BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
video games are bad for not only children, but all humans

Video games may be a leisure hobby, but it is detrimental to success. While some may call it a sport or competition, I think you must strive to be better in the real world rather than the virtual one. A sport that doesn't require you to be fit or even move from your place shouldn't count as a sport. Addiction- Con says that there should be more parental control over the time limit of video games. I argue that it is hard to control humans as it is, what with free will and stuff. Moreover, the resolution in layman terms is that videogames are bad for everyone, not just for children. How to control an adult who is wasting his life playing games and not focusing on his career? The boss can only control him at the workplace, and relatives can only offer advice and not order him around. Gaming makes us all more lazier than ever, and isn't productive. Except some gaming tournaments, gaming doesn't pay you back. Plus, gaming tournaments may not be of your favorite game, and not available in your locality. Problematic gamers- This only strengthens my argument that gaming is bad for humans. While recreational gamers exist, even they will endure eye damage and if they play really addicting games, get converted to problematic gamers. I disagree that they cause aggression though, the tests are biased. I know this would have strengthened my point otherwise, but its a matter of personal opinion. Eye damage- Con hasn't rebutted my point about eye damage. Prolonged gaming causes stress to the eyes. Electricity consumption- I have noticed that out of most apps, games are the ones that consume more battery in lesser time. This will indirectly lead to increased electricity consumption, and my place has lot of electricity shortages these days.
video games are bad for not only children, but all humans

First of all, video game is one of entertainment which majority people can enjoy and can have relaxing time or taking off stress. Nowadays, the function of video game expanded not just for entertainment but it become sports, competition, or even for educational using video game. World have e-sport like dota, local competition like FIFA, or educational one like typer shark deluxe which train your ability to use qwerty keyboard and typing faster. "Video game playing is often a collaborative leisure time activity for school-aged children. These results indicate that children who frequently play video games may be socially cohesive with peers and integrated into the school community. We caution against over interpretation, however, as setting limits on screen usage remains and important component of parental responsibility as an overall strategy for student success," (Katherine M. Keyes, PhD, 2016). https://www.mailman.columbia.edu... Based on that article, the problem is not about the game, but more to parental controlling. Video game is no more than instrument to releibe stress or entertaimment. The fault is lies on the person who overuse the video game into addiction. http://greatergood.berkeley.edu... The survey from the article show that problematic gamers are much more likely to smoke cigarettes, be aggressive, and show symptoms of being depressed. Interestingly, problematic gaming was not linked to a student"s grades, extracurricular activities, or the use of drugs and alcohol.
Ghosts exist

I think it's fair enough to believe in ghosts, and actually my best friend believes in them too. I believe in atmospheric pressure and krill without ever having looked for evidence and I see that as the same thing. A debate is an argument that needs to be defended, though, which is different. You need to lay out the evidence. I don't think that you did. After watching it four times, I saw a white blob, which means a hot thing, and that could be anything. It could be a trick or a faulty camera, and if you're going to believe in supernatural beings, it could as easily be a goblin as a ghost. Thanks for the debate. :)
Malaysia 370 is Pilot Suicide

Thank you for accepting this Argument. Contention #1: Captain Zaharie's Flight Simulator provides evidence that supports my Argument. Capt Zaharie flight simulator was recovered at his house shortly after the disappearance. They had found that Capt Zaharie has deleted log files in the sim. Myself, I have the exact same sim, and Log Files, are records that the simulator keep tracking your flight flown on it. (Length, Time, ETC) They ad recovered the log files that Capt Zaharie deleted and discovered that Capt Zaharie, in one log, had flown a B777, out of Kuala Lumpur, and then ended the flight just about on the exact same point where the airplane had gone missing in real life. So what does this say? Capt Zaharie was "Rehearsing" this terrible crime. Contention #2: The Boeing 777 is a extremely safe and advanced airliner. The most probable cause for a crash, is Pilot Input. A example of this is Asiana Airlines flight 214, which the pilots had stalled on approach to San Francisco. Up until MH370 the 777 has had very few incidents Incidents. Contention #3: This isn't the first Pilot Suicide the world has seen. Silk Air 185: A Boeing 737, that was crashed the Pilot-in-Command because of Family Divorce Issues. Egypt Air 990: A relief first officer, crashed the 767 into the atlantic ocean because he was caught, sexually harassing US employees and was told he would never fly to the US again. Fedex 705: A First Officer attempted to kill, his fellow crew members because he had major Financial, and Family problems. Luckily he was unsuccessful.
Soda from a fountain is better than canned soda.

