castle when the Government's involved And as the Gestapo had done they'll have your privacy dissolved PEEKABOO! I SEE YOU!
WODC: Rap Battle XD

My opponent's poem stinksIt'd work better for The_Scapegoat_BleatsOtherwise it makes no senseHis argument've such a poor defenseI defeated half of his round with merely ONE verse,From here on out it can only get worseLogical's yabberin' on about God Doesn't he know I'm the true one to be awed? His momma shoulda aborted him when she couldMy torture to you is anything but goodI'll leave you in such pain and traumaClub you so hard in the head you get a commaI'll keep on waterboarin' till you wish you were in hellIn that place it's actually more swellI rip apart your flesh and bonesCut apart your liver with some sharp stonesI suggest you give up alreadyFor this battle you weren't readyYour rhyme scene is so unsteadyTo keep this up you'll need the help of your Teddy
WODC: Rap Battle XD

The sound of bleating goats and sheep substitutes the trumpets' din The KING of Kings and LORD of Lords arrives within the camp of sin The rebels occupy the Earth and turn it to a land of death They fornicate, murder, and lie with every single wretched breath They delight in the way of all that defies His Holy Word In their evil they bring upon each other the sharpened sword They kill and uncover the nakedness of wives not their own They think about new ways to sin and do that He can't condone Men they lived without hope and in their deaths they knew only woe The Feast of Kings they don't recall for pods of pigs are all they know This was the state of Planet Earth decaying and dried to the bone But He came to pardon all the Rebels with His blood to atone He lived among the subjects of the World that was ruled by Belial And for them He felt only love as He stood at His own trial Ironically He was not the judged, they were the ones who had transgressed And ever since His tragic "death" He's saved those who to Him confessed The gift is free, it offers to erase our sin in Great Love's flood But we should not take it for granted as it cost Holy God's blood Why should we return to sin by saying the price has been paid? For it's true but that was done to cleanse it from us, we're remade My rival is likely an atheist who doesn't believe what I've said But this is my Round 2 poem, so let's see what songs lie ahead
WODC: Rap Battle XD

You can't be me down with some puny poemsI smash at them stronger than 10 Golems You better go home you sad lonely guyAnd cry to your parents 'til your eyes go dry With my hands I squeeze you tight, you're in a dead lockYou can't give a good fight, I know you stink worse than a sockYou belong in the trash dump, got no better placeYou run now chump, better sprint at a fast pace I'm right behind you with tanks an' machine gunsJust countin' my jeeps, they weigh over 9,000 tonsThere's no escape to anywhere you wantA giant nuke chases you like it's takin' a jauntThis battle's already over now,Come to your king and take your bowDonate all your stuff to 9space charityGo ahead, spit it out -- "Spare me"
THBT science is represented fairly in the media

'. So when there are two convicting theories, the media must report these as impartially as possible. Any attempt to place a bias on these ideas is very hard for the media.'I think that is not true. Your notion of fairness is incorrect- the media must report science, and other topics as they are! Regarding bias- you have no idea how easy it is. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... This is as far from'The Truth' as it is possible to get. MMR fears had been debunked far before this article. Bias- so so easy to place. 'But there are many examples where it has been the minority opinion that has been right.' Oh yeah? Name one example that is comparatively modern. ' It seems very unfair that media should have to be the judge between two competing theories, since they have no/little scientific knowledge themselves.' Remember, the debate is about the fairness of the portrayal, not the media judging science. 'As to your idea that media makes science incomprehensible, I think that the majority of reports do indeed dumb down information to level suitable for its readers.' And that's A BAD THING. They are trying to sell the idea that science is incompremphensible. Do you know how easy it would be to explain even the most 'advanced' ideas that are presented in the media? ' The only exception may be adverts, with complex chemical names, but I think even these are in the minority. In any case, these are the official names of the chemicals in the product, and one can hardly be expected to explain the intricacies of each chemical in a 30-second ad.' However, they could at least not try to blatantly lie about what goes into their products, and what they do.
THBT science is represented fairly in the media

