BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
video game violence

First and foremost, it's necessary to recognize that saying video games may increase the violent tendencies in some does not in any way mean to suggest that if you play violent video games you will invariably become a violent person. However, this does not mean that most will be unaffected, either. Even if only subtley, violent video games do in fact increase violent tendencies. Studies have shown that not only do violent video games produce an increased amount of emotional arousal, even when compared to similarly exciting but less violent video games, but that they also result in a decrease in brain activity in areas involving self control. One must also consider how younger children are much more easily influenced. Repetition is a key step in learning, and children are exposed again and again to violent actions with little or no consequences. Again, while not always, this does have potential to increase their own violent behavior--maybe not beating up any kid that looks at them, but possibly being more aggressive or reckless. And I do not disagree that a lot of this is dependent on young children playing games suited for an older audience, something that would not occur with more strict parental regulation. But seriously, let's be realistic--parents simply do not regulate things like video games to the extent they should.
Clerks 2 was better than Clerks 1

Not to worried about punctuation or sentence structure as long as you can state your point. This is a some what relaxed debate so i wouldn't worry to much. Although the characters are brilliantly put together I beg to differ. Have you seen all of jay and silent movies Jay and Silent Bob play the exact character the story lines are always the same and their is always a great deal of camios. Don't get me wrong I am by no means degrading the movie it was a riot I just feel that Clerks 1 is better because it is one of the movies that defined their style and made them who they are today.
Clerks 2 was better than Clerks 1

OKAY BUT IF THEIR WAS NO SECOND THERE WOULD BE NO BRILLIANT SEQUEL(CLREKS2)! FOR INSTANCE NO ONE WOULD KNOW THAT THERE WAS A WEIRDO CHRISTIAN DUDE NAMED ELIAS THAT TOOK CONSTANT RIDICULE FROM RANDALL!!! THERE WOULD BE NO PUKING OF A SUPER NERD!!! THERE WOULD BE NO (THE DONKEY THIING)!!!! AND THAT DUDE WOULD'VE NEVER GONE WITH THAT GIRL!!!!i HAVEN'T SEEN EITHER MOVIES IN A LONG TIME.....SORRY IF I SOUND ENEDUCATED IN THE WORLD OF CLERKS!!! SO WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THERE WOULD BE NO SECOND WITHOUT THE FIRST THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE FIRST WAS BETTER...... THANK YOU FOR ACCEPTING THIS DEBATE!!!!!!! OH YEAH AND WASN'T THERE A JAY AND SILENT BOB STRIKES BACK OR SOMETHING BEFORE CLERKS TWO!?!?!?!?! MY FRIEND WHO IS AN AVID CLREKS WATCHER SAID IT SUCKED.... BUT IDK I NEVER SAW IT.......
Clerks 2 was better than Clerks 1

I must disagree with the fact that the second movie was better and to steal a quote from Clerks 2, Clerks 1 was a massive achievement if you look at how much they accomplished with such a low budget movie. If the first movie wasn't so successful then they wouldn't have been able to become so popular (by they I mean Jay and Silent Bob). The sheer achievement of the second movie can only be attributed to the brilliant setup from the first.
Clerks 2 was better than Clerks 1

Okay one really huge difference between the two is that the first one is in black and white and that sucks!!!! Secondly the second Clerks sorta had more point to it then the 1st Clerks. The whole 2nd movie was tons better then the 1st!!! The whole pillow pants, and the Lord of the Rings vs. Star Wars debate, AND Jays monologue and his dance were tops to the original!!!! Thanks to whoever accepts this debate!!!
How would you feel if America had gotten sailor uniforms

what if the sailor uniforms help the American schools learn about other cultures I was in school today I had should my class mates a photo of a girl wearing then the girls said that look cute and then said I would be okay wearing them and said the would be okay wearing them also what if you have the parents just pay for them. I also think that only some schools might have a choice like this. American is not that conservative cause the school uniform I have to wear skirts that are minis skirts.
How would you feel if America had gotten sailor uniforms

I am against both adopting sailor uniforms as mandates in most US schools, and having any feelings about it. The former, because most US schools are taxpayer funded and any political adoption of this would necessitate subsidizing such uniforms, requiring the gov't to steal more money from taxpayers. Also, because the US is much more sexually conservative than Japan and therefore any "Sailor" uniforms that would have any chance of adoption here would have longer skirts, and probably be rather baggy, being specifically designed to make the women in question less attractive (I have attended schools with other uniforms, and there can be no doubt about the net effect of those uniforms therefore causing a visual negative, to the contrary of John's hopes. The latter, because uniforms that aren't occupationally related are signs of subservience to a collective, and anyone who could develop "Feelings" for someone that are emphasized by rather than in spite of such a uniform has a depraved hierarchy of values, implicitly adopting such subservience as one of their highest values.
How would you feel if America had gotten sailor uniforms