The claim of my opponent was "soda from a fountain is better than canned soda". Lets start with what he had fail to do. 1. The title is ambiguous with using "better" and not saying better in what way. 2. He never explained what was required of his opponent. All that was required of myself, was to simply disprove his claim in a that soda from a fountain is better. By showing that the two are equal, I am disproving that "fountain is better", very simply. Had this been laid out in the introduction, I might have argued that cans were not only equal but better, again it was never made clear. The problem here is that Pro failed from the start to explain anything, then become distraught when his opponent argued their point, as if I were suppose to know what type of debate he was hoping for. This also should count as a lose. Pro is making false claims that cans sit around in warehouse for weeks and months when he realistically does not know. This in its self should also be considered as a lose as there is no truth in it. There is no reason to live near soda manufactures to get fresh cans of soda as these company's have what we refer to as distributors. I never said both were bad nor did I say fountain was more fresh. I had stated that it has more carbon dioxide, which to your personal accounts (which is what pro seems to only have in his arguments) might seem "more fresh" when its really just more water. My opponent also criticized me for bringing up the health issue, which was only one or maybe two sentences, yet if you look at his round 2 posting, he wrote an entire paragraph about price. Of which I can only assume was filler for the round, as again, there was no indication as to arguing about price. He then says I "completely and utterly" dropped it, due to my agreeing with him. Was I suppose to make up numbers and disagree with his claim? My argument summed up. 1. With the proper canning process, soda from a can is equal to that of a fountain soda. 2. Soda does not sit in warehouse for extended amounts of time. 3. "There are 1.7 billion servings of Coca-Cola sold every day, according to our 2010 annual report", this comes from Coca-Cola themselves, if a company is producing this much soda, I guarantee they are not sitting in warehouses for weeks on end, just doesn't make sense. 4.Another good point is that there is a mix recipe that is supposed to be used, that was created by the vendors. But of course managers tend to not check the Fountains to verify, or tend to adjust because the water taster overpowers the soda. Keep in mind that water used in Fountains is filtered by a Carbon filter that may not of been changed in the past 12 months, or the fountain has not been cleaned in just as long. Where as the lines where canned & Bottled soda is packaged, cleans the equipment nightly, mixed on site. Do you want to rely on these fast food managers to make sure the soda you are getting is properly cleaned?
Soda from a fountain is better than canned soda.

I would suggest you not drink soda due to the terrible health effects!! Anyways Fountain soda is fresher First, while it might seem "more fresh" it is like you said the same stuff no matter what way you do it. Name brands like Coke and Dr Pepper etc., will not sit in warehouses very long. If that were the case then virtually ever soda you drink would be "weeks or months old" and everyone would be drinking "nasty syrup" if that many people were drinking bad soda then I think we would be hearing about it. As soon as the canned is sealed it is virtually "stuck in time". Assuming a true seal. The problem arises when the sugars begin to break down, but that is, (depending who you are talking to) months, up to one year after the expiration date. I am going to assume we are arguing if I went out and bought a can of Dr. pepper right now and compared it to the fountain. You are only kidding your self if you don't think those bags of sugar don't sit in the back of fast food restaurants. Stores order them in bulk and they switch them when they run out. As far as soda "being fresh" is kind of like saying "fresh sugar" or "fresh citric acid" when, like I said before, unless it is really really old, does not really matter. I would agree that the fountain does has more carbon dioxide and more bubbles that's the only difference. The biggest disadvantage of buying soda by the fountain is the inconvenient as opposed to buying can or bottle. Especially as someone as yourself who drinks it so often. I did all the research I could as far for disprove pricing (even got the prices from Dr. pepper for bulk ordering) and its still cheaper to pay 99 cents for a 64 ounce. While that is a good deal I couldn't ever imagine drinking that much haha!
Soda from a fountain is better than canned soda.

