BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Games affecting people

I accept, thanks for having me. I'll just do a line by line rebuttal."My parents say that videogames is affecting people in a negative way, yeah of course it affects ur health, but the way of thinking, and choices you make, does not get effected by videogames in my opinion, cuz if I play lets say GTA 5, they think I will end up a drugger and kill people...I play violent games because they are funnier and brings joy, while I can speak with friends and play with them online without problems..."You are suggesting this at the benefit of your personal experience. The entirety of experiences and views you offered to the floor can only validated by you and no one else. So if a person were to reverse that philosophy and would staunchly oppose gaming by arguing the very same framework you propose, who is more valid, you or the anti-thesis of you? This is a complete misrepresentation of society in general. One's experiences is simply not enough to represent the views of others. Further, it is enough that 50% of 18 year old teens would spend in at least 8 hours or more per week wasting themselves on gaming (http://www.esrb.org...). A staggering 50%, all of which willing to waste their time on unproductive repetitive games that serves only to enhance eye-hand coordination. "...stuff happens all the time and u can just talk for hours, and also for me its like a hobby, its kinda my lifestyle, and since I go to the gym, and have 4 hours gymnastics in the school a week, I still move enough, and also I eat healthy, and yeah inside jokes with friends, and racist jokes happens"So you've found your purpose. And? So what? The standard of productivity varies between different people. I may find small talk useless and condescending, while you may find small talk fun and joyful. Why should we upheld ur standard when other's are as equally valid as yours?"but its not like I go to an asian and say face to face that he should get back to his rice farm and study to become a doctor, or say look at your eyes, how can u even see with them, "LOL LMAO." so why do they think videogames is making me somehow violent, my debate here is, do you think video games make u violent or affects u in one way or another?"Video games increases aggression exponentially, however there is no causal link to violence. It can however leads and escalates tensions which then would produce violence in return. The only reservation I have with gaming is that it, as well as other forms of entertainment, are a complete waste of time.
Games affecting people

My parents say that videogames is affecting people in a negative way, yeah of course it affects ur health, but the way of thinking, and choices you make, does not get effected by videogames in my opinion, cuz if I play lets say GTA 5, they think I will end up a drugger and kill people, or become a thief, or just an extremely violent person, but what if I play Farm ville, I wont become a farmer just by playing it, or playing doctor games, or haircut games, I wont be a doctor or hair cutter by playing them, or tetris wont make me puzzle all day long and become a champion in it, I play violent games because they are funnier and brings joy, while I can speak with friends and play with them online without problems, so its basically the same thing as being outside with them, but my city is small and not many things is happening = less things to talk about, but in the online world, stuff happens all the time and u can just talk for hours, and also for me its like a hobby, its kinda my lifestyle, and since I go to the gym, and have 4 hours gymnastics in the school a week, I still move enough, and also I eat healthy, and yeah inside jokes with friends, and racist jokes happens, but its not like I go to an asian and say face to face that he should get back to his rice farm and study to become a doctor, or say look at your eyes, how can u even see with them, I dont, and also deep inside im a really nice person when I take things seriously instead of joking around with friends, so why do they think videogames is making me somehow violent, my debate here is, do you think video games make u violent or affects u in one way or another?
Camping is Cheating

For my closing argument, I would like to reiterate that people should control their competitive instincts and play the game for the fun of the game. They shouldn't try to artificially boost their scores by using a method that is cheap, unskillful, and a simple result of developer oversight. There are many other methods to go about dealing with one's foes. 'Spray and Prey" is one, but, for all of the same points given in my previous arguments, it should also be avoided in the interest of fair sport and in the spirit of the game. Further, players should avoid camping to keep games' skill/ level-up systems a legitimate reflection of skill, and not of ability to stand in one place. It is indeed the choice of the player where to go and what to do when on the battlefield, so players should use their freedom to prove their adeptness at the game by beating their opponents fairly and equally, without using cheap digital loopholes. I thank the opposition for this debate.
Camping is Cheating

For my closing argument, I'd like to say all in all that camping is NOT cheating, just maybe a rather poor way of dealing with opponents, but a way that many people instinctively think of doing. Humans are born with competitive spirits, and will do about anything to win. Also, the opposite and one alternative to camping is to "spray and pray" which is also widely looked down upon. Spraying and praying (to run the map blindly firing at whatever moves) is a bad option as well. And if you're a competitor in the middle of this (doing neither camping or spraying), you're going to have a hard time and get frustrated quite easily. Video games are free for all, do what you please, cheating can't exactly happen activities. Once on the field, it's your choice without consequence where you go and how you do it. Thank you for the debate, all luck your way.
Camping is Cheating