I don't think that the media misrepresent science on the most part, and that most cases where it may be said they do, like health scares, is down to the interpretation of the consumers. As I said, the media are not able nor have the authority to discredit science on their own, especially as their opinion is likely to shape public opinion if they do. So when there are two convicting theories, the media must report these as impartially as possible. Any attempt to place a bias on these ideas is very hard for the media. You could say that they should go with the most favored by scientists. But there are many examples where it has been the minority opinion that has been right. It seems very unfair that media should have to be the judge between two competing theories, since they have no/little scientific knowledge themselves. Therefore, if there is a report on a potential harm of MMR, all the media can do is report both sides without bias. This leads back to my point that people will panic even if both sides are represented fairly. Therefore it is not the media being unfair, it is people who have neglected to read the information fairly and jumped to conclusions. As to your idea that media makes science incomprehensible, I think that the majority of reports do indeed dumb down information to level suitable for its readers. After all it doesn't make any sense for a media company to put out something that doesn't appeal to their target group. The only exception may be adverts, with complex chemical names, but I think even these are in the minority. In any case, these are the official names of the chemicals in the product, and one can hardly be expected to explain the intricacies of each chemical in a 30-second ad. My sources were not meant to prove that science is represented fairly, only that naming specifics offers no proof either way, as media for both opinions can be found. It all depends which you think is in the majority, which is hard to conclusively prove. To conclude, I think that the media generally tries to report science fairly to the best of its ability. However, in cases where two opposing scientific views are found, the media cannot be expected to judge between them. This means each theory must be reported fairly for the public to form an opinion. It should not be the medias fault that most people will focus on the possible health scare, rather than the other point of view which is also represented.
THBT science is represented fairly in the media

I'll begin by rebutting my opponent's rebuttal, then move on to some more points.'I must say I don't see the relevance of this point.'The relevance of this point? Only the key to the entire debate! Science is vital, and it holds the key to our entire lifestyle. Why are you, in most probability alive today? Because of advances in medicine. Heck, why are you debating me on the internet- because of science.' Media is not the judge of science. Many people who work in media are not experts in science.'Right, but the media misrepresent science to the layman, in part because there are not enough experts in science- but that's a different rant.' If there is a report saying that there is a possible outbreak, you are going to worry, even if the article presents both sides clearly.'But that's the sin that I'm trying to highlight! I'll elaborate more on health scares later.'The purpose of an advert is to try and sell a product, not to teach people about what goes into the product.'Again, that's correct, but my problem is in fact the public misunderstanding of science.'I think that throughout your argument you have been taking a few cases and then extrapolating to the conclusion. However, is my sources below, you can see examples of media being fair and "dumbing down"'By your own admission though, this is not proof. The dumbing down tries to convey that science is incomprehensible.The imdb one was simply a video that was science related- I'd just like to clarify that I don't think that ALL media mistreats science.On to my point for this round- health scares. I'll just take the MMR scare, as it is very representative of health scares- debunked right away and still rearing its ugly head today.Let's just summarize it;Autism is becoming more common, and no one knows why.A man called Andrew Wakefield has done 'resarch' that shows MMR may have caused it.It was debunked instantly. It started in 1998, and the peak of the media coverage was 2002. Shameful , emotional anecdotes from mothers were pitted against old duffers in courderoy talking data. I hope you can see that it is, indeed the media who cause health scares. Thank you.Vote Con.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
THBT science is represented fairly in the media

I will start by replying to my opponents points. "Science is important" I must say I don't see the relevance of this point. Just because someone wouldn't be able to tell me how an iphone works doesn't mean science is portrayed unfairly in the media, it just means that people don't tend to look that up. Using the internet, a quick search reveals how this phenomenom works. Surely web articles are a form of media? "Mock Fairness" Once again, I feel that this is not the strongest of points. Media is not the judge of science. Many people who work in media are not experts in science. So when there are two differing points of view on a technical scientific point, the media cannot judge which is right or wrong. So even if there are many people on one side, the media must report impartially. In regards to the health scares caused by the media, I would say that it is the people reading of the news who create the panic. If there is a report saying that there is a possible outbreak, you are going to worry, even if the article presents both sides clearly. "Dumbing down" I think that the example above is unrepresentative of the entire media. The purpose of an advert is to try and sell a product, not to teach people about what goes into the product. I think that throughout your argument you have been taking a few cases and then extrapolating to the conclusion. However, is my sources below, you can see examples of media being fair and "dumbing down" None of these examples can be conclusive proof, as websites and news can be used in both sides. 1.http://www.imdb.com... 2.http://www.bbc.co.uk... 1. http://electronics.howstuffworks.com... 2.
THBT science is represented fairly in the media

