BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Parents should be fined if their sub-17 year old kid(s) are caught playing M-rated games

I would like to point out that as Con I do not need to bring up any points actually, since I am only disprving Pro. However I will make a few points. Now, as he has made clear I can only offer my own points first, here are my arguments. Parental Choice:Parents should have the choice to deem if their kids are mature enough to play an M-rated game, or if the M-rated game in question is suitable for them. Parents know the most about their children, therefore they should get the choice. We should also not tell parents what they can and cannot allow their child to do. We cannot tell parents that their kids can't hunt/fish with them. Why should video games be different? Gun Violence:Since the massive craze with FPS's we have seen a drop in homicides in the U. S. Here is a table showing all the homicides in America from 2007 to 2011. . http://www.fbi.gov... As you can see in the matter of 4 years, homicides have dropped by 2,000. Another report studied the total violence of the U. S. between a peak in 1993 (when DOOM became popular) and 2001. . http://www.bjs.gov...As you can see violence started going down as soon as DOOM came out. This cannot go uncontested, because if video games causes violence amongst youth we cannot see the drop we have had in violence. If video games caused violence we would see roughly the same violence every year, or an increase in violence. Instead we see a drop in violence. Video games therefore cannot cause violence, and in fact can probably help to stop it. Some have theorized that video games can help to pacify us, and make murder too inconvieniet. If I wanted to murder someone, but didn't want to get in trouble, a video game is perfect. It is totally legal, satisfies my wanting to see someone dead, and does not harm anyone. Social Interaction:Video games can help with social interaction for people who are not the social types. By eliminating the inconvienience that some anti-social people blame their lack of interaction on, and the mask of anonymoty, people are more likely to talk and be socially active in a game, or online. I myself play CoD and Battlefield with friends a lot, and I have a blast with them. We make jokes, compete, and have fun. I do not see why this is inferior to a physical social relationship. You are essentially doing the same thing, except you don't have to be in the same room. Although this is a remark to all video games, it applies to FPS's more often due to the fact that they're the most common multiplayer game. I will offer rebuttals to my opponents arguments in the next round.
Lebron is better than Michael Jordan

The first thing we need to look at is the title of this debate. Pro has taken the burden of proof. He also says Lebron "is" better. Because he is speaking in present tense we can assume he means at this point in time. Now let us take a look at what he said. He first starts with bringing up the number of championships. I think he looses the argument right here. This debate is not saying "can" Lebron be better, it is saying he "is" better. So at this point in time Michael still has the most championships so that point is very valid unlike Pro seems to believe. The rest of the argument can be summed up quite easily. He then asserts a bunch of personal opinions and statistics without providing sources or evidence to support them . I will rule these as opinion based due the fact he showed us nothing to back up his claims. Also another point I would like to state that Lebron has been quoted saying "He would like to be the next Michael Jordan". This quote says everything. It means Lebron himself is acknowledging that he is not as good as Michael but at some point wants to be. Lets look at some of Michael s stats compared to Lebrons. http://www.nba.com... http://www.nba.com... As we can see with these two comparisons Michael had better field goal percentage, rebounds, and multiple other stats than Lebron at multiple points in his career. So as per the topic of the Debate I propose that as of now Michael is better. He has no championships, better resume of accomplishments, and has matched or beaten most of LJs stats.
Lebron is better than Michael Jordan

Good it seems as if we are both online at the same time, this will be short. That is why I posted this, to have some fun since everything i have posted recently has been with serious topics. So lets go DING DING I believe Lebron is better than Michael Jordan in a bunch of ways. The first argument Con may bring up is the number of rings. This would be invalid. The number of rings is not directly representative of Lebrons skill. He just has not had the time to get them yet. He has had some of the highest shooting percentages in the NBA recently and won two championships back to back. Even outside of all these points, he won it with a sub par team. The Derek rose and other players on the team were falling apart, but most of the time Lebron stepped up when he had to and made plays to help them win. His size is also another factor to why he is so good. Once he starts driving, it is almost impossible to stop him. He has some of the highest ratios under the goal to prove this. On top of this like i already said, he is extremely accurate with his shots. Lebron is still young and has at least ten years left him, so we can assume he will catch up to michael jordan. With his stats and winning ratio, I think this is valid evidence to show that he is better.
This house believes that Stalin was not a true socialist

