BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video Games teach you life skillz

The burden of proof is on the side of pro, and since he/she has not posted anything this round I do not have anything to refute, all the same, I will provide some arguments for pro and refute those, please keep this in mind when you vote. Argument 1: Simulation Video Games can help you prepare for real life. Sadly, this is not the case. The daily mail reports that video games distort the boundaries between fantasy and reality. A study shows that frequent video game players often integrate parts of video game into real life, a process researchers call game transfer phenomena. Gamers have often reported that they had an impulse to resolve real-life issues using game elements or as the character from a game would. Racing game that people think would improve your handling teach you how to perform flat spin, barrel rolls, long air times, and knockdowns. People who often play first person shooters might have a sudden impulse to solve an argument by shooting a person, asphalt 8 players may experience a desire to get out of a traffic jam by going over a ramp to the other side of the divider, race forward and smash back. Since video games distort the gap between reality and fantasy, it definitely does not help one prepare for real life, nor does it develop the much coveted life skills. Argument 2: Video Games benefit multitasking skills. Do multitasking skills really increase the ability to face the stress of daily life? Apparently not, in a study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology, Joshua Rubinstein, David Meyer, and Jeffrey Poldrack found that multitasking does not in reality save time. They showed our brains do not do things at the same time, rather they focus on one task for a bit then quickly shift over to the other, when playing a first person shooter our brains quickly alternate between the moving aspect and the shooting. Because our brains needs to continually reorient themselves it takes longer for a multi tasker to do the two things at the same time because the switching period is extended over a long period of time. In fact people consider "multitaskers" to be really distracted students and adults. So in conclusion multitasking does not help with life skills. Sources: http://www.nhs.uk... http://www.nea.org...
Video Games teach you life skillz

To begin with I would like to point out that Pro copy and pasted the entire argument from the link that he provided. Pro states that video games teach strategy, the problem with this argument is that it takes minimum knowledge and strategy to play one of the popular video games. Although there are some interesting and strategizing games like Bejeweled, Picross and Brain Age, the majority of the selling video games do not incorporate strategy overmuch. Call of Duty, League of Legends, Halo, Mario, Watchdogs, etc. does not incorporate a lot of strategy. The main problem with this argument is that kids do not like games that require a person to think, they are content with pressing buttons and mowing down enemies. Statistics to back that up is that League of Legends has more than 32 million different active players in a month, has more than 12 million daily players, and adds a billion hours every month, and has more than 4.1 million Facebook likes, I challenge you to find statistics of a strategic video game that exceeds this. Pro also believes that video games teach perseverance. But does it? Let's face it in real life video games that need a significant amount of strategic thinking don"t really sell well. No one would want to play a game where you fail a lot, although parents would encourage the playing of such video games, children absolutely detest these games, and unless it"s really popular, it wouldn't be so successful. Pro also states that video games teach good decision making, a major flaw in this argument is that there are many different types of decision making. The definition of a life skill as stated by dictionary.com is: "the ability to cope with stresses and challenges of daily life, esp. skills in communication and literacy, decision-making, occupational requirements, problem-solving, time management and planning". The decision on whether to use your grenade of a rifle is does not enhance the quick decision making you need to buy stocks on Wall Street, nor does it improve your reflexes on how to get out of a sticky situation. Video games do on some level make you feel "smart". But this smartness does not transfer over to life skills, learning something new also makes you feel "smart" and while making you feel smart, it does actually make you smarter. Whereas video games do not make you any smarter in the academic field, making it unwanted. I look forward to hearing your side of the debate. Sources: http://www.destructoid.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Video Games teach you life skillz