"what if the sailor uniforms help the American schools learn about other cultures" "Look at me, I'm japanese and I has a sailor outfit" is not a lesson plan. Furthermore, the term UNIFORM implies they'd be doing it all the time, not just once. That's not learning about cultures, that's replacing cultures. Furthermore, imagine all the various "cultural" clothing people dress in when there are no uniforms! You learn more without than with. :) "I was in school today I had should my class mates a photo of a girl wearing then the girls said that look cute and then said I would be okay wearing them and said the would be okay wearing them also what if you have the parents just pay for them." Apparently you are unaware of the fact that not all parents are well-off. Many parents cannot afford such things, thereby necessitating either subsidies or lack of unformity, both of which prove my point :). "also think that only some schools might have a choice like this." America. Not part of America. Read your own resolution. All my points stand :) "American is not that conservative cause the school uniform I have to wear skirts that are minis skirts." New Jersey = false induction. Imagine sailor uniforms in, say, Alabama. Also, you don't expect us to take your word for it? Pics or it didn't happen. *Ragnar nods to John*
President George W. Bush is a good president.

Well with an opening line like that, I guess I was supposed to know you just thought he was bad. /end sarcasm Either way, I think of Bush more as a completely inconsequential president. I mean, it's not like anything he's done can't be fixed, all things considered. No Child Left Behind - just an extention of bad education ideas - Teachers Union = evil Patriot Act - Repeal. Done. Over With. Iraq - Leave. Apologize for stupidity. Fix Afghanistan.
President George W. Bush is a good president.

I have an objection: I did not debate that Geirge W. Bush is the worst president ever. That was stated by The New Yorker in their June 2006 issue. Your entire first round was devoted to debating that Herbert Hoover is the worst president ever. Thi is completely beside the point that George W. Bush is a bad president. Until you prove that George W. Bush is actually a good president, the Con side prevails.
President George W. Bush is a good president.

Ok I have to say first that even though I agree Bush sucks, your evidence and bad humor compels me to act against you in the name of all INTELLIGENT Bush haters. President Bush is without a doubt not the worst president in American history. I would put my money, the smart money, on Herbert Hoover. Here's why; 1) Herbert Hoover is responsible for the worst of the Great Depression. His principles of limited government IN THE FACE OF TOTAL ECONOMIC DISASTER led America to such a low that it took a 4 year war and 110,000 American lives to dig us out, not counting how many poor and impoverished people starved to death. 2) What did Hoover accomplish? Sure, he oversaw the greatest boom in American history, but also sat by and watched as the country tore itself apart. There are times when a man has to rethink his policies, and his slavery to the upper class and bankers created far more problems than were necessary. 3) Hoover's inaction led to a spectacular drop in world standards of living. I can say, with reasonable logic, that Hoover helped Adolf Hitler rise to power. It was indirect, but the connection is there. Hoover doesn't help the American economy recover-> Whole world suffers in depression because America isn't buying anymore-> Germany is racked by starvation and poverty-> Hitler sees opening, takes power-> You know the rest Bush is a moron yes, but definitely not the worst president ever. That distinction belongs to Herbert Hoover.
President George W. Bush is a good president.

"President George W. Bush is the worst president in all of history."-The New Yorker. President George W. Bush has done so much in harm of the United States that many citizens believe he is Anti-American. For example, he started a war against Iraq to "help" their country out of their former state of chaos several years ago. Currently, what do we see? We see Iraq as never before. We see that without a leader, no matter how tyrannous, helps a country. Really, President Bush, how's your oil industry going? Cheating the Iraqis out of even their own natural resources.
Abortion should be legalized.

Like most Americans, I am conflicted on the issue of abortion. But like most of the loudest voices in this debate (on both sides), you present the issue as if it were black and white: Pro-life or pro-choice, with no room in the middle for nuance. The reality is that the vast majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle. Very few are for making abortion illegal in every single case, and even fewer are for allowing abortion up to the last second before natural birth. But these are the two extremes you present in your argument. To the extent that I am "pro-life," I am so on the basis of Natural Rights. At some point, the living thing inside a woman's womb becomes a human being. I do not believe this to be at conception, and I cannot define exactly when that point is. But it is fairly clear to me that it is not one instant before birth. My daughter was born six weeks premature. If she had not been premature, would it have been legitimate to abort her two weeks later? Would it be legitimate for a woman to delay labor via drugs and have her baby aborted past the time it was actually due? And finally, most late-term abortions amount to clear infanticide, as the baby is actually living outside of the womb before it is killed. Must I accept this in order to be "pro-choice" in your eyes? Must I oppose a first-trimester abortion of a rape or incest victim in order to be "pro-life"? You make the argument that "pro-life" people should be for legal abortion, since legal abortion leads to fewer abortions and deaths of mothers having abortions. I question these data. Most of the countries where abortion is illegal are poorer and have other problems -- it is thus hard to isolate the effect of abortion laws on abortion rates. But, for the sake of argument, let's say you are right: Would this then also justify any other crime? What if the legalization of murdering one person a year was demonstrated to reduce the total number of violent crimes -- could it be justified? You are using utilitarian ethics, whereas many non-religious and some religious abortion opponents use Natural Rights ethics. Utilitarianism allows for any abrogation of rights if it can be seen as being "in the common good," whereas Natural Rights allow for no such abrogations. There is nothing hypocritical about being a Natural Rights-based opponent of abortion.
Abortion should be legalized.