At the beginning of this year, I decided that I would quit drinking all beverages except soda. This was utter h*ll at first as I'm almost positive that my blood type is Dr. Pepper, but after about two months I got over the hump and I felt a lot better. Unfortunately come late March I was stuck at a debate tournament with no access to water, and ended up drinking an off brand Gatorade which can best be described as liquid Jello -- it was alright, but the Dr. Pepper I had on the way home was much, much better. Over the next two weeks I drank much more soda than any one human should ever possibly drink, and in that time came to a conclusion that I continue to be resolved in: that soda from a fountain is better than canned soda. My arguments are as follows. Fountain soda is fresher Let's talk about how soda is made for just a moment; It's just carbonated water and flavoring syrup[1]. Whether it's made in a factory or in the lobby of a restaurant, it's the same stuff. so knowing that we then realize that when you're drinking soda from a can, it's been that way for a while. The soda has been canned, shipped, left in a warehouse, sat on the shelf in a store and whenever you finally get around to it consumed by you. By that point the drink may already be weeks if not even months old! The syrup will have began to settle by this point and the carbonation will have lost much of it's flavor. This leads to you drinking nothing more than a nasty, syrupy. Fountain drinks on the other hand are made and used up in a single day. So not only is the soda fresher, but it's also going to be much more bubbly. I mean who doesn't love to take a drink of soda fresh from a fountain dispenser? The bubbles pop up into your mouth and nose and it tastes awesome. [1] http://bit.ly... However we see further that freshness isn't the only benefit to soda from a fountain, as Fountain Soda is cheaper The average can of coke contains about 12 fl oz, whereas the average fountain drink can be anywhere between 16 and 62 fl oz (yeah, I know. It's a lot). But the volume of these drinks isn't the point of my argument here, but it does play a role that we'll get to in just a minute. Stores can getaway with selling fountain drinks so cheaply because they're cheap to produce[2]. a 5 gallon box of syrup of syrup only costs 40 dollars, which breaks down to about 13 cents per glass of soda -- so when you when you see a truck stop selling a 36 oz fountain drink for a dollar, it's because they can afford to sell coke that way and still cut a huge profit. [2] http://bit.ly... What this means for you, is that you benefit from this as well. While you might pay anywhere between 1 and 3 dollar for a 12oz can of coke, you can also pay that same amount for a 16 to 62oz coke instead. But if you think that's nice, just remember how many place offer free refills, or even refills at a very small price. You quickly realize how much money you save from buying fountain drinks instead of canned drinks. At that, I hand it back over to my opponent!
The Christian god exists and rules over the universe

My opponent must be a Christian that believes in every word of the bible. They must construct one strong evidence-based argument that objectively proves the existence of god. If my opponent or I disagree with one another (which we most likely will) we must post a refute/defence. I will not post any points as to why being an atheist is best as we do not have the burden of proof. If my opponent agrees with me I win, if I agree with them they win, if we disagree the voters are suggested to look for any violations of my rules and/or see if his argument holds up to my refutes. Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution) 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolution definitions 8. For all undefined terms, individuals should seek the meaning in Oxford Dictionary 9. The BOP is shared 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss Structure R1. my rules, your argument R2. my refute, your defence R3. my summary and refute, your summary and defence
The Christian god exists and rules over the universe

As for pi in ancient times 3 was the number used, even as shown by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Chinese. Further, if a ridge or lip (brim) were involved, then the circumference can be measured from either the inner rim or outer with whichever one is precise meeting the demands of the text. As to the so-called immoral acts, where do you get your moral basis on which to sit in judgment of God? What's your standards? You appear to be implying an objective standard. Don't you think you need to appeal to something else other than your personal, limited perspective? As to the 144,000, you assume that the text is literal, which it is not, and thus shows an ignorance of what you're attacking. The passage is a vivid image of the righteous being preserved and protected, despite brutal persecution. You asserts that God has no right to consign anyone to Hell. Who are you to state such, are you God? Again, what moral standard do you appeal to ? Your own feelings? Further, could God consign Hitler to Hell for 1 minute for all the evil Hitler did and still be just? How about 2 minutes? Three? If you would read more on the 144,000 and "IF" you insist on taking it literally, you would end up with 144,000 virgin men. LOL. By invoking the idea that God is unjust you're actually implying God exists, and you don't even realize it. Because implying that there is a God you're implying that there is some objective moral standard independent of human feelings and thought. Thank you for debating my friend, I pray you will go to the nearest church of Christ, non instrumental and get right with God before it's eternally to late. Here's what you must do in order to be saved, Mark 16;16, Acts 2:38-47, Romans 16;16.
Universal Common descent is a scientific explanation for the genetic origins of living organisms

ResolutionUniversal Common descent is a scientific explanation for the genetic origins of living organisms.Definitions Universal Common descent - Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another [1]. Scientific explanation - Adheres to a valid scientific method, is testable/falsifiable, and is supported by empirical evidence.Con will argue that Universal Common Descent is a pseudoscience. Pseudoscience - Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status [2]. Rules1) All arguments must be made in the debate. Images are allowed but text inside images should be limited and not abusive. 2) No semantics. In case of conflict on undefined terms, the most general and relevant definition of the word should be considered.3) Round 1 is for acceptance only. Any clarifications about rules or topic must be made in the comments section prior to acceptance.4) No new arguments from either side in round 4. No new sources from Con in round 4.I thank Medic for accepting this debate and I look forward to an educational debate. For clarity, I will number sources sequential from the start of the debate. This allows citing a reference without also referencing the round number. Sources[1] http://www.talkorigins.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Planting Excess Trees is a Good Practices