I'm not arguing that humans are not born without competitive spirit, or that people shouldn't compete. All I'm saying is that people should learn to control their competitiveness to avoid prioritizing it over the enjoyment of other people. Camping is being a bad sport, and that point remains. It's fine to win a game of basketball, but it's not fine to rub your victory in the opponent's face. It's bad sportsmanship, just like camping is. Everyone should push themselves. No one should purposefully do less than their best. But if you camp, than you're not doing your best. Your finding a loophole to try to make yourself look better than you really are. True, in the MLG, victory does mean money, but not all of the over 10 million people who bought Battlefield 3 are in the MLG or are ever going to be. And I understand that a game records your skill level. But that's like saying "Hey guys, look at this fantastic Oscar on my shelf. You want to know how I got it? I bribed the Academy." Having a high skill level in-game doesn't mean anything if your actual skill level is still low. If you gain skill by camping (which requires little to no skill at all), than you rig the whole system. How can you know how good someone is if there's no way to know whether or not their rank is an actual reflection of their ability in game? Gamers should agree not to camp to keep the skill system legitimate, just as gamers generally agree not to purposefully betray teammates. It's not a written thing, just a respect thing that everyone should recognize. Something along the lines of "We're all here to have fun. Please don't ruin that for us."
Camping is Cheating

"By saying that games are made without rules, you'd also be saying that's its perfectly fine and dandy for anyone to hack a game whenever they want and make themselves invincible. How are you distinguishing between the two? They both take advantage of the game in ways that the game is not meant to be. One messes with code, the other with careless developer oversight."I said that games are made with virtually no rules, within the game. Meaning that there is nothing stopping you from running a certain amount of time, nothing stopping you from knifing certain people, etc... If there ARE things stopping you, it's built into the game, such as the developers making certain people invincible, invisble barriers, etc... Hacking has many forces against it in video games, and it's pretty hard to do actually. And when I said "No rules" I meant within the game, on multiplayer. There's nobody watching over you to make sure you don't do a certain thing. (There are admins, but if the rule is broken you're instantly out. Rule being changing to a certain gun, etc.) Other then admins, nobody can tell what to or what not to do. "Also, I completely disagree when you say that people play games to win. If they do play games only to win, then they need to get out and do something with their lives. Winning a game means nothing. Sure, it's satisfying, but it's no excuse to camp. Finding advantage points is okay. It would be stupid not to try to gain the tactical upper hand. Hide behind a corner, get to the high ground, I don't care. Most of these "tactical" locations were purposefully included by the developer as miniature war zones, places for meaningful encounters with opponents. These locations, however, always have a weak spot, so that the other team isn't automatically screwed when they're pushed away. When the developer accidentally creates one of these locations without a weak spot, that's where people usually camp, and that's when the game becomes unfair." I don't care if it's in video games, sports, or throwing eggs at a pole and trying to see how many you can get vs the other person, humans are born with a competitive spirit. That's simply how it is. I don't know one person who doesn't do anything to try to be good at it. If you're not competing to win, there's no point to compete. You push yourself and try your best to win all the time. As I said before, if you aren't trying to win, don't try. That then renders your part of the competition pointless. Winning a game DOES mean something, especially to an MLG player. Winning a game means money. If you're not playing for money either, it still records your skill level.
Camping is Cheating

