BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
GTA San Andreas is a more educational video game than any video game labeled as educational.

In my final round I will challenge PRO's belief that the high amount of violence in GTA should not be taken into consideration when deciding which game is more educational. Using PRO's belief we can basically prove anything is anything. For instance, if I wanted to prove that taco salad is healthy (I mean it's a salad right? A 12,000 calorie salad. .. ) I could prove so my saying it has lettuce and lettuce is healthy. My line of thinking would be extremely false because we know the unhealthy things in salad would offset the health benefits of lettuce. Because we all know that when you throw in tortilla chips, refried beans, and Mexican cheese to lettuce the fact that lettuce is healthy doesn't necessarily make the whole salad healthy. Similarly, when we judge if a video game is educational or not we cannot cherry pick certain things out of the video game, we must look at the game in whole. Looking at GTA in whole, the fact that the player has the option to kill innocent people, use drugs, and (if you enable a mod) the ability to have sex greatly outshines any type of education value in the game. Because. .. (a) Students who are exposed to violence (such as in GTA) are more likely to act violent. (b) Students who act violently are more likely to get in trouble at school. (c) Students who get into trouble at school are more likely to not do well in school. (d) Students who do not do well in school are more likley to drop out.
GTA San Andreas is a more educational video game than any video game labeled as educational.

Okay, I will provide an example of a game that is more educational that GTA: San Andreas The MECA game Oregon Trail is obviously more educational that GTA. It contains all the "subject matter" GTA does and doesn't have the whores, murder, and drugs. (a) Oregon Trail teaches map skills. You are obviously looking at maps in the game. (b) Oregon Trail teachers nutritional skills. In the game you have the option to alter the rations of your party, the results of fewer rations is more sickness. (c) Oregon Trail teachers players about stamina. You have the option to change the pace of you party, faster paces result in more sickness. (d) Oregon Trail teachers time management skills. Players are trying to get to Oregon before the winter arrives and the chance of death increases severly. (e) Oregon Trail teaches financial skills. Players must manage their money and have the option to trade with other pioneers. (f) Oregon Trail teaches players about race relations. Players encounter Indians and they can either befriend them or relations can turn hostile. (g) Oregon Trail teachers about history. Any explanation needed? I have established my own case. As to my opponent's claim that violence and education have no connection, he is simply wrong. (a) Students who are exposed to violence (such as in GTA) are more likely to act violent. (b) Students who act violently are more likely to get in trouble at school. (c) Students who get into trouble at school are more likely to not do well in school. (d) Students who do not do well in school are more likley to drop out. Yep, GTA is surely an equation that leads to a prosperous future...
Guns should be legal for home defense in the U.S.

The status quo is that in every state guns are now legal for home defense, and the Supreme Court has upheld the right of using guns for self-defense of the home. I will argue that the legality should be maintained. My opponent will argue that the Constitution should be changed, if required, and laws passed to prohibit the use of guns for self-defense in the home. I will argue that the use of firearms should be subject to reasonable background checks and training requirements, but that generally people who want a gun for the purpose should be able to legally own one. Currently about 42% of U.S. homes have guns. [1. "Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 2/11/13. http://justfacts.com...]I'm looking forward to a good debate on the subject.RulesThis opening round is for definitions and acceptance only. I will give the Pro case at the start of the second round.Standard debate conventions apply. I list them here for the benefit of new debaters and readers. I believe there is nothing tricky or eccentric. Both sides agree to the following rules, and that violating the rules is a conduct violation, with anything contrary to the rules to be ignored by readers judging the debate:DR 1. All arguments must be made in the debate. Evidence may be cited or linked from the debate, but only in support of arguments made in the debate. Arguments made in Comments are to be ignored.DR 2. Source links or references must be included within the 8000 characters per round limit of the debate. No links or sources are permitted in comments.DR 3 Any term not specifically defined before use is to be taken with the ordinary dictionary definition of the term that best fits the context of the debate. DR 4. No new arguments shall be made in Round 4. Pro may rebut previous arguments using new evidence solely for that purpose, but no new arguments are allowed. Con may not present any new evidence in R4.DR 5. DDO site rules always apply. Neither side may add or modify rules for the debate once the challenge is accepted.
polygamous marriage should be allowed, if gay marriage or civil unions are allowed