Rebuttal to sources:Going over the sources you cited:The first is an anti-carbon sinking site. The idea of carbon sinking is that you store the CO2 in some medium, such as trees. The website argues against this practice and using trees with that practice. I never talked about carbon sinking which is often considered a bad practice but trees help sustain life.One mature tree supports two people: http://chemistry.about.com...The second is saying something that is just a generally good rule, "Don't put animals or plants into an enviornment that don't belong there". The article basically says don't put trees when there has never trees. So instead of trees you restore the enviornment with its natural vegatative life.... I feel like you got in an argument with someone who really wanted cities to turn into some kind of jungle-forest-city thing... which I agree is a dumb idea, because....Rebuttal to Space Limitations and an Answer to Efficient Reforestation:Instead it would be more efficient to make areas of high population density and forested areas. Areas of high population density, New York and Hong Kong, have few to no trees but hold populations comparable to expansive cities like Houston. To be efficient, it would be best to built high-density urban areas that lower CO2 emmisions with smaller transportation infastructure (work is a mile away instead of ten miles away) and allow for the surronding areas to be massive forests.Rebuttal to Economic Loss:I couldn't find too much information on what you were saying of countries wasting massive amount of money currently on reforestation. Most of what I found was similar to what China is doing. Their reforestation to an attempt to rebuild the enviornment they destroyed and nature is having its revenge.http://en.wikipedia.org...Rebuttal to Animals and Humans thing:Again I feel like you talked with someone who wants jungle-city things. Under my former mentioned idea of high-density urban areas and the rest of the world reforested or back to a more original state, would mean that you wouldn't have tigers eating your kids (Hide you kids, hide your wives, because everybody gettin' eatin' up in here)I feel like you argued with someone about jungle-cities which are inefficient and unreasonable. Reforestation is a beneficial process and a good practice.Thanks for the debate :)
Planting Excess Trees is a Good Practices

Well, for the Second Round, I start with a new point.First of all, I would like to make some clarifications.* The Actual Point of Argument : I never said that "the number of trees should be made to stay at a relative stable level and for us not to plant more than we use." I wanted to say that, planting excess trees and turning cities into forests is not at all a good practice.* Relationship Between Animals (wild) and Humans : In this case, animals are considered to be wild. www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIrs_ZXXiLc (it's a You tube Video, though it states my point through a visual approach). Wild animals should be left at a restricted range. They should not be mixed up with human civilization. Now I would like to state the following points, against the topic:* ECONOMIC LOSSNow a days, most countries (as far as I know), plant large number of trees annually, more than an average level. They are influenced by some kind of "Environment Saving without caring for Development". They waste their money on buying trees, paying the labourers' salary and some trade taxes (if they import the trees from foreign countries).* LIMITING SPACES AVAILABLE FOR USEMaking a forest in cities, limits the area available for public use. We can use the land for making schools, homes for the poor and/or utilize it for some general welfare of the people. For examples, open grounds for playing should not be covered with tall trees. Or take the example of planting too many trees near the houses. In the long run, the roots of the trees would damage the buildings, the cleaning fallen leaves would be a major problem and the houses would be finally termed as "haunted" (according to some, though).So I would like to conclude with the following:"Planting trees is good, indeed. But choosing the right type of plant, the right place and the right time is a problem. So, trees must be planted judiciously."http://www.sinkswatch.org...http://www.nature.com...
Planting Excess Trees is a Good Practices

To fully understand you stance, you want the number of trees to stay at a relative stable level and for us not to plant more than we use. The largest factor in deforestation is slash and burn farming. Areas affected by this need excessive reforestation to deal with the massive decline of nutrients in the soil. Much of the "farmland" used in the process is wasted. http://en.wikipedia.org... (yeah its wikipedia, it kind of states my point though) Additionally, without trying to make this a global warming debate, reforestation will help deal with the increase of CO2 in the air. This will help with global warming (if you believe in it). http://www.epa.gov... As far as I know, land utilization has not become a global issue yet (in some countries yes, but globally no) so reforestation would not mean getting rid of civilized areas. I think you BoP on saying the globe has can't reforest in a large scale because of land restrictions because I couldn't find anything in either direction which leads me to believe its not really an issue. The thing with animals and humans together: umm.... I am going to wait for clarification on this. As far as I know, there is not a major issue with animals invading peoples homes in rural areas so I don't see how having trees in urban and suburban areas would be an issue.