Through your controller, you are Link, the valiant adventurer, navigating a virtual icy cave in search of a coveted Heart Piece. In order to uncover the prize, though, you must figure out three of the cave's puzzles consisting of several large blocks of ice. After scratching your head in bewilderment -- and maybe even letting out an exasperated sigh -- you move the blocks in the correct north, east, south and west combinations and hear the sweet sound of victory. You've mastered the challenge, and at last, the Heart Piece is yours! Solving a difficult video game puzzle is not only exhilarating, but the hard work and knowledge it takes to succeed can make you feel pretty smart, too. The games in the "The Legend of Zelda" series aren't the only ones that can teach life skills like perseverance and critical thinking. Competitive sports games like "Madden NFL" and puzzle-heavy games like "Portal 2" teach kids the importance of good decision-making, planning and communicating effectively. And that's only where the learning begins -- there are numerous video games that are capable of teaching much more. However, a note for parents: Be careful to pay attention to the Entertainment Software Rating Board's (ESRB) rating of a game before you allow your child to play it. Like movie ratings, the ESRB reviews and rates games according to their content. The ratings are: EC (Early Childhood): Games with this rating are suitable for children 3 and older. E (Everyone): Games with this rating are suitable for anyone 6 or older. E10+ (Everyone 10+): Games with this rating are suitable for anyone 10 or older. T (Teen): Games with this rating are suitable for anyone 13 or older. M (Mature): Games with this rating are only suitable for persons 17 or older. AO (Adults Only): Games with this rating are only suitable for those aged 18 and above. RP (Rating Pending): Games with this rating have not yet been reviewed by the ESRB. This rating generally only appears on marketing and advertising for games that have yet to be released. Click over to the next page to find out which games can improve kids' social interactions and problem-solving skills. All info found at . http://electronics.howstuffworks.com...
The God of the Bible exists

http://www.youtube.com... - Burden of Proof http://www.youtube.com... - Testing for god http://www.youtube.com... - World must have a creator http://www.youtube.com... - How do you know god isn't real? 1. Refute the hosts of the Atheist Experience videos. 2. You cannot prove that YOUR god exists regardless if you using the bible or not in which no god of the bible would ---never--- use text to as a form of communication, the worst form of communication to begin with. I mean come on here, the bible is not proof of evidence of any kind. To prove it, NOBODY, not one person, no one, has ---ever--- been able to prove YOUR god's existence according to the bible, Where oh where and how do you get your biblical and godly instructions from that you, nor anyone follows, so you are NOT a christian, nor can you or anyone ---ever--- be. But first yah gotta prove your god exists. So demonstrate, offer some tests, and make evident that YOUR god exists according to the bible. Teeny tiny eye squint text will not be acceptable.
The God of the Bible exists

Con's entire offense was videos that would take hours to go through. If video's are allowed, here is Matt Dilahunty, the Atheist host in the videos, being schooled and having no responses to a theist debater. https://youtu.be... Con's entire defense was to not play defense. He had no response for any of my points because he didn't know how to respond or rebuttal my points. The point? Con has videos of an atheist known for dodging points and not having answers in debates with theists. I debated, and Con gave us nothing but crickets as responses. He wants science in general to be a rebuke of theism, but it is science itself that is proving theism. Con wants a video. Here you go. James Gates, physicist, and Head Science Adviser to President Barack Obama- https://youtu.be... Now let's see if Con is anti science....
The God of the Bible exists

OK this debate is now over because you truly are a complete and total imbecile and a christian who cannot possibly handle evidence when slapped in the face with it. You are also a true !00% true in every way contradictory hypocrite, just like your god, if there ever was one. 1. The videos as stated before, in which you cannot pay any attention to HAS A LOT MORE TO SAY THAN JUST MATT DIILLAHUNTY. Oh but wait, its perfectly OK for you to provide websites and allow them to speak for you and me not allow videos to speak for me so that proves you to be a true 100% fallible contradictory hypocrite. 2. The videos presented ANOTHER 5, HOSTS yes can you count that high? 5, FIVE, the number three and the number six are right out, and the number thou shalt count is five. Now throw the holy hand grenade in. One, two, five! Yes five other hosts who also had something to say and not just Matt. And there's quite a bit that they as well as him had to say that simply cannot be typed up in a 10,000 character debate. Oh but wait, you use websites where YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM and that's perfectly OK. Um nope. Oh and with a very BIG duh, watching something something at the same time as well as listening to it, unless you are blind and or deaf is a lot easier than reading something, especially when it doesn't fit and is completely useless and you can take in a lot more information with A LOT MORE EASE AND COMFORT by watching something. Bye. Oh well gosh golly gee gosh darned it all, since you are such a true 100% contradictory hypocrite and stating something so completely ignorant such as "m in a debate with you, not Matt Dillahunty, thus am not obligated to debate Matt Dillahunty" then that means YOU cannot use your bible, not ever for any reason. and that's because Dillahunty knows a lot more about the bible, god and religion than you ---ever--- will. And frankly so do I.
The God of the Bible exists