Abortion should be legal, definitely. Ask a pro-lifer what their position represents - what is being a pro-lifer? They'll usually give you a definition of something along the lines of someone who believes that a fetus is a life, and the sanctity of life should not be compromised by legalizing a form of murder. Ask them further if they would take measures against death occurring. Would they, if they had the power, pass a legislation that would save more lives than not? If adhering to their position as pro-lifers, they should. At this point, the terms pro-lifer and pro-choicer would become synonymous, because any pro-lifer who is not a hypocrite, and wants to save lives as opposed to inflicting punishment will want to legalize abortion. A study came out recently showing that rates of abortion occur in countries where abortion is legal and where it is not. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com... ) Despite the ruling of the land, women are not deterred in ending their pregnancy when they want to. More often than not in areas where it is not legal, unsafe abortions occur and the mother is injured or killed. In places where abortion is legal, unsafe abortion is hardly a problem, and abortions usually occur legally and safely. So the citizen has their choice: legalize a process that kills one person (accepting the definition that the fetus is a life - which I would contest, but I'm using it here for the sake of argument), or ban a process, thereby killing two people for every one that could have gone. If the "pro-lifer" sticks to their moral compass that they defined earlier, they'll find that legal abortion is a necessary privilege, and banning abortion is contradictory to their philosophy, killing more people than could have been saved.
The Christian god cannot exist

In the Beginning, there was a debater, named Attrition. He said "Let there be a debate!" and there was a debate. And the debate was named "The Christian God cannot exist" Unfortunately, Attrition spent lots of time citing evidence to prove his point, but alas, fell victim to the same fate as everyone else. He was unable to disprove the christian god anymore than he was able to prove him. In your arguments you cited lots of evidence from the bible ( and I respect you for that. That must have taken some time), but you did not prove anything. In fact, you used the same evidence everyone else uses. You are confident in that your claims disprove the christian god, but only because you have convinced yourself. Unfortunately, in this debate, you have failed to convince me, and many others who belief in the almighty. These are the ones you needed to convince. You say you have disproven the Christian god, but, just like everyone who has tried before you, you have fallen short. You have not PROVEN the point you have claimed to be able to make. Perhaps all you have proven is that the existence of the Christian god is unlikely...but anyone can prove that, and many have. I said in the beginning, that you had already lost because you couldnt not actually disprove the christian god. You feel that you have because of the mountains of evidence you have posted, but you are forgetting that there is just as convincing evidence to prove that he does exist, and so, there is no way to prove either way. Now Im gunna wrap up, and Im gunna makes this a bit more to the point for the benefit of the voters. -----You Said You Could Disprove the Christian God, and you couldn't------ because you CANNOT disprove him at all! You can give all kinds of evidence, but you can NEVER disprove him. Just like every "Existence of God" debate before you, you did not disprove him. You argued your point, but you did not prove it to anyone who didnt already believe it in the beginning, and that makes a failed argument.
The Christian god cannot exist