so your first point is that we shouldn't change the laws because of its practical effects. we can always adjust the laws to accomodate many people though, even if it does cause more of a ripple than merely two gay people marrying. why doesn't the argument hold, that if we allow gay marriage we should allow multiple marriages? the same reasons you use against multiple marriages could be used against gay marriage. i will grant, perhaps there's no massive movement for polygamous marriage... so for that reason it's not that big of a deal if we left it alone. but we shou.dn't be basing these things based just one sheer public will, at least if we're approaching it from the idea of "doing the right thing". social movements aside... there's no reason gay marriage should have more recognition and respect than polygamous marriage. in fact, it's far more natural, as i've stated, for there to be multiple relationships ebtween opposite sexes... than gay couples. polygamous marriage should come before gay marriage. when i point to the natural order... you simply say it's ridicoulous without really saying why, an unreasoned assertion. you do point out that we're the only species to practice marriage... but that doeasn't mean it has to be one person to one person. in fact, it's well known that mormons had and in some sects still do multiple marriages... and if you look in histoiry, it's not without basis in other places too. so the appeal to merely the way things are usually done doesn't really amount to much either. if we are willing to forgo tradition and allow gay marriage... why not just reexamine marriage altogher? you call it a slippery slope appeal.... but it's more of a slippery slope to go from polygamous marriage, or any marriage between opposite sexes, to gay marriage. as the guy in the comment section said... there's no reason this argument can't be made, and i'd argue, made with just as much if not more merit than gay marriage.
polygamous marriage should be allowed, if gay marriage or civil unions are allowed

Legal IssuesThe big issue that separates gay marriage from polygamy is the legal issue involved. The state will sanction a single marriage between two consenting adults and those adults are then recognized as married by the state and gets certain legal benefits. Polygamy would throw this system into disarray. Allowing people to marry more than one person would set up a situation where multiple people are getting multiple marriage benefits and that is something the state won't touch. It would also allow for people to game the system and marry multiple people in order to secure certain benefits.Gay marriage does nothing to the current system. Two people still get married and receive the same, unchanged benefits. To allow polygamy, you would have to redesign the entire marriage system as seen by the state to accommodate such a massive change. "if we allow one thing, we should allow more"This is the crux of my opponent's argument and it holds no real merit. Just because we allow one thing doesn't mean we need to allow more. If we say, legalize marijuana, does that mean that suddenly all illegal drugs should be legalized based on sheer principal alone? No. Just because the state allows gay marriage doesn't mean it should allow polygamy and animal marriage or anything at all. Gay marriage is being considered because of, mainly, a large social movement pushing the issue. This is acceptable in a democratic society, to have the people start a movement for change within the government. However, this does not mean that every relative issue has to be addressed and even allowed because of such a thing.Just saying, "Allowing A means we must allow B, C and D as well" based on the premise that animals mate with more than one person is ridiculous. In fact, we are the only known species on Earth to practice marriage so comparing marriage rights to animals makes no sense to begin with.My opponent has made no good reasons for polygamy or any sort of credible connection between polygamy and gay marriage beyond the extreme slippery slope ideal and a completely useless connection to animals.In conclusion, polygamy should stay illegal independent from any ruling on gay marriage. They are separate issues. Relatable issues cannot be lumped together because you feel as if they are somehow connected.
polygamous marriage should be allowed, if gay marriage or civil unions are allowed

folks want gay marriage or civil unions, to be fair or equitable to those who aren't straight. perhaps they even want to say nature made them that way, so its' natural. sure maybe whatever. but it's at least as natural, or at more natural, for there to be unions with more than one other person. humans as with most animals, are somewhat polygamous in their natural state. they say shouldar width in apes, monkeys etc is proportional to how promiscuous they are, wider shouldards, more polygameous etc... and humans aren't super polygomous, but there're not naturally monogamous either i could see allowing gay marriage etc as a token to others... "we allow people to marry one mate, so we extend the one mate rule to others". it's not unreasonable for this to be a basis for restricting marriage to only monogamous couples as an insittution. but, if we're being fully equitable, especially basing things on natural law, if we allow one thing, we should allow more. (this isn't even getting into ridiculous arguments about mating or marrying animals... that's not a natural state, while polygamy etc is) i'd also argue that if we can restrict marriage to polygamous couples, we could restrict it to gay couples as well. but my main contention is if we do allow to gays etc, we should to polygamous etc.
Self-referential paradoxes index paralleling and interminable feedback loops

