BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There should be curfews for minors under the age of 18

1. Curfews are counterproductive A curfew would be completely counterproductive. If a minor is seen walking on the streets one day, past the curfew time, they will immediately be arrested. Immediately, these children will be sent into a psychological state, in which they view themselves as criminals. They will no longer view themselves as a good citizen who follows the law, but instead, as a harm to society. A study from the University of Berkeley has proven that when children are in this psychological state, they will keep committing crimes, thinking to themselves, "Hey, I'm already a criminal, so why not?" This will in fact lead to more juvenile crimes, and a greater harm to society. 2. Ineffective: Child curfews are ineffective in helping anybody. For simply, being outside, children could give up their whole future. With a criminal record, children will not be able to get into good universities, and will not be able to get a good job. Even with outstanding marks, a child will not be admitted into a good university, as, universities will view them as a security threat. For what? For simply being out in the public. Not only will this ruin the future of a child, but it will also decrease their self-confidence. Making them weak, vulnerable, and not useful in society. Instead of saving children, a curfew will in fact hurt children. There are many minors who work night shifts, as they have school during the day, so that they can support themselves, and/or their families. With a curfew, the government would not be allowing many minors to earn money, and be able to live a good life. Child curfews would also be ineffective in taking juvenile offenders off the streets at night. A study by Stats Canada has proven that the majority of crimes done by children have taken place from 3-8, when the children are done school, and their parents are not home yet. Juvenile offenders do not go out at night. Even for the very few who do commit crimes at night, they are trouble-makers, and they are criminals. A simple curfew is not going to stop a criminal from committing a crime. Robbing a bank is illegal. Does that mean that robbers will not still go and rob the bank? No! They will still rob the bank, attempting to get away with it. Child curfews would be ineffective and counterproductive.
Technologically speaking, the Star Trek Universe is more advanced than the Star Wars Universe

I will argue that Star Trek is more technologically advanced than Star Wars. To do this though I will have to set some parameters. Since Star Trek spans such a long period of time I will set specifically which era I want to compare and the same with Star Wars. The technology of Star Trek the original series will be compared to the Original Star Wars trilogy, and the technology of the Enterprise era will be compared to the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Other Star Trek series' can be brought up as a point of comparison and to show how technology progresses. Additional, all information must come from official movies and TV shows and not the expanded universe.
Video Games do not Make Kids Violent

If more than 4 hours a day is bad, well, I spend about roughly 6-7 hours, and I also spent 19 hours once. So I'm thinking about roughly... 54 hours a week, give or take. If that's godawful, then I walk. I've also noticed that you're only talking about the time kids play games, which is off topic (Thanks Djgerbs13, among other things!) to our discussion. If that's your form of attack, go right ahead. Also, if one kid having a few immature games is bad, uhm, let's do a count. I have over 200 games, own 8 different consoles (9 once I get my PS4), most of them are inappropriate, and I still haven't gone and shot someone yet. See my point?
Video Games do not Make Kids Violent

However children are addicted to games but not to people. That is at subconcious level and they are not able to realize all significance. Whaterver we argue about the fact remains that more and more children are affected by video games and involved in this act. According to the statistics approximately 9% of 3034 children were identified as pathological gamblers by scientists. The number is not so high but as study shows they play on average 30 hours per week. That is more than 4 hours per day and it is enough for being greatly influenced by video games and spoil child's mind also saying nothing about other harm for eyesight.
Video Games do not Make Kids Violent

Well, those two Koreans' should've known better, and that's their problem, not the games problem. And, for godsakes, IT'S NOT THE GAMES OR THE GAME DEVELOPERS FAULT. How would you like it if I gave, let's say, a kid Call of Duty. I wouldn't, because that'd just be ridiculous. But if I give a 21 year old Call of Duty, that's right, because it's more suited for that age. When a parent buy their kid Call of Duty, nobody glances an eye. Even if the game is R-18+, so, really, they should probably have SOME boundaries. Oh, and I also read the comment that guy wrote on here, pure proof I'm screwed.
Video Games do not Make Kids Violent

In fact a couple of teenagers from South Korea died from continuous computer game that was lasting about 23 hours! So, how should we deal with it? It is obvious that video games do have a great influence on gamers' mind and sometimes the result might be lethal. Actually these "idiot kids" exist nowadays. They can not realize the harm from the video games. Unfortunately yes, partly this is parents' fault. They buy computer games to their kids and make advances to them. However they do not realize all the matter. Parents that don not deal with video games and even do not see all the scary things from games are not able to understand all the importance specifically that virtual reality may change their child's life for a while.
Video Games do not Make Kids Violent

Let's compare your statement to me. Really. Look, I play games because reality & logic I just don't want around, and sometimes it's good to forget about our emotions, because maybe something bad happened? And I do have a computer addiction, but I'm not glued to the damned thing, I have other hobbies. Look, there's going to be this idiot kid who copies something off a game, and that's the parent's fault. Not the game, the parent's bought it. The game, most likely, was meant for a more mature audience. So why target the game? Why are the parents left as the victim when all they had to do was just not buy it. Problem solved.
Power transcends good and evil.

