BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
violent video games do NOT breed violence

First of all I didn't state that violent video games are tied to aggression patrick markey did a renowned psychologist that leads studies into whether or not violent video games are tied to aggression. Secondly, your first and last source leads to 2 different 404 pages and your second has no works cited page has the same goal as any newsgroup, to get you to click on them, a more likely cause for these crimes is mental illness not the video games themselves or the children try to use violent video games as a scape goat. The salem witch trials were caused by simalar reasons video games are be attacked by, what would happen is people would commit crimes and instead of owning up to them they would blame "bad witches" for the crimes much like what is happening now with video games.
violent video games do NOT breed violence

Well for your point on video games not causing real-life violence, The Columbine shooter was influenced by the video game Doom, which he played often. http://news.bbc.co.uk...; I know that it says "But the legal challenge looks like it will fail because a similar lawsuit filed in the wake of a 1997 school shooting was dismissed when it came to court in April last year. A federal judge said he threw out the case saying computer games are not subject to product liability laws." in the last two paragraphs, but it is not relevant to the argument. http://listverse.com...;These are other cases where Violent video games have influenced teenagers or gangs to kill other people just because they saw the action and/or committed them in the game. So Violent video games are related to real-life violence.http://www.nydailynews.com... an 8-year-old boy committed a crime when influenced by a violent video game!
violent video games do NOT breed violence

First off, the Huffington post is in no way a reliable source it is a newsgroup thus its goal is not to spread information but to make you click on the article and make the company money, in fact, its even better for them if what they wrote is infactual because then they can write a second article on it and double their cash flow. Secondly, as stated by Patrick Markey, an associate professor of psychology at Villanova University, the director of the Interpersonal Research Laboratory, a former president of the Society for Interpersonal Theory and Research, and a researcher in many studies connecting video games to violence, there have been zero studies connecting violent video games with real-life violence "Research clearly suggests that exposure to violent video games temporarily increases a person's hostility. However, research does not show a clear link between playing violent video games and real-world violence." (Mankey 4). Markey, Patrick. "In Defense of Video Games." Ebscohost, Ebsco Industries, 26 Apr. 2013, web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=56610e3b-9cc2-4e49-b253-76b66c67cdf4%40pdc-v-sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=87904141&db=ulh.
Without the Eastern Front, Germany would have won the 2nd World War

While my opponent does provide two minor examples in which allied manpower proved to be lacking, he still fails to look at the bigger picture. In a war that involved millions of troops, several thousand dead there and several thousand captured somewhere else is insignificant. Lets take a look at Africa where in the end, allied manpower was able to overwhelm Rommel. In Africa, the British (excluding American casualties) suffered 220,000 casualties while total Axis losses including hundreds of thousands of prisoners came to 620,000. (1) The Axis lost in Africa in the long term because of overall superior allied manpower (such as at El Alamein (2)) and superior allied production which in the end proved key to driving the axis forces from Africa. In addition to this, by 1944 the allies were able to deploy millions of troops which is shown in France. (3) In the long term, the Western Allies outproduced and outnumbered the Germans and for these reasons would have won in the end. While Pro does show how the eastern front tied down millions of German troops, he does not dispute my arguments about superior British and American manpower and production overwhelming the Germans sooner or later. My position is much stronger and the facts that I have given in this round and in earlier rounds show that sooner or later, the Axis would have been overwhelmed whether or not the Germans ever invaded the USSR. Sources: (1) http://www.pbs.org... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Without the Eastern Front, Germany would have won the 2nd World War

Sources? No? Okay. Fair to say because i didn't either, but they were highly assumptious. Manpower wasn't addressed because I was transfixed on disproving your production, which we'll get to later. Manpower was a issue, as seen in the dieppe beach invasion of 1942, In which 907 Canadian troops were killed, 586 wounded, 1,496 captured[1]. A relatively small failure in comparison to the overall death toll of the war, yes, but It made for a delay in beach invasions in the future because of the though of the next one being like the Dieppe beach invasion, which in all proved that the allied forces were inept. Operation Market Garden, another proof of allied failure on the troops behalf. Over 17,200 soldiers died in a allied failure. These were partly manpower, partly a commanding problem. The allied commanders and operation directors ordered these failed attacks on the beaches. I talked about the Russian's because without the Russian's holding the allied forces in the east, the Germans wouldn't have to send their high ranked soldiers in to hold them off, proving how valuable the eastern front is. http://en.wikipedia.org...[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]
Without the Eastern Front, Germany would have won the 2nd World War