I'm guessing since you are pro you believe these things are possible. If two mirrors were perfectly aligned the feedback loop would terminate at some point. It would be the point where the reflection is no longer discernable. Another example is a time travel loop--let's say you time travel to 1 second ago where you watch your 1 second ago self time travel--there would be two of you for a second and then your other self would disappear and you would be 1 second older than everyone else on that timeline. Let's say you had infinite fuel and the button got stuck so that every one second you would time travel, and let's also say you have an infinite camel pack to keep you sustained for the journey. If you were to continue in this loop, eventually you would decay into old age and then death. So even feedback loops that seem infinite actually decay slowly over time.
bullying causing more suicides each year

I would like to preface by saying bullying is wrong and if you are being bullied stand up for yourself and report it. Physical bullying is typically assault and is illegal, I assume we are debating verbal bullying. I also assume for my argument we are talking about bullying in schools. If these assumptions are wrong please correct me. Good luck! In school environments children and teenagers are growing and maturing. Many mistakes are made by everyone during this time. Making bullying illegal or overly punishing bullies is unfair to both the bully and the victim. 1. If every adolescent mistake made during formative school years were punished as a crime everyone would have a criminal record by the time they were 18. Bullying, as long as no other crime is committed, is no different. It is a mistake made by someone who can not or does not understand the consequences of their actions. 2. We can not make words illegal. This leads down a rabbit hole where any words someone didn't like could be called bullying. The bullies themselves could start accusing victims of bullying as a retaliation. All language should be legal. 3. Victims of bullies learn from their experience. It has the potential to help a person grow and shape their character. The world needs challenges such as these in order to create great people. If a victim can not handle it they should report it. Schools should be taught how to handle bullies without simply punishing them, as this leads the bully to continue his actions out of anger. CONCLUSION: Making bullying illegal hurts everyone involved and helps no one. Instead the schools should offer counseling to both victim and bully. Instruct the victim on how to use the experience as a lesson and further their character, and find the reasons the bully acts the way he does and address it. Ideally both bully and victim will learn and grown from the experience leading to two students who are given the opportunity to flourish. Side note: Often times bullies are hurting as well. Punishing them typically leads them down a dark and dangerous road. They need to have the opportunity to address their underlying issues and overcome them.
bullying causing more suicides each year

why should we let people bully others, Those who bully others are looking to gain a feeling of power, purpose and control over their victims. The easiest way to do this is to focus on something that is unique about them. The bullies try to create insecurity within the person with the intent to try to hurt them either physically or emotionally. The victims try to understand the reasons why they are being targeted resulting in starting to blame themselves. As a result, we (the bullied) then become insecure, and think badly about ourselves, then we start to think about why we were bought into this world if all that was going to happen is get bullied, be broken-hearted and or suicidal, and want to end their life. and then in the end a life could or is ended because of some nasty person, i think that bullying should be illegal and anyone who bullies should have a consequence...
To be "for or against" is not to do philosophy

My opponent tries to limit philosophy to not being "for or against." Therefore, due to the burden of proof, the only person who is limiting philosophy is the pro. I did not say that philosophy was only being "for or against," I merely stated that most people in today's society philosophize in terms of being "for or against" something. Therefore, the only person placing limits what does and does not constitute philosophy is my opponent. Therefore, I have rebutted against the one and only point in my opponent's rebuttal speech. Now move with me onto my case. I stated that philosophy was designed to challenge the way the majority of people think, and that placing a limit on philosophy would be impossible. My opponent erroneously stated that I was the one limiting philosophy, but, as proven above, I am not. My second contention was that any thought constitutes philosophy. My opponent stated that this means we can only view things in terms of being "for or against" something, but this simply is not the case. Any thought, from anybody, constitutes philosophy. Finally, I would like to prove one last point. We are debating whether or not you can be "for or against" something and still be philosophizing. My opponent is for this, I am against this, and we are both using philosophy. Therefore, the entire debate disproves the resolution. In conclusion, there are many ways to do philosophy, and being "for or against" something is one of them, albeit not the only way. Philosophy is designed to challenge the mind and break the limits, and by affirming, my opponent states that being for against something imposes limits. This very debate disproves this. For these reasons and many more I firmly yet respectfully urge a con vote. Thank you, and good debate!
To be "for or against" is not to do philosophy