Responses: >> "God is the one who decides because he is the one with the power to decide. Power need no evidence or justification it simply is because nothing can overcome it." The point my opponent seems to miss over and over again is that considerations of good and evil transcend power, not the other way around. If power transcended good and evil, than an exercise of power would not be able to carry the label of good or evil. Clearly this is not the case. As I pointed out before, even absolute power can be used for absolute evil, showing that considerations of good and evil transcend power. >> "It was because they believed in the cause. When he told them that they had the right to drive out the Jews and conquer Europe they believed him because he had power over them." Simply because the Nazi's believed in the same cause Hitler championed does NOT indicate in ANY WAY that power transcends good and evil. >> "We were all near god before we were born, that is what our morals stem from." Our morals stem from GOD?!?! Are you kidding?!?! If our morals stem from God, then one would expect us to hold people who offer their daughters to be raped to be righteous men (Lot), and to stone homosexuals on a regular basis (Leviticus 16-22), as well as offering animal sacrifices as a sweet savour to the Lord (Leviticus 1-9). Furthermore, where did morals come from BEFORE people began believing in God??? >> "This is exactly my point, if you had that kind of power you could do anything, including define the concepts of good and evil just as Hitler did." Are you suggesting that if someone has a lot of power, they can redefine good and evil?? Are you insane? This would suggest that if someone has enough power, they could redefine a bachelor to be a married man. This is simply false, and a completely ridiculous notion. *************************************************** My opponent has offered no substantive rebuttal. He has failed to address my points, and seems to suggest ridiculous notions in defense of his position, including: 1) Those with power can redefine words, ideas, even moral terms. 2) In spite of evidence to the contrary, our morals come from God. Again, if anything, the concepts of good and evil transcend POWER, not the other way around. NEGATED.
Power transcends good and evil.

If it is not the people themselves who define good and evil who is it, god? And if so why is it god? God is the one who decides because he is the one with the power to decide. Power need no evidence or justification it simply is because nothing can overcome it. >>"This is also obviously false. Hitler had a lot of power, but nobody seriously thinks that the amount of power he had creates any sort of import for whether or not his actions were good or evil." Why do you think the Nazi party and the German army followed Hitler? It was because they believed in the cause. When he told them that they had the right to drive out the Jews and conquer Europe they believed him because he had power over them. Thank god he did not have that power over everyone and could be defeated. >>"Again, quite obviously false, considering that many of these cultures never knew the Christian God and thus could not have fallen away from a God they were never near." We were all near god before we were born, that is what our morals stem from. >>"Absolute power could easily be used for absolute evil." This is exactly my point, if you had that kind of power you could do anything, including define the concepts of good and evil just as Hitler did.
Power transcends good and evil.

Responses: >> "If this is true [that morality is authority independent] then why were the crusades justified in the eyes of those alive at the time? Morality is a concept seeded in the human mind as a means of control. It is not the highest law and good and evil are only the fruits of morality." Simply because it is justified in the actions of those who did it does not make it morally right. Surely you wouldn't suggest that murder is morally acceptable because it's right in the eyes of the murderer. >> "We have to remember that we are talking about religions who's goal is success in the afterlife more than here on earth. That applies to suffering in hell. I would rather avoid sea food than burn in hell forever." The only way to make the repression of what man wants palatable is to lie and say that the punishment (or reward) is eternal. Otherwise, nobody would buy into the nonsense that religions sell. For example, if you tell someone that there is a god that will burn them forever if they eat seafood regardless of whether or not they believe in that god... if they are as uneducated as most primitives were in Biblical times, they're probably going to believe you. >> "It is true that power transcends good and evil because absolute power governs absolutely everything" This is also obviously false. Hitler had a lot of power, but nobody seriously thinks that the amount of power he had creates any sort of import for whether or not his actions were good or evil. >> "This does not disprove the resolution. It simply shows that our morals are deeply ingrained even if people have fallen away from the Christian god." Again, quite obviously false, considering that many of these cultures never knew the Christian God and thus could not have fallen away from a God they were never near. ************************************************** My opponent has yet to show a correlation between power and good/evil. The only argument he has put forth is: "power transcends good and evil because absolute power governs absolutely everything." I have completely debunked this nonsense with a simple example. Absolute power could easily be used for absolute evil. If anything, the concepts of good and evil transcend POWER, not the other way around. NEGATED.
Power transcends good and evil.