"If one thing's for certain, it's that fps's don't try to imitate war as best as possible. If they did imitate war as realistically as they could, no one would play the game. War is scary, and, contrary to the belief of many Call of Duty players, war is definitely not something you want to participate in. The point of a video game is to have fun. To be entertained to interact in friendly competition with people all over the world."I think the Battlefield series would have something to say about that. Keep in mind camping isn't only possible in Call of Duty. It's possible in almost every first person shooter out there. Battlefield is a realistic war combat simulator, whereas Call of Duty is an arcade shooter. I realize they don't make it how actual war completely is, but they put some aspect of it into the games. "A camping spot can be compared to a tax loophole. It exists, and you can get ahead by utilizing it, but doing so is morally wrong as it contradicts the original intentions of the creator of the tax law/game. There are no developers that say, "Go, go! Camp right here! If you want to win, just hang out in this spot and never come out!" Devs try their best to minimize camping spots while encouraging a match that is based on equal competition and skill."This is true, however there are no developers that rid camping completely. Again, in a real war situation, or anywhere really, people fight to survive, whether it's video games or not. And the logic thing to do in a situation where you want to get as many kills as possible, and not die, is simply to hide out and shoot passerbys. Video games are virutally made without any rules whatsoever. Nothing is "cheating" unless one is hacking or modding. Video games are free to be played however one would choose, without penalty. " People who camp are bad sports. They are so obsessed with winning that they forget that everyone's just trying to have fun, and that losing a CoD or Halo match is in no way a personal failure or a reflection on your person. If you lose, all that it means is that the other person is better at pressing buttons than you are."I think everybody who plays video games are obssessed with winning. Not a single person is "willing" to fail. People who are trying to keep a respectable KD ratio want to keep it as well as possible, without much flaw. The skillfull, realistic thing, any normal clever thinking person would think of doing to survive, is to hide and cover ground from an advantage point. It makes no sense whatsoever to run out in the map blindly, spraying and praying (which is also criticized as much as camping). Every player (first time or not) always camps, it literally always happens. Why? Because it makes perfect sense. Also, camping makes it tougher for opponents, but just to test their ability. It's always an awesome moment when you take out a camper.
Camping is Cheating

If one thing's for certain, it's that fps's don't try to imitate war as best as possible. If they did imitate war as realistically as they could, no one would play the game. War is scary, and, contrary to the belief of many Call of Duty players, war is definitely not something you want to participate in. The point of a video game is to have fun. To be entertained to interact in friendly competition with people all over the world. A camping spot can be compared to a tax loophole. It exists, and you can get ahead by utilizing it, but doing so is morally wrong as it contradicts the original intentions of the creator of the tax law/game. There are no developers that say, "Go, go! Camp right here! If you want to win, just hang out in this spot and never come out!" Devs try their best to minimize camping spots while encouraging a match that is based on equal competition and skill. It's hard to have fun in a game when there are people camping. And the players that are camping are proving nothing. In a competition such as a video game, the entire point is to demonstrate skill and finely-tuned hand-eye coordination. When someone camps, all that they prove is that they can stand in one place and hide. They can't shoot or aim or move particularly well, but they sure can hide! People who camp are bad sports. They are so obsessed with winning that they forget that everyone's just trying to have fun, and that losing a CoD or Halo match is in no way a personal failure or a reflection on your person. If you lose, all that it means is that the other person is better at pressing buttons than you are. In addition, it's impossible to compare (the majority) of fps's to paintball. In paintball, not only are you out in one hit, but getting hit stings. It's not too bad when you just get hit once, but getting hit three or four times starts to be uncomfortable. Paintball maps are designed for camping. It's an integral part of the game, unlike a "tax loophole" camping spot within an fps. With laser-tag,a similar rule applies. Everyone is glow-y and bright, which makes it kinda difficult to hide. Not to mention that everyone's much more aware of their environment than in a game. You might be able to pull off one sneaky kill, but it's nearly impossible to get a game-esque chain.
Camping is Cheating

I am really sick of and annoyed with gamers all around complaining that "camping" is cheating. There are multiple reasons why it is not cheating. Here is the Urban Dictionary definition of "camping" Camping: The act of staying in one spot in a map in a first person shooter video game to gain a tactical advantage over an enemy or group of enemies. There is literally nothing whatsoever wrong with this. Video games don't exactly have "rules". If there are rules, the developers have systems implemented in the games to make certain actions impossible. I think that people who complain about camping are just simply annoyed, rather then feel like rules are being broken.In a real war situation, snipers sit there for 14 hours, give or take a little to assassinate their target. Video games (fps's) try to represent real life war situations as best as possible. If you're playing paintball or laser tag, you want to sit in a good spot and shoot; and there's nothing wrong with that.It actually is a better option then blindly running around the map getting killed over and over. You have to find a good spot, and stay hidden.
Athiests do not need proof