For a start, Pro failed to address my argument about manpower and hopefully will in the next round.Pro responded to my argument about superior allied production by saying that "most tanks and weapons malfunctioned during use" and that "the allies were notorious for low quality production standards, and their tactics were quantity over quality."Perhaps the Western Allies did have cases where their weapons malfunctioned, however this was far from a majority and far from what happened on the eastern front during the early months of the war when hundreds of Soviet tanks simply ran out of fuel and had to be abandoned or destroyed to prevent them from falling into the hands of the Germans. The M4 Sherman was the most mass produced tank of WWII and while it was far from the equivalent of the German Panzer IV, Panther V, and Tiger tanks, they were very effective in large numbers. In addition to this, they were quick and easy to make and could be mass produced much easier than the German tanks could. What Pro is saying about the western allies having low quality production standards is completely false. The Americans and British produced superior aircraft, particularly bombers and in the end managed to destroy the German air force in the skies above Germany. In addition to this, Britain and America had total naval superiority in Europe. Germany didn't even have aircraft careers.What Pro says about the Germans being tied down on the eastern front fighting the Russians enabling the Western Allies to be successful may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant in a debate where he needs to prove that without the eastern front, Germany would have won the Second World War. So far, my arguments about whether or not the allies could have defeated Germany in the end are more convincing since they focus on superior allied production and manpower which are two things needed to fight a war successfully. Pro is simply making the wrong arguments and is not looking at the big picture. The Western Allies greatly outproduced and heavily outnumbered the Germans and therefore would have defeated Germany in the end.
Without the Eastern Front, Germany would have won the 2nd World War

The production argument is the most flawed argument. The allies were notorious for low quality production standards, and their tactics were quantity over quality.[1] As a result, most tanks and weapons that they produced malfunctioned during use. The Germans were holding them off just fine on their own in the French and British territory, and the only reason that D-Day happened, which is the "Turning point in the war" for most people, was because " Thus far in the war, eighty percent of German military casualties had occurred at the hands of Russian soldiers." [2], and they were being pressured to do so. Most of the defense was made up of German lower ranks, because the higher ranks were being sent to the Eastern Front to fight the Russian's.
Without the Eastern Front, Germany would have won the 2nd World War

While the information my opponent provided in this round does show that the Soviet Union contributed significantly to tying down German troops in the east, it does not show that had all these troops been fighting the Western Allies Germany would have won. I have a few arguments of my own to make. In order to see that whether Germany could have been defeated without the Soviet Union, one must look at two simple but very important things - manpower and production. Both are important to win a war and lacking one decreases the others effectiveness. First, we can look at the population of different countries. As of 1939, Germany had a population of 70 million and Italy, 45 million. The United States on the other hand had a population of 130 million and the British islands had a population of 50 million. Canada had a population of 11 million and Australia had 8 million people. India, also a part of the British Commonwealth, had 378 million people. These statistics show that the allies could easily outnumber the axis powers in Europe because they had a larger manpower. (1) In addition to this, the United States alone produced almost 50% of total weapons and supplies during WWII. (2) Throughout WWII, America produced more than Germany and the Soviet Union combined and its supplies enabled Britain to remain in the war. In short, the allied ability to have superior manpower and superior production shows that they would be able to win a long war against Nazi Germany and defeat them in the end. The Soviet Union being there definitely sped things up by perhaps years. However it is impossible to speculate; I simply provided a few facts of my own that I believe support my case. On to Pro. Sources: (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . http://www.section117.com...
Without the Eastern Front, Germany would have won the 2nd World War

The Germans had to send 3,933,000 troops into the Eastern Front at it's peak in 1943[1], out of their 6 million that were in the total collected army, tanks and the Luftwaffle. That's half of their army. More planes attack England would have overwhelmed the otherwise under trained English fighters. "The German objective was to gain air superiority over the Royal Air Force (RAF)"[2]. That means that more Luftwaffle fighters and bombers would have kept England at bay, and would have kept the soldiers at the homeland to defend it. No resistance on the beaches is an open chance for a German land invasion. More troops would have made for a better invasion, with more strength behind it. The navy would be less occupied on the Black Sea and more on the Atlantic ocean, to bomb the supply ships coming to England. http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]
Greece should leave the EU

You do have a point in your above argument. This did indeed happen. However, Greece did not only borrow money from Germany. You see, Germany is one of the richer countries. However, countries such as Malta, Italy, Estonia etc. made a huge sacrifice by giving that money to Greece. The least that Greece could do was pay THEM back. Now you might say, but Greece doesn't have the money to pay them back! Well that's the thing though. Greece has the highest pension rate in Europe. If they were to lower the pension rate, they would have enough money to pay the other countries back.
Greece should leave the EU