My opponent says that "morality is authority-independent," he uses the example "even God cannot make it the case the wanton murder is morally acceptable. " If this is true then why were the crusades justified in the eyes of those alive at the time? Morality is a concept seeded in the human mind as a means of control. It is not the highest law and good and evil are only the fruits of morality. Con -" That's interesting, considering following many of his guidelines like proscriptions on premarital sex, killing homosexuals, and no eating of seafood PREVENT one from achieving happiness, and CAUSE suffering" We have to remember that we are talking about religions who's goal is success in the afterlife more than here on earth. That applies to suffering in hell. I would rather avoid sea food than burn in hell forever. It is true that power transcends good and evil because absolute power governs absolutely everything. My opponent pointed out that many cultures do not believe in the concept of an omnipotent being and yet subscribe to moral practices. This does not disprove the resolution. It simply shows that our morals are deeply ingrained even if people have fallen away from the Christian god. Also an evil act and an amoral act are synonymous. Dictionary. com defines morality as "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. " An evil act is when we disobey God and immoral act the same thing.
Power transcends good and evil.

I would like to argue from the position that there is a Christian god. We follow his various mandates and guidelines in order to achieve happiness and avoid suffering. We have organized religions who's precepts we follow. But after we die we no longer have these rules. On a divine level the rules become what God wants them to be. Good and evil have no say in a scope with omnipotence. So when Lucifer rebelled he was more political exile than enemy of good. The ideas imprinted into our conscious come directly from our experience with an all powerful being. What we believe to be morally correct is only a result of an implied consequence. If God can break a law then it means that there is a power higher than God. That being true, right and wrong would then be decided by the stronger law or personage. Eventually, however, you will find the the absolute power be it God or something beyond. When you find that power you find the motivations for what is right or wrong. Good and evil originate from an all powerful source with an agenda that we cannot possibly understand.
Gun Control

Since the affirmative has not defined gun control, I would like to define it. gun control- "government regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms." Since the negation did not specify any level or type of gun control, he is forced to defend ALL forms of gun control. Contention 1: Enemy Terrorists Firstly, it is preposterous that we sell guns to people who openly are going to use it to kill us. In the world of the negation (no gun control whatsoever) , we can sell guns to enemies of the country that we know will do harm with it. Also, the CIA came up with a reports saying that even arming allied terrorist RARELY EVER works, so why should we arm or enemies. Contention 2: Mentally Ill By definition, the con is defending the right of the mentally ill to have guns. The mentally ill cannot be trusted with guns because they are incapable of handling them and may have outbursts. Adam Lanza, the man who perpetrated the Sandy Hook massacre was mentally ill. In fact, the NYTimes reports that Lanza's mental illness went largely untreated before the shooting. There is no reason to support giving guns to the mentally ill. Contention 3: Guns that explode and kill the carrier (without warning or prior knowledge of the fact while buying the firearm) By definition, the con is defending the sale of these as well. If hypothetically these existed, the con would have to defend why we should sell them. The reason to regulate (ban) the sale of these is obvious: they are literally murdering and deceiving the user. Contention 4: Children/Babies How can you trust children/babies with guns. One could accidentally fire one and kill somebody. Contention 5: Children/Babies selling firearms Technically not allowing children to sell firearms is a method of regulating the sale of firearms. Is the con defending child labor. And is he also suggesting that a 1/2 month old can handle and sell guns. Refutations: "I believe that the people have the right to own guns" Gun control isn't necessarily gun banning. For example, technically, requiring that all guns have a yellow mark on them is a form of gun control. And we aren't excluding anybody. But, since babies are people, the negation is technically supporting that babies should have the right to handle guns. See contention 4 for why that is bad. "if we have gun control it will open an opportunity for black market" Not really unless guns are banned or heavily regulated, which not all forms of gun control are. "we won't be able to defend ourselves against criminals" Yes we can. We have our guns. Gun control doesn't necessitate banning. All in all, in order for con to win, he has to show why all forms of gun control possible are bad. Looking forward to the response of Con! VOTE PRO! Sources: 1. http://www.nytimes.com... 2.http://www.nytimes.com...
Creationism (the basic idea of it) Should be Taught in Schools Alongside Evolution