Thanks to Pro for his rebuttal. Pro argues that I have missed one option (his) with regards to atheism receiving the vaunted "presumptive status" or the "default position" in the debate about the existence of God (who is understood as the God of classical theism). I think that Pro has unwittingly committed himself to my position - which, if you recall, is that the theist and the atheist both have a shared burden of proof. Here is how: Pro claims that the very notion of God is logically incoherent or impossible. (That this may be so is immaterial to point I am about to make.) But notice what he has done here - he has advanced a claim and provided reasons for thinking it's true with his three arguments for the non-existence of God. One might get the wrong idea and reasonably assume that Pro has shouldered a burden of proof here in attempting to prove why God could not possibly exist! Indeed Pro has offered arguments (proofs) that run something like this: 1) If God is omniscient, then he knows everything, including all of his future choices. If God knows all of his future choices, then he cannot change his mind in the future. If God can change his mind, then he cannot have been omniscient in the first place. If God cannot change his mind (i.e. his hands are tied), then he is not omnipotent. #3 and #4 cannot exist at the same time, because a person cannot both be able to change their mind, and not be able to change their mind. [1] 2) Necessarily, consciousness is an effect of the brain God does not have a brain. Therefore, God is not a conscious being. Necessarily, God is a conscious being. Therefore, God does not exist. 3)All existent things can be directly or indirectly observed God cannot be directly or indirectly observed Therefore, God is not an existent thing When a person A makes a claim that some X is logically impossible and x's logical impossibility is not immediately obvious (i.e. that of a square circle) is falls upon A to furnish an argument for x's logical impossibility. What is person B's natural reaction? "Oh yeah? Prove it!" It won't do just state A's position on x's logical impossibility is the default position. So, in short, Pro seems to implicitly agree with my position that the atheist and theist need to both provide proofs and reasons for their respective positions because that is exactly what Pro has done! Back to Pro. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] http://brevis.me...
Athiests do not need proof

First, I’ll say that I am thrilled to have my debate picked up by someone as articulate and well versed in argumentation as you seem to be.You have done a great job of analyzing all of the avenues in which I could have taken approach to—with one exception of course. As I state in my initial claim, I do in fact hold that in this argument over the existence of an immaterial, omniscient, and omnipotent God, atheism (or the denial of the existence of such a being) is the default position. And I attempt my best to explain why:Con’s 2nd argument states: “The problem is this leading to a wide-ranging skepticism if we had to assume for everything that the default position is the negative one and that it requires sufficient reasons and proof to move us from negative to positive.” Con goes on to furnish examples of negative assumptions on beliefs, physical objects, etc.The problem is that Con has missed the major distinction that a traditional God falls under: Unlike the examples Con cites, the concept of God violates the Aristotelian laws of non-contradiction. As an atheist, I would never claim that a unicorn (simply defined as a horse with a horn on its head) could never exist or does not exist now on some other planet in some other place in the universe. But a living, breathing unicorn does not contradict itself. On the other hand, if someone claimed that a carbon-based living unicorn could transcend time, was immaterial, and existed before the creation of the universe, then I would hope that anyone with a reasonable knowledge of biology would assume this to be false.I can deny the existence of God on the argument’s lack of merits in logic. So why is God self-contradictory? I will hit on three examples:First, omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive since a God that knows what will happen tomorrow, cannot then change it without compromising his omniscience.Secondly, consciousness is an effect of matter, specifically biological matter as in our brains. Believing that consciousness is immaterial contradicts our every observation and would be akin to believing that sound can exist in the absence of movement.Third, a God can only be rationally defined as existing if it can directly or indirectly be observed--yet this contradicts His immaterial and unobservable form.The problem with the agnostic position and assuming that a God could possibly exist is that they must accept the illogical contradiction. The only way around this contradiction is for theists and agnostics to invent a new Realm in which this contradiction is allowed to exist. That would be akin to declaring that square circles are contradictory and cannot exist—so create a new realm in which square circles can exist! This does not solve the problem.Gods are self-contradictory. Gods cannot exist. No proof is required.
President Obama is/was a good president (economics)

President Obama is/was a good president (economics). I believe he is NOT a good president Economically speaking and can prove it. I challenge "Reformist" to this debate, considering his opponent in his debate isn't putting up a fight at all. I'd like to show how the alleged data is flawed, and how Obama is actually hurting the economy. Only rules; 48 hours argue time, 10k characters, 5 rounds, source your data if providing charts/data. May the best Debater win!