I negate the being "for or against" means that one is not philosophizing. "Hence the public use of the word philosophy is at best a collection of differing meanings or uses. Thus there is no single, coherent, public use of this word. " As my opponent stated, the definition of philosophy is ambiguous. The definitions are seemingly endless. And, as I stated, taking a "for or against" approach is very much still philosophy, at least by one definition. That being said, the only argument made by my opponent in the rebuttal actually negated, not affirmed. Additionally, my opponent did not talk about the philosophical merit of being "for or against" something. He merely talked about definitions. Therefore, the burden of proof was not met by the pro. That being said, move with me onto my case. Contention I- Philosophy was designed to challenge the status quo of thinking I stated that since I am taking a stance against a philosophical principle, I am both A) taking a stance against something, while B) using philosophy. The very existence of this contention proves that a "for or against" stance still permits philosophical reasoning. Furthermore, this contention was not attacked by my opponent, meaning that he agrees with it. Contention II- Philosophy is thinking. Period. I stated that philosophy is anybody thinking about an issue, and that "modern philosophy" is therefore the way that the majority of people think. My opponent stated that the definition of philosophy is ambiguous. To rebut, I shall provide a definition from "The Merriam-Webster Dictionary:" "the sum of the ideas and convictions of an individual or group." Therefore, who can philosophize? Anybody. That being said, since my opponent states that most people view problems in terms of their solution, being "for against" something is indeed philosophizing. And it is for these reasons and many more that I firmly yet respectfully urge a vote in negation on today's ballot.
To be "for or against" is not to do philosophy

The meaning of a word is given by the way most people use the word. Now if most people use the word philosophy to mean a form of argument that is intended to provide solutions to problems, then that is what philosophy is. This places a limit on argument itself. Yet the public use of the word philosophy also indicates that, for philosophy, there is no such limit. Hence the public use of the word philosophy is at best a collection of differing meanings or uses. Thus there is no single, coherent, public use of this word. Rather, the public take the meaning of the word "philosophy" from the way they think philosophers use the term.
To be "for or against" is not to do philosophy

I negate that being for "for or against" means that one is not doing philosophy. To substantiate my negation, I will use two arguments: Contention I - Philosophy was designed to challenge the status quo of thinking Philosophy is not about agreement; rather, philosophy is about challenging the way other people think. My opponent tries to say that by viewing issues in terms of being for against them that we violate principles of modern philosophy. But really, if we did NOT challenge a philosophical mindset we wouldn't be doing philosophy. By negating, by taking a "for or against" opinion on the topic (in this case against), I am very much doing philosophy. Contention II- Philosophy is thinking. Period. Who can philosophize? Anyone. Anyone with a brain can do philosophy. Therefore, everyone is a philosopher, either famous or not. That being said, when my opponent says that it challenges "modern philosophy," he really means that it is challenging what a few people believe. Most modern philosophy (by my definition) looks at problems and solutions, even though Wittgenstein's "modern" philosophy didn't. Thus I urge a vote in negation. Now for my rebuttal. As my opponent wrote: "Modern philosophy is about the dissolution of the problem and the solution, not the problem and the solution. The dissolution of problems challenges foundations. Solutions do not." I urge that you accept my definition of modern philosophy, which is the way that the majority of people think. As I stated in contention 2, everyone philosophizes. My opponent further writes: "Thus to be for the "for or against" is first to fight for the existence of the problem, and then to provide the solution. This is not to do philosophy. Modern philosophers are against the problem and the solution. This makes them unpopular." If what my opponent calls "modern philosophers" are unpopular, then that means that it contradicts the philosophies that most people hold. Therefore, since most people who are for the "for or against" have independent thought and philosophy, we can deduce that those that disagree with "modern philosophy" are themselves philosophizing. Thus I see no ballot but of that in negation.
To be "for or against" is not to do philosophy

One can either be for, or against, the "'for or against'". This site is for the "for or against". But modern philosophy is against the "for or against". To be for or against the "for or against" is not a paradox. To be for the "for or against" is to be limited to it. To be against it is not to be limited to it. Wittgenstein, a modern philosopher, was not limited to the for or against. A "for or against" always has the same foundations for both positions. He challenged their foundations, and so dissolved the problems and issues posed by the"for or against". Modern philosophy is about the dissolution of the problem and the solution, not the problem and the solution. The dissolution of problems challenges foundations. Solutions do not. Thus to be for the "for or against" is first to fight for the existence of the problem, and then to provide the solution. This is not to do philosophy. Modern philosophers are against the problem and the solution. This makes them unpopular. Thus, this site does not do modern philosophy because it is for the problem, for the solution - for the "for or against".