You are right, evolution is not about the origins of life, thanks for pointing that out. *Evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. It is the only explanation for the various data that has been found. It is the only idea that has predicted successfully every single time it has been tested. While it is the only explanation for many things, it cannot explain many things and is flawed. For an example, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, there should be many transitional forms found in the fossil record. However none are found as of yet, though there was one particular fossil, the Archaeopteryx, that people thought was a transitional form. But soon after they changed their minds. One could argue that the fossil record isn't complete and that we've not found all the fossils, but for now Darwin's theory hasn't been proven yet. *Your example with endogenous retroviruses. I don't see how this supports the theory of evolution. Note that Darwin's theory of evolution involves natural selection. Your example simply shows that DNA gets passed to your offspring even if it is changed, in which case you wouldn't even need to use this example. It is the same with genetic disorders and other mutations. *If life on earth was created as it is now, then you would expect that the viral patterns in DNA across the species were random and not linkable between different species. That is the opposite of what we find. Creationism doesn't mean life was created as it is now. A very common theory of creationism is Old Earth Creationism, which states that after the creation of life, organisms change through mutations or natural selection. Therefore DNA is linkable between different species. OLD EARTH CREATIONISTS ARE NOT RELIGIOUS AND THEY DO BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. My question still stands. Why can't other theories be taught in school?
Creationism (the basic idea of it) Should be Taught in Schools Alongside Evolution

Creationism, or at least the basic principles of it, should be taught in schools alongside the Theory of Evolution and other common theories about the origins of life such as punctual equilibrium, panspermia, and directed panspermia. None of them has been proven to be true yet, but all of them are possible, so why only teach students ONE of the theories when you don't know which one is true? *Keep in mind that creationism is not religious and many creationists can also believe in the theory of evolution. If you didn't know that before challenging me, don't challenge me because you do not know what you're talking about. I was lucky enough to be in an open-minded school where my Biology teacher taught me all the common theories and left it to myself which one to believe in. Though I ended up believing in Neo-Darwinism (which is what most of you just call "evolution"), I still believe schools should teach the other theories so that future generations will not be ignorant and narrow-minded.
The content of Video Games

No, violent or inappropriate video games do not necessarily cause teens to act violent. Hundreds of years before the present day, teens were surround with violent things. People would see death and violence much more often than we do today. Not only that, if video games did cause teens to be violent then we would see a much higher crime rate. According to http://www.pbs.org... According to federal crime statistics, the rate of juvenile violent crime in the United States is at a 30-year low. Not only that, but a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General's report, the strongest risk factors for school shootings centered on mental stability and the quality of home life, not media exposure. If you just take a look at the topic, it will be clear that violent games do not invoke violence in teens.
The content of Video Games

Violence has lasting effects. Even if we limit ourselves to discussing violence that took place in this country, we can still clearly see the aftermath, the demoralizing aftermath. According to the free on-line dictionary, to demoralize means: 1. To undermine the confidence or morale of; dishearten. 2. To put into disorder; confuse. 3. To debase the morals of; corrupt. There was a time when people trusted each other more. We did not lock doors like we do now, our children freely played in the yard and with other kids in the neighborhood, citizens could walk into government buildings without going through security checks, youths were not banned from school just because they carried pocket knives. I miss those days. Instead we now mistrust each other. Almost each household is equipped with a shredder. we increasingly feel isolated as if each person were an island smacked in an ocean filled with people. Ironic, isn't it? Playing violent video games help us? How? I think in the hands of mentally stable teens, this could be a release or just an acting out of the aggression that's part of human nature. In the hands of mentally unstable people, the violence just might spill over and become real. It's prudent that we do our best to avoid such unpleasant outcome. I say let us design and play peaceful games and leave all the violence behind, virtual or real.
The content of Video Games

Although I do agree that we can not afford to even have one person "cross over" or think that providing video games for all ages does not pose any risk i do not agree with the statement that it demoralizes society. Although there is always a public outcry when events like Columbine happen, but they are always pushed aside sooner or later by the fast paced media. Not only that society always carries on, cases like Columbine didn't affect sales of video games. The only real lasting effects were on the school, the people involved and their friends and family. While your claim that no direct evidence is needed to say that the cause of violence was video games (in the case of Columbine), you ask "who is to say that the violence they practice in their virtual world did not become the "last straw on the back of the camel" and played into their final act?" That statement is a double edged sword. Who is to say that the video games didn't play a final role in their final act? As to when I have my own kids, I would have second thoughts on letting them unrestricted access to violent video games but these second thought would be reinforced by guidelines and restrictions.