Basically Germany and Greece had a debt deal and then there was a time when Germany didn't have enough money to pay for their debt so they said to Greece "We do not have enough money to pay for our debt, can we have more time?" So then Greece said to them "Oh don't worry take all the time you need no rush". But then when Greece had to pay their debt and they asked Germany for more time, Germany said "No sorry you cannot have extra time, a debt is a debt". Now see how unfair that is? Greece was kind to Germany and allowed them to have more time to pay their debt but Germany wouldn't allow the same for Greece which I say is very unfair.
Greece should leave the EU

So let me get this straight. Just because the Greeks invented democracy, means that they can borrow MILLIONS of dollars from Germany, and not pay it back?? That's the dumbest argument I've heard all day. The idea of Christmas Day being on 25th December originated in Germany. Does that mean that they should borrow millions of dollars from other countries, and not pay it back? The Internet originated in France, does that mean that they should borrow millions of dollars from other countries, and not pay it back? Electricity originated in Italy, does that mean that they can borrow millions of dollars from other countries and not pay it back? In conclusion to my first argument. GREECE is the one being disrespectful. If they had any respect for Germany, they would have paid back the money that they borrowed, without being told to do so by the EU.
Greece should leave the EU

"But don't you think the Eu is being a little rough to Greece?" All the eu is doing is making Greece pay back the money that they owe other countries, which Greece couldld easily do if they lowered the pension rate. "There are many other countries that are in debt" Examples?? "Germany has been nothing but cruel to Greece" I can agree that Germany is being a tad hypocritical by demanding all of their money back, when they didn't pay Greece the full amount that they were suppost to after WW2. However, keep in mind that countries like Estonia made a huge sacrifice to give so much money to Greece, and Greece aren't paying back the money they owe, so that is why the eu is on their case. They should pay back whatever they owe without being told to do so, period.
It should be Easier for Third Party Candidates to get on the Ballot

Third party candidates have always had a rough time making it on the ballot, let alone getting votes on the ballots, and this is for good reason. Our 2 party system gives general ideas of what different people believe in, and both give different options on solving problems. So i will move on to my points 1.It is good to be difficult for third party candidates to make it onto ballots because people need enough help already as it is with our 2 party system. Recently, a study took place to see how much people really knew about democracy, and what these studies found was that these people got %20 of the answers correct. This means that even when there is only major two parties, people still dont know enough about democracy to fit another one in. the government is saving these people the time and money that they will lose bc people simply wont look into their values. Secondly and most importantly, The election could be easily skewed without it being so hard to fit a third party candidate. In our countries two party system, it is necessary for it to be harder to put in third parties or there would be dozens of people running. In the general election, we can have twelve different people running because of all the third parties. When you have a dozen people running, the election could easily be taken advantage of, and the election may not actually reflect what the people really want. For example, the evangelical Christians make up a large percentage of the American vote, primarily in the Deep South states. Now if there are twelve people running in the general election, the winning candidate may only need 15% of the vote! That means that if most of these evangelicals vote for the same candidate or only %15 of Americans vote for that candidate, than man or woman will win the election! So even though 85% of American voters do not think that this man should be president, he or she will still be elected into office. This does not seem right and would infringe on core democratic values such as justice, and the common good. So in conclusion, it should not be easier for third party candidate to get on the ballot because, as i have proven in my second point, it would actually infringe on core democratic values. My opponent arguments only say that people deserve this chance to stance for what they believe in, but in reality, if people want a person in power, he or she will be voted in...
It should be Easier for Third Party Candidates to get on the Ballot

My stance is that Third Party candidates should have just as easy of a time to get on the presidential ballot as the Republicans and Democrats. Thus, the polar opposite of my stance that my opponent will have to defend is that it should NOT be easier for third party candidates to get on the ballot. Now to my points. Nowhere in the constitution does it specify how a candidate can be nominated for president. So the States have taken it upon themselves to make their own requirements for how one can get onto the ballot. The most common methods are heavy ballot fines, approx. 10,000 signatures, and an extremely complicated and long filing process. The funny thing is is that Republicans and Democrats alike seem to be exempt from the process. Most States simply put the GOP and Dem. candidates on the ballot after the primaries. This is unfair. Nowhere in the constitution or Bill of Rights does it mandate that the American democratic system is restricted to two parties, or that the only parties that can participate are the Republicans and Democrats. I believe that these two monarchs of this democracy have purposefully orchestrated it, abusing the power vested by the 10th amendment, to make it impossible or at least overly difficult for any kind of third party to run. This is not right, and is in direct violation of the many freedoms our forefather's so desperately fought for when they were oppressed by England's dictators. So, my stance is that it should be made easier for third parties, whether Green, Libertarian, Constitution or otherwise for their respective candidates to get on the official presidential ballot, debates, and all other privileges/rights that the two major ones have so far rejected to the underdog. No one party, regardless of popularity or monetary status is above another. Remember, this is a country where all people are created equal, so are their opinions, and therefore, so are their political parties.
It should be Easier for Third Party Candidates to get on the Ballot