This is irrelevant to the debate. We're debating on whether or not Stalin was a socialist. Also, do we call the allies villains because of what they did? No, we do not. You seem to be completely ignorant of what collective farming even is... Small farms do not fit into this category. Subsidization (or in Stalin's case, collectivization) means incorporating a large farm to suit a business. Of course not all farms as subsidized, but that is irrelevant as well... Just because some of the people that died during the revolution happened to be Jews doesn't mean Lenin committed a genocide. 'Your argument that communist societies are classless is true for the intent but wrong when in action. There are two communist classes, the ultra wealthy and everyone else.' In a Stalinist society, this is true. Maybe check the policies of the SFRY. 'Has no state, wrong the state was what was intended to collect and redistribute everything evenly, without a state how could things be redistributed on a massive scale especially in a country as big as Russia?' Your ignorance amazes me. Read any of Karl Marx's works, none of the incorporate the state or redistribution of wealth BY the state. Marxist theory proposes common ownership of enterprise, not ownership of the state. You seem to be defeating yourself here, as you are proving Stalin to not be a true socialist. A country as big as Russia is a problem. Exactly why Marxism is against such entities existing. ' Your sources are not credible because they are written from a biased point of view so therefore in terms of sources we are on the same page. Want proof that I am telling the truth, look it up on wikipedia for God's Sake!' My links are not biased, I would like to see some citation for that. You're not even making an argument. You don't even seem to be aware of what Marxist theory EVEN IS. I suggest YOU look on wikipedia, or better yet, read the actual book. STILL WAITING FOR AN ACTUAL REFUTATION.
This house believes that Stalin was not a true socialist

Is my argument outright false can you prove that Stalin and other socialists/communist leaders did not do this??? What of Castro marching 1000 political opponents to their graves which they dug? What of Stalin putting 1 our of every 10 Russians in concentration camps? Do i really need sources to back up these proven atrocities? Of course the Allies committed atrocities thats part of being human! That doesn't excuse what they did in the least either! Collective Farms a perennial of Capitalism?!?!? I mean come on I work on a farm that's punny. for God's sake everyone in my family owns a small farm! Lenin didn't murder Jews, well of course he did, maybe not in mass but the possibility that their were Jews among those who resisted him is good. Your argument that communist societies are classless is true for the intent but wrong when in action. There are two communist classes, the ultra wealthy and everyone else. Has no state, wrong the state was what was intended to collect and redistribute everything evenly, without a state how could things be redistributed on a massive scale especially in a country as big as Russia? Your sources are not credible because they are written from a biased point of view so therefore in terms of sources we are on the same page. Want proof that I am telling the truth, look it up on wikipedia for God's Sake!
This house believes that Stalin was not a true socialist

First I wish to respond by saying Joseph Stalin was more than a socialist he was a murderer! He drove my family from their home to Poland then helped place my great grandfather and grandfather in a concentration camp, but that is irrelevant to this debate. You say you support the "reign" of Kim Jong II, Lenin, Tito, Ceausescu, and Castro. Here is where you argument is flawed (except for the fact that you're a nut). Stalin did everything that every other communist leader did, executed his opponents, forced collectivization farms, established communes, centralized businesses under government control, and ruled unjustly with a biased eye and paranoid thought. Fascism and Socialism share the same roots just under different names. Mussolini did many of the exact same thing that Stalin and other socialists did yet he operated under the name Fascism. What Stalin was ,regardless of political affiliation, was a monster. As a Jewish person it is my duty to my people to never let them forget what Stalin, Hitler, or Lenin did to us. You are wrong to support him and this debate is one of malice and spite created by someone who knows not what those men have caused my people whether Jew, German, Russian, or Italian to suffer.
Should Flag Desecration be Prohibited? Pro(It should) Con(It shouldnt)

LoL. i lost"Not exactly a nice set of vocabulary right? Also even though I would sometimes have typo you seem to have faore than I do but it would take a while to go over it so Ill spare you the lecture.""Not exactly a nice set of vocabulary right"You dont say.(time to say useless crap thAT might work)Destorying the flag is a waste of time, anyways.The flag is usually made of polyester and are mass produced in factories, manufacturers or whatever. "polyester fibers are formed from a chemical reaction between an acid and alcohol" http://www.madehow.com... Wasting recources Wasting acid Wasting alcohol Wasting useful material Wasting time in making a flag Wasting money Wasting oxygen (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) FAIL! Wasting time "Wasting recources and material" http://www.madehow.com...; (You get the idea right?)"Wasting oxygen" http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;(Fail)Most of the stuff up there shouldnt need evidence to prove right. Because of EDUCATIONRECOURCEShttp://www.madehow.com...;" "st#pid", " f&ck himself.", " sh*t but say c&ap" "shut %p", " WE WILL BEAT THE CRAP" " You make me look like an assho&e. Should record that if in audio and make a remix.""WE WILL BEAT THE CRAP""lol.Ok thanks. YA TORN i think. not checking...........ad'egaer;l
Should Flag Desecration be Prohibited? Pro(It should) Con(It shouldnt)