Dude, I am not gunna dive into doctrinal debate. That goes beyond my point and it would only get me involved in the very thing I am here to critisize. We would argue and argue and in the end, neither one of us could prove the existence or non-existence of the christian god. It would be a terrible waste of time. Instead I am going to explain again the point that you are clearly missing. Here is my point: 1. It is a FACT that no one can prove, nor can they disprove the existence of god. 2. You have extended your argument, intentionally or not, to disprove the existence of God. Not just the christian god, but all gods. You have done this in several ways. a) you have argued the principle of a gods willingness to answer prayers; a principle that extends to every monotheistic faith b) you have argued the principle of a creator god; a principle of EVERY faith c) you have cited evidence using verses in the Old Testament, which is both part of the Torah and a Islamic scripture as well as christian. d) you have argued the gift of free will, a gift that all montheistic gods have supposedly granted e) you have cited NO evidence that disproves the singular idea that is the christian god. Your evidence has been entirely directed at the existence of any god on a broader scale. My point in all of this: You have yet to argue your initial point, let alone prove it. Further more, the point you have argued (again, intentionally or not) is an unprovable point and you had lost the debate before you even began. 3. My last point, the christian god is a god no less and is still entirely unprovable. You cannot prove he exists, and you cannot prove he doesn't. He is a god. Its as simple as that. There is no solid and undeniable evidence to disprove his existence. The evidence you have given is minor, and very arguable, which makes it weak no matter how strong it seems to you. It is based on personal understanding, and assumptions about gods intentions and actions. These arguments cannot serve as a foundation for ANY argument, because they are ASSUMPTIONS. In order to win this debate, you have to disprove the christian god. To disprove the christian god, you have to give me at least one undeniable fact, that proves without doubt that the christian god is a lie. You have yet to do that. If you can do that, than I will concede this debate... But you and I both no you cant, and in that respect, you have already lost. Why??? Because You Cannot Prove the Point You Have Claimed to be able to prove.
The Christian god cannot exist

I am not debating the existence of god as a general concept. It seems you didn't even honestly read my post. I think I have proven that the Christian God doesn't exist. It is now upon you to show my arguments incorrect. Im sorry, I didn't need to explain a debate to someone. I guess I shouldn't overestimate the intelligence of who I might be arguing. I can't prove that invisible, giant purple dinosaurs orbit the earth either, but more likely than not they don't. If you are sick of the 'God does or doesn't exist' debates then stop looking in the Religion category and let someone else argue it. How about I simplify that for you? You can't back up your beliefs so you dismiss the argument. Next.
The Christian god cannot exist

Im gunna tell this exactly how it is and skip all the pointless rambling. You can spout out all of the "fun facts" you want but u can NEVER disprove the existence of god. No one can prove god, and no one can disprove god, or even just the christian god for that matter. Thats just a fact. I decided to argue u on this point because im so sick of all the dumb "God doesnt exist" debates. They are dumb debates for 2 reasons. 1. The "Pro" , in this case yourself, cannot legitimately win their debate because they cant prove their point 2. Because everyone votes on what they personally believe. Trying to prove the unprovable, is such a waste of precious life...
Islam distribution in the world has pernicious influence on society

well it wasnt much of a debate, but, whatever. Our country for a long time was a part of the USSR and religion that time was illegal. 99 percent of its population was atheists. How less than in 20 years 50 percent of the population of our country became religious?" I think the primary reason for this is bec. 20 years ago it was illegal to be religious and punishable by death. Now it is not. The ussr was not Islamic but it has more than a bit of blood on its hands. I agree it is bad but you have not shown that they killed any one yet. My advise to you is, don't sit by idly. be proactive. do something. It's not the communist way to believe in the power of the simple individual. but history tells us not that way. Hitler, was a simple painter he ended up having a terribly strong effect on the world. Be proactive. conclusion: I agree with my opponent that much bad has come and is coming from Islam, including innocent deaths. But my opponent has not provided evidence of the specific resolution she made. see title. It was a pleasant chat. I hope you take the initiative to act.
Islam distribution in the world has pernicious influence on society

Our country for a long time was a part of the USSR and religion that time was inadmissable. 99 percent of its population was atheists. How less than in 20 years 50 percent of the population of our country became religious? If it happened not because of islam distribution, so why it happened? I am female and I feel how islam affects my family, my role in its life is being a good housewife, looking after children etc. I'm sure my grandfather and uncles won't be terrorists, but I cannot be sure for future generation, which are being brought up in islamic way. It is really sad. I am sure we can argue for a long time but I don't have enough. I was glad to debate with you,but I have to go. Goodbye!
Islam distribution in the world has pernicious influence on society

I agree with the fact that Islam is a terribly strict, murderous, and bad in many ways. I disagree that their distribution in the world has a deadly effect influence on society. In your example what the mosque did was wrong, but they did not kill him. Your 2nd example is true but does not show that it is due to distribution. It is generally in Arab lands that this happens. There distribution in the world is as of now under control. But I agree it is starting to get dangerously out of hand.
Islam distribution in the world has pernicious influence on society

Pernicious - is the word I wanted to use, this is what I mean - islam distribution is becoming more fatal day after day. This is not only my opinion - it is fact. I personally knew a man(now he's dead), who became a victim of the religion. His family didn't accept fidelity to islam and he leaved it, went to a mosque. And when he died, the mosque's clerics didn't allow his family to bury him in apropriate way,because of some uncertain reasons, they couldn't explain. This weird way the religion destroyed not one life,but thousands,besides,I will repeat, people kidnapped by Islamists in awful way,particulaly journalists. There's no doubt that the religion is the most strict one and the most pernicious.