Well well well. I will not further add to my already made arguments as my opponent has failed to respond. Therefore, on my part this debate is finished. I will remind the reader that your voting is not based on your personal opinions about third parties but on which of us, being Cryingwolf334 or myself, proved their premises better. If you feel the need to justify your anonymous vote, you can do so in the comments area. Also, if you feel the same way I do, I have created a facebook Political Party that advocates for just such an opinion, as well as any others that you, the people, chose. It can be found here: http://www.facebook.com... If you have a facebook, and join, I encourage you to invite your friends so we can spread the message that much faster. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
DDO LD Tournament: Due Process for Terrorists

Topic:"The U.S. ought to extend to non-citizens accused of terrorism the same constitutional due process rights granted to citizens."Structure (as per tourney rules):R1: AcceptanceR2: Aff CaseR2: Neg Case and Neg RebuttalR3: Aff RebuttalR3: Neg RebuttalR4: Aff RebuttalR4: Neg Rebuttal "No new arguments or responses may be offered in R4. New evidence in R4 is permissible, so long as it does not introduce a new argument, response, or claim into the debate."Other:Tournament rules apply. See here for detailed explanations: http://www.debate.org...Thanks:To my opponent, and to Oppai and TOS for helping me organize this and for making this all possible.
Abortion should be illegal

in a different debate, i said that the fetus does not feel pain until 20 weeks(the source was in the other debate), however, they also don't have a conscious until then, so if something doesn't have a conscious until then, how can it be human? I definitely agree, however, that if it after 20 weeks, it should be illegal, because it would be murder. I really should stop bringing up the incest argument, it always gets put down
Abortion should be illegal

Don't worry, I took you seriously in your acceptance. I thank you for not using the rape claim, it did take away one of my counter arguments if you did use it. Though when I read your claim over and over to fully understand your view the kind of incest you are describing is still rape. You describe a man or woman sneaking into his or her siblings bedroom, and having sex with them. So if the sister did not consent to the action it is rape, but if she did consent it is 1) their fault for not using a condom, 2) consensual sex accepted by both parties where anything could have been done to prevent pregnancy, and if the guy refused to put on a condom and she let it continue it is consensual and her fault, or if she denied, still rape. You brought up how they MIGHT be adopted, there are many more options, 1) Foster 2) put in an adoption home 3) do it with parents and raise the baby with a parent who has gone through it. So why should abortion be illegal? Abortion as I have already stated is murder, so why if murder is illegal if it is a birthed living being different from an unbirthed living thing. A lot of people make the claim of abortion not being murder because it is just a ball of cells, but as a human what are you? You are just a big clump of cells and blood put together to make a living thing. A baby in the womb is always living in my opinion so I fully believe in birth control but I can never believe in abortion it just isn't right.
Abortion should be illegal

It may have seemed that I was being sarcastic with my acceptance, however, I actually love controversial debatesconsidering rape only makes up 4% of pregnancies, I'm not going to use that(unlike most pro-choicers)With the rise of stepsibling(or even just sibling) porn, some people are thinking it is OK, so (possibly) some (wo)men might sneak into the other sibling's room, and impregnate them(selves), this is 1) illegal, 2) possible incest, and 3) gross(my opinion),it is possible that someone might adopt the baby that comes from this, but it is highly unlikely, and the child will probably live a life of sadness, it would be best to spare it this fate.I will give the rest of my arguments later(so I don't run out in the beginning)
Abortion should be illegal

To start off with my beliefs lets just clarify that abortion is: the ending of pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus. So why should abortion be illegal? well easy, it's murder, one of, if not, the most common case of it. 1 baby is aborted every 0.7 seconds. there are almost 50million babies aborted per year. So in my eyes abortion is just murder disguised as a right, and I truly believe it is horrific and disgusting. I personally do see the other side of this debate, but I believe everyone deserves a chance at a life no matter what the situation. If the person themselves doesn't want to raise a child it is their fault for getting pregnant most of the time, so adoption is the best option for them. It lets the baby live and in a much happier situation then the baby gets a chance at life.