Sorry for not specifaclly stating that Americas Flag was the main topic.Rebuttal-Contention One-In my previous argument I stated in (Assertion Three) That laws prohibiting flag desecration are "vauge". I then went on about having a patch on jeans of the flag and being "fined" You then stated- "Dont come to me and say that putting a patch on my jeans from the American flag will get me finned. Whose that st#pid to call the police just to say that i had an American flag piece as a patch. All this is refering to some of your statements."Actually this did cause a stir-"1972: Smith v. Goguen (415 U.S. 94) — The Supreme Court held that Massachusetts could not prosecute a person for wearing a small cloth replica of the flag on the seat of his pants based on a State law making it a crime to publicly treat the flag of the United States with "contempt." The Massachusetts statute was held to be unconstitutionally "void for vagueness."Someone as a matter of fact was almost charged for having a patch of the American Flag on his pants. Dissproving your argument.Contention Two-You stated that "If we prophibited flag deceration the people of the country will be pleased and who the hel cares about the court, they dont do sh*t but say c&ap into peoples mind."Well you contradict yourself because you stated that "Dont come to me and say that putting a patch on my jeans from the American flag will get me finned."Well if Supreme Court was so invalid why did they agree with your statment?Contention Three-You seem to use profanity and obscene language to support your "argument" Such as-"st#pid", " f&ck himself.", " sh*t but say c&ap" "shut %p", " WE WILL BEAT THE CRAP" Not exactly a nice set of vocabulary right? Also even though I would sometimes have typo you seem to have faore than I do but it would take a while to go over it so Ill spare you the lecture. Contention Four-Your argument is mostly invalid- You have no citation or evidence. You contradict yourself. You state-"YEAS AND THAT WE WILL BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF ANYONE WHO WANTS TO INSAULT THE STARS AND STRIPES OF OUR FREEDOM AND COUNTRY!!"-Who is "we" and where is your evidence to or statistics that show that a mojority of people agree with you? You dont make any points but instead "argue" that Im wrong. Yet you havent provided any evidenceprove that Im wrong and your "right" Conclusion-Pro uses foul languange and no factual evidence to prove his side and point. Pros's argument is invalid with no real conclusion. Please take this in to consideration respectfully voters. To be honest Im dissapointed that Pro didnt even bother to research or put effort in to his argument.
Should Flag Desecration be Prohibited? Pro(It should) Con(It shouldnt)

First, the title does not specify any country. But im assuming your talking about the American flag. "Flag dececration is non violent" Yeah, people getting bashed because they commited a flag dececration is non violent. "What if i wear my flag like a cape as many olympians or soccer hooligans are known to do?" Simple, your playing for a country. Ok im not quoting anymore. The thing you did was shove laws onto me which is already known. And so your basically saying that flag dececration can be caused easily. Ok, it depends on what your doing, are you shouting that the flag sucs, are you insaulting to america, all while destoying the flag. Dont come to me and say that putting a patch on my jeans from the American flag will get me finned. Whose that st#pid to call the police just to say that i had an American flag piece as a patch. All this is refering to some of your statements. So if someone is burning the flag of my country then i will be angry sh*t and tell him to f&ck himself. If we prophibited flag deceration the people of the country will be pleased and who the hel cares about the court, they dont do sh*t but say c&ap into peoples mind. Summary Con states crap load of laws and says how easy flag dececration can be. Pro states that the court should shut %p, OUR FLAG IS OUR SIGN OF VICTORY AND LIBERATION OVER THE HUNDREDS OF YEAS AND THAT WE WILL BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF ANYONE WHO WANTS TO INSAULT THE STARS AND STRIPES OF OUR FREEDOM AND COUNTRY!!
Should Flag Desecration be Prohibited? Pro(It should) Con(It shouldnt)

Thank you for accepting the challenge. " Those who would burn the flag destroy the symbol of freedom, but amending the Constitution would destroy part of freedom itself. " "Vietnam veteran Richard Savage Assertion One-By adding an amendment or making a law that prohibits free speech is a violation of the First Amendment. No form of speech or expression should be prohibited if non threatening or non violent. Flag Desecration has been in Supreme Court numerous times all trying to prohibit and ban it all of which failed. Flag Desecration is non violent and not threatening according to Supreme Court and a majority of The Senate. Assertion Two-"Supreme Court Strikes Down All Laws Banning Flag Desecration (1989)" After this no laws are allowed to prohibit the form of speech but it was not over. In between the years 1990, 1995, 1997, 1999-2000, 2001, 2003, 2005 and 2006 an amendment was proposed to ban Flag "Desecration". Even these failed and did not pass. Also there seems to be something "vague" about the laws. Assertion Three- "What exactly does "desecration" mean? Is it just flag burning " or does it also include smearing the flag with dirt? How about dropping it on the ground? And why should law enforcement get to decide who to arrest for such desecration? What if I wear my flag like a cape as many Olympians or soccer hooligans are known to do? What if I fly it upside-down in protest? Will these acts count as desecration? And what counts as a flag? Does my boss's ridiculous flag-inspired tie he pulls out every July 4th and Memorial Day require protection? Will Americans be threatened with jail time for having questionably patriotic fashion choices?"-(Burn the Flag or Burn the Constitution?) What I mean by "vague" is that there is hardly a clear view on what "desecration" is. Take the "Spence vs Washington Case" for example. Something as simple as putting a sticker on the flag was considered desecration. Even having a patch of the American flag on your jeans was considered desecration. How can we be sure if dropping the flag is desecration? Flag Desecration is not a crime according to some of the public, Congress, and The Supreme Court whom judge and interpret our laws.Is a piece of clothe worth infringing our founding nations document? Citation- https://www.aclu.org... http://civilliberty.about.com...
(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