CON SAYS: "So since you completely ignored the videos, and didn"t watch them." 1)I'm in a debate with you, not Matt Dillahunty, thus am not obligated to debate Matt Dillahunty. 2)I watched all 4. They weren't particularly thought provoking or even interesting. Listening to the guy tell Dillahunty a droning tale about how he always looked around thinking someone created all this was...a snore fest... 3)I mentioned examples from the videos. I'm starting to doubt your comprehension skills at this point. ----- CON SAYS: "Oh and oh yeah I"m going to ignore the link you provided on evolution." I didn't provide any links on evolution... ----- CON SAYS: "Since it is point blank obvious that you didn"t watch the videos, I"m not going to continue with this debate until you do." Con can't refute my points, nor did he attempt to. That says it all. ----- All of my points still stand.
Overhaul the 9-5 workday

Since pro has not responded i will repeat and clarify my premises in round 1 and 2. P1) keeping the 9-5 workday will stop employees and employers from gaining more stress from work as their work ends constantly at the same time. P2) people from various ages can enjoy the rest of their day and do whatever they want to do after finishing work. P3) Workers will have better transportation services P4) Allows workers to be more efficient as they have deadlines to finish their work by 5 P5) People can learn a variety of lessons in the 9-5 work shift C) 9-5 schedule should not be changed
Overhaul the 9-5 workday

P1) keeping the 9-5 workday will allow employees and employers from gaining more stress as work as work ends constantly at the same time. P2) By finishing work at 5, people from various ages can enjoy the rest of the day and enjoy their time doing WHAT THEY WANT do. P3) Allows workers to be efficient for the 8 hours they are working as in those hours they feel like they have a deadline to do all their work by 5. P4) Workers have access to better transportation services as they work in "rush hour" time. C) 9-5 schedule should not be changed as it is better than freelancing
Overhaul the 9-5 workday

P1) Ending the 9-5 workday will not allow flexibility for employees and employers as it may lead to them having terrible transportation services to get to work due to the transportation schedule worsening in different hours P2) some young people would prefer the 9-5 work shift as they can relax for the rest of the day or do their hobbies P3) One who does a 9-5 work shift learns various values; such as the value of structure in the workforce, community and working with those with similar interests as one. http://www.lifewithoutpants.com... C) The 9 -5 work shift should not be changed
Ban the Opponent

If you didn't want me banned, why accept?!? Right, you wanna talk about solutions, lets look at your record shall we. LOL almost 900 debates, and you have a less than 19% win record. PEAK, Here is a Solution- go educate yo-self bro. You're a pathetic joke. Now let me clarify something, when I say your mum cant cook, I mean she fvcks up her eggs. ie the egg being you. THIS PUNK NEEDS TO BE BANNED. THE IGNORANT FOOL
Ban the Opponent

In the light of 'spexs' never ending repetitive "ban islam" posts, I have to say its so annoying, I'm p'd off. Spex Ya so dense and have no variety. n I want to go to war with you chump. Rules: I must attempt to convince the audience that we should "ban 'spex", whereas he must try to convince the audience to "ban" me, the most lovable wolfy. r1- is acceptance and a bit of trash talk. i'll start off with the classic, your mum cant cook mate. ban her as well, for giving birth to u.
Muhammad was a prophet of God

You have to use objective proof the fact that you have none is fact enough to prove that Mohammed was not a prophet. Again I would ask for real evidence of him being a prophet, but you have none to give. So, I will just conclude with I am happy to debate you on this again when you gather evidence of Mohammed being a prophet instead of just you saying that he is because you believe it. After all atheists believe there is no God,and they think its true does this make them right? You think he is a prophet and you think its true does this make you right?
Muhammad was a prophet of God

If we are to have a theological debate, then it is your duty to disprove the motion as well as it is mine to prove it. So far you have done nothing, save the demand for evidence. I have given you my theological argument and my stance behind it and although I cannot give solid factual proof like an eye witness testimony, I believe in the consensus that theological debates are not based on their factual objectivity. If they were, there would be no point of them, as God would be proved and all the fun would be taken away. However, I stand by my philosophy on the matter and although there are not enough rounds to the debate for its continuation, I welcome you to another debate on the matter, in the mind that we can deconstruct each other's argument without objection to respective statements.
Muhammad was a prophet of God

In order to establish why Muhammad was a prophet of God we must establish the exact magnitude of what God is; that he is a multi-dimensional being that transcends any facet of the human condition, in both time and matter, and, as such, cannot be explained in his complexity with mere words and cannot, for the present, be fully grasped by simple definitions. Even his patriarchal status is merely for arguments sake. As such, if we are to accept this then we have to accept that all we do is his will, for we are an integral part of his creation for the simple fact that we are here and that the whole history of creation is already known to him, abstractly speaking of course. Therefore, one must accept that anything done was already intended, from the crusades to the holocaust. It is done so to speak. Thus, when Muhammad became a prophet, he did so as God's will and, therefore, cannot be separated from his station.
should jordans cost a little less