I will be using the book and website Bad Science (www.badscience.net) a lot in this debate, so assume it as a source in every round.To answer my opponent's question, the no round should have only applied to him, as he was meant to have an extra round, but now we will simply just continue debating in that round, both of us.On to my points.Science is importantScience pervades our culture. I'd be intrested to know how long it would take you to find someone who even knows how the touchscreen in his iPhone works from where you are standing now. No looking it up- get back to me next round.I rest my case.Mock FairnessThere is a very funny quote from Prof. Steve Jones, which I think sums it up nicely 'Mathematician discovers that 2+2=4, spokesman from Duodecimal League insist 2+2=5, presenter sums up that 2+2=4.5 but the debate goes on.' This is in fact at the heart of many health scares, (which are caused by the media, but more on that next round). Let's just take MMR. Andrew Wakefield published a paper in the Lancet, it was immediately debunked by experts on biology and disease, and studies were published showing that Mr. Wakefield was wrong. Guess what happened. The vast expanse of scientists believing Wakefield was wrong were given less credence than him.All great scientists were mavericks, but not all mavericks are great scientists.'Dumbing down'What do you see in a cream, health cream advert? You see mystifying pronouncements, like 'this is Peptidique Molecule Vegetal'. What is that? Mashed-up string of vegetable proteins. The adverts are trying to sell the idea that science is incomprehensible, full of molecular diagrams and sweeping statements by didactic authority figures. It's not like that. Science is asking what is around you, curiosity, rejecting the old paradigm. Science is awesome, and easy. [1] Bad Science, Ben Goldacre 2009[2] The geek manifesto, Mark Henderson, 2012
THBT science is represented fairly in the media

That being said, I still feel that the idea that the media dumbs down science needed a little more clarification. In round 1, con wrote that ads try to make science incomprehensible, which is a bad thing (for him). However, when I said that a large majority of media outlets would make the information digestible for their target audience, he wrote this "And that's A BAD THING. They are trying to sell the idea that science is incomprehensible. Do you know how easy it would be to explain even the most 'advanced' ideas that are presented in the media? " This seems to be a contradiction to what he said before, as the chemical names are the actual scientific terms. Therefore, dumbing down in this case would be describing what a chemical does, rather than spewing science at people (and I actually think most ads do in fact describe clearly the purpose") He also said that these adverts lie about what goes in them, which is patently false, as they must adhere to advertising law, which prohibits this. To conclude, although there may be cases where some examples may be found where science has been misrepresented, that does not in anyway reflect on the whole of the media. This kind of decision needs to be based on the overall effect of the media. As my opponent concedes that not all media mistreats science (R3), but feels his point is still valid, so too can I say that not all media treats science fairly, but still claim that the overall effect is of fairness. Overall, I have explained why making science digestible is a good thing and why health scares are not necessarily a ploy by the media, but a result of having to explain each experts view with equal merit, my opponents two main points, and submitted my own argument, that the news companies have to make each scientific view equally valid, as they are not in a position to judge the merits of two scientific ideas, especially given that their opinion will influence the public's perception the most.
THBT science is represented fairly in the media

Scientists need to clean up their own mess. MMR was a niche paper, published in the Lancet, promptly debunked in that same journal. The Daily Mail, and others whipped up a frenzy that was neither called-for or needed. 'But they use the real chemical terms, with no dumbing down, which you have just said is a bad thing? Some intense clarification is needed here in your argument. ' There, you said it. science is not about chemical names- that's what the media try to portray it as. It's simple, fun and effective. To summarize, the media makes science look incomprehensible and hard, whips up health scares and generally misuses it.
THBT science is represented fairly in the media

I would agree that that particular example does show a slight bias on the subject of MMR. However, as I have shown before, individual cases do not show that the media in general treats science unfairly. If you don't think that "all media mistreats science", it is just as valid to say that I don't think all media treats science fairly. With the whole MMR thing, your precursor is that it was debunked almost immediately by scientists. But how did they tell us it was rubbish? Through the media of course!!! I cannot see at all how you can argue that media outlets shouldn't report the science in a way that their target audience would understand. Surely the best way of making science incomprehensible is to explain it as if to a room of qualified Doctors? I can't really tell which way you are arguing on this point, as a few rounds up, you were saying that the complex names in adverts were not good. But they use the real chemical terms, with no dumbing down, which you have just said is a bad thing? Some intense clarification is needed here in your argument. "However, they could at least not try to blatantly lie about what goes into their products, and what they do" They don't. There are laws against that. A company can't say that their product contains something it doesn't, and vice versa. I'd also like to point out that the majority of ads don't just spout scientific babble, and most don't even mention anything specific about the ingredients.
Experts' Tier FINALE: Environmental Protections vs. Resource Extraction

Full TopicDeveloping nations should prioritize environmental protections over resource extractionRules1. No forfeits2. No new arguments in debater's final speeches3. BOP: Pro must show that environmental protections should be prioritized; Con must show that resource extraction should be prioritized; in this way, BOP is shared4. Violation or non-acceptance of any of the R1 rules or setup constitutes a 7-point lossContextDeveloping nations can be found in the link provided, classified as either landlocked or small island developing states. Here is the link: . http://unstats.un.org...StructureR1: Acceptance onlyR2: Opening ArgumentsR3: RebuttalsR4: Rebuttals and SummaryI look forward to a stellar round!