R4 Defense"If a man beat his slave to death he was subject to punishment. Either through the court or street justice by the family members.If the slave survived a couple of days the master was not punished. It's assumed he didn't intend to murder him. These rules made sense to a society that condoned slavery.We no longer belong to that world. I believe God wrote the Torah to have meaning to primitive man as well as modern man. I assume God would know we'd smarten up and reject slavery." YozavadYes, but by that notion we could go much further. God would assume we'd smarten up and reject flat Earth, Young Earth creationism, geocentric, the Old Testament, creationism, and finally religion all together. This also doesn't adequately explain why God would tolerate slavery in the first place. I would think if God really did write the ten commandments that "thou shalt not have slaves" would have made the list. I can only conclude that neither the God of the Old testament nor New testament existed nor exists. The reason being is God is supposed to be the ultimate moral authority. The ultimate moral authority would never tolerate slavery. Therefore, the Christian God cannot exist. "If a person embraced all the harsh verses in the Torah, I would stay far away from that miserable son of a b****. " YozavadI couldn't agree more."I noticed in one of your debates you said, "God intended for us to be herbivores."I don't know if you lost your faith or not. Maybe your debate was a satire. God will eventually have us all be herbivores, as prophecied by Isaiah chapter 11. Evolution will never do this." YozavadI don't remember when that debate was. Yes, I did lose my faith, partly due to Christians thinking factory farming was tolerable. The cognitive dissonance was already high in me when I found Richard Dawkin's videos. I disagree about evolution. Scientific scholarly peer reviewed articles have shown the health benefits of vegetarian and vegan diets. [21]"Cytotoxic activity, which is expressed as lytic units, was significantly higher in vegetarians than in their omnivorous controls by a factor of 2. The total number of white blood cells, lymphocytes, and other subpopulations did not differ between vegetarians and nonvegetarians. The enhanced natural cytotoxicity may be one of the factors contributing to the lower cancer risk shown by vegetarians." [21]It may take awhile, but evolution does allow for people that make stupid mistakes to win the Darwin award. [22] Meanwhile, people that are healthier are more likely to live and reproduce. It may take one million years or so, but I think evolution would allow for meat eaters to be selected out eventually. Sources.21 .https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...22. http://www.darwinawards.com...
(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

Can I blame guerrillas on my spellchecker? :) OK, you mentioned some harsh Torah verses. "20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money." [2] If a man beat his slave to death he was subject to punishment. Either through the court or street justice by the family members. If the slave survived a couple of days the master was not punished. It's assumed he didn't intend to murder him. These rules made sense to a society that condoned slavery. We no longer belong to that world. I believe God wrote the Torah to have meaning to primitive man as well as modern man. I assume God would know we'd smarten up and reject slavery. Harsh verses in the Torah are like speed bumps. They slow you down and make you think. If a person embraced all the harsh verses in the Torah, I would stay far away from that miserable son of a b****. Jews criticized the Torah way before atheists did. I noticed in one of your debates you said, "God intended for us to be herbivores." I don't know if you lost your faith or not. Maybe your debate was a satire. God will eventually have us all be herbivores, as prophecied by Isaiah chapter 11. Evolution will never do this. "I'm a million different people from one day to the next. I can break my mold. No! No! No! No! No!...No.....No....No"____Richard Ashcroft The desire to break our mold is from God. Evolution doesn't care.
(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs Christian creationism (con)

Hello Stupidape. I'll kick off this shindig with some definitions.Abiogenesis: The origin of life from nonliving matter.Speciation: when a critter evolves into a different sort of critter.Macroevolution: major evolutionary transition complex enough to trigger speciation among a set of critters.Microevolution: minor evolutionary transition among a set of critters, especially over a short period.Interpretation: the act of explaining the meaning of something.Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.Hopefully we can experience empathy, otherwise it's just kill the time vs kill the time.Oops, I almost forgot to state my position. Yep, I believe in creationism.