The price of a pair of Jordan sneakers is set by its supply and consumer demand. If you're arguing that Jordan sneakers should be priced lower because you are unable to afford them, I would recommend a couple of things. One is to save enough money and cut out other expenditures that get in the way of buying the shoes you want. Two would be to buy another brand of sneaker which may be more affordable to you. If the latter option is unavailable to you because you are too caught up in the "style" of shoes you need to wear, I would tell you to stop caring what other people think of you. Or just shut up and appreciate the fact that your biggest problem is that you can't get the type of shoes you want meanwhile, in third world countries, many don't have clean water to drink or good food to eat never less have a pair of ugly and expensive pair of basketball shoes to promote their own self image because their lives are so meaningless otherwise. Also you probably stink at ball too lmfao.
Male Homosexuality is unnatural

None of my opponent's claims have anything to do with the resolution, nor are they substantiated. We are not talking about "human nature." The resolution clearly states that this debate is over whether or not "male homosexuality is unnatural."In addition, being natural does not mean that it is necessarily good or bad. I am not arguing that homosexuality is good (although it can sometimes be advantageous to some species3) but rather that it exists or is formed in nature.
Male Homosexuality is unnatural

I will offer the definition of "natural" as, "Existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial)1." My first point demonstrating that male homosexuality is natural will be based upon the observation of homosexual behaviour in nature. Homosexuality has been observed in "more than 1,500 animal species" belonging to various groups of the Animal Kingdom2. Thus, male homosexuality does in fact exist in nature outside of the influence of human society.*Citations in Comments section.
Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all

Hillary Clinton said that if she wins the presidency, illegal aliens who are not violent criminals will be given a pathway to citizenship. I believe that giving illegal aliens citizenship, violent or not, will harm United States and diminish its immigration laws. Instead deportation for all illegal aliens (if not all, at least half) should be considered. 1) lannan13 cannot join. Love you bud but I wanna debate this with another user 2) Use citations 3) Follow this structure: ROUND 2: Opening Statements ROUND 3: Rebuttals of Opening Statements ROUND 4: Defense and closing statements
Legalize gay marriage.

Thanks, Pro.Rebuttal"There have been some changes about whether marriage should be extended to same-sex marriage or just be the "normal" marriage between a man and a woman, and only 19 states had allowed same-sex marriage. Now there are 36 states that allow it."I don't see how this is relevant. "If a heterosexual man wants to marry another heterosexual man, then I would not consider him "heterosexual"."It doesn't matter what you would consider him; the point remains that your proposed version of marriage, if enacted into law, would discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, something which is clearly unconstitutional. "Right now, due to all the arguments against gay marriage, I would say that gay marriage is being discriminated."Really? So anything that has arguments against it is being discriminated against? This seems to be faulty logic to me."In a lot of countries homosexual people are being beaten and raped by family members to become straight. Homosexual people are seen as disgusting and not normal and they are certainly not being treated equal."It's of course wrong to beat/rape homosexuals (in the same way that it's wrong to beat/rape anybody). That being said, I can't see how the premise "it's wrong to beat/rape homosexuals" leads to your conclusion that gay marriage should be legalized. Please explain any hidden assumptions or additional premises."Homosexuality is not a choice someone makes because they think that would be better off marrying a person from the same sex as them."As I made clear in the opening round, we're basically agreed on this."At last, you mention pedophilia. I understand your concern, but pedophiles have a mental issue."(1) Why should we discriminate against groups of people with "mental issues", as you say?(2) Can you provide any sort of justification for thinking that homosexuality is any different from pedophilia in terms of being a "mental issue"?"A pedophile is doing it for pleasure, where same-sex couples are doing it for love."Pedophiles seem to think that they're in it for love in the same way that homosexuals do. I certainly see no difference here. The burden of proof is on you in this case to show that homosexuality is different from pedophilia. I've yet to be convinced of this, and even if I were convinced, you'd still have all your work ahead of you in showing that gay marriage should be legalized.SummaryMy opponent has yet to refute my argument, which concludes that gay marriage should not be legalized because it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, which is unconstitutional. As it stands, then, this argument remains sound.My opponent has failed to provide any sort of justification for thinking that gay marriage should be legalized. As such, his portion of the burden of proof has not been carried thus far.Thank you.Sources http://www.law.cornell.edu...http://www.merriam-webster.com...