BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video games do not cause violence`

Hello there con, I think that the setup you have for this debate is a pretty valid and good setup. So yes, I think we might as well go with that set up. So with that said, I'm going to be posting my arguments for the first round. Here we go; -The Supreme court itself even said that video games do not cause violence. I just wanted to point this out. I would also like to add that the supreme court definitely wouldn't make a claim without actual concrete proof. Because they ARE the supreme court after all. -US news article states that video games do not cause violent. . http://www.usnews.com... I'm just going to let you read that by yourself. -From my own personal experience playing all of the violent and bloody video games, I can safely say that they haven't influenced any kind of dramatic or over the top behavior that has influenced me to do violent things. I would also like to add that I am in fact a minor as well. Not going to go into any more specific details. - If video games actually DID cause violence, then wouldn't we be seeing more crime on the news? Think about it. Wouldn't there be more shootings, fights, and robberies? Of course not. Though occasionally, there maybe some person who DOES decide to commit murder because of video games. But it happens RARELY. Very rarely. -If video games did cause violence, then wouldn't movies, television, and comics cause violence as well? There is definitely plenty of violence going on in all 3 of them. Though ironically, the people who accuse video games of causing violence, usually don't think that either of those 3 things mentioned cause violence either. And I do understand the violence is being accused mostly for the kids. But haven't you ever seen a little boy or girl coming into the movies watching something like the avengers, or something like James Bond? - There are a HUGE variety of video games out there in the world. And not all of them are violent. Heck. some of them are the exact opposite of violent. So when your saying that video games cause violence. then maybe you should specify which type of video game genre it is. Because just saying that video games as a whole cause violence is wrong, because not all video games are even violent. But I know what you're thinking con, so in the next argument. I'm going to be going over why the violent video games don't cause violence. -Violent video games actually RELIVE yourself from stress. . http://www.makeuseof.com... -I myself would like to ask the con an honest question about video games, have you yourself ever played a violent game like call of duty or halo? And have you ever felt any signs of aggression after you did? I just wanted to ask that.
Video games do not cause violence`

Hello, I am willing to debate with you about this topic. I am relatively new to this site, however I have experience with traditional debating competitions. I think that a good set up for this number of rounds is Round 1, state some of your arguments, Round 2, rebut previous arguments, Round 3, more arguments, Round 4, more rebuttals and a summary. Hopefully you consider this set up suitable. Good luck!
Evolution is a Delusion

I also want to ask that, despite this, any readers will still trouble themselves to vote. I would be mortified if this contest should end in a draw. I shall fill out my character count with the lyrics to the Village People hit classic, "YMCA. " Young man, there's no need to feel down I said young man, pick yourself off the ground I said young man, 'cause your in a new town There's no need to be unhappy Young man, there's a place you can go I said young man, when you're short on your dough You can stay there and I'm sure you will find Many ways to have a good time It's fun to stay at the Y. M. C. A It's fun to stay at the Y. M. C. A They have everything for young men to enjoy You can hang out with all the boys It's fun to stay at the Y. M. C. A. It's fun to stay at the Y. M. C. A. You can get yourself clean you can have a good meal You can do whatever you feel Young man, are you listening to me I said young man, what do you wanna be I said young man, you can make real your dreams But you've got to know this one thing No man does it all by himself I said young man, put your pride on the shelf [ From: . http://www.elyrics.net...] And just go there to the Y. M. C. A. I'm sure they can help you today It's fun to stay at the Y. M. C. A. It's fun to stay at the Y. M. C. A. They have everything for young men to enjoy You can hang out with all the boys It's fun to stay at the Y. M. C. A. It's fun to stay at the Y. M. C. A. You can get yourself clean you can have a good meal You can do whatever you feel Young Man, I was once in your shoes I said I was, down and out with the blues I felt no man cared if I were alive I felt the whole world was so jive That's when someone came up to me And said young man take a walk up the street There's a place there called the Y. M. C. A. They can start you back on your way It's fun to stay at the Y. M. C. A. It's fun to stay at the Y. M. C. A. Young man, young man there's no need to feel down Young man, young man pick yourself off the ground Y. M. C. A. and just go to the Y. M. C. A.
Evolution is a Delusion

I shall accept your challenge, and defend evolutionary theory against the charge that it is a "delusion."A necessary but tedious task is required first. We must agree to certain guidelines. First, I must insist that plagiarism should result in a full seven point penalty to be levied against the offender. Second, we should establish definitions:"Evolution:" The assertion that heritable changes can occur. (This may relate to biology, where children are born with traits from parents, most likely, to the exclusion of all else throughout this debate. However, this should not be considered the only rendering of evolution to be found in nature.) "Delusion:" Google Online Dictionary: Noun: An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality,... The action of deluding someone or the state of being deluded: "what a capacity television has for delusion". Appeals to authority should be ignored unless the argument being made by that authority is included for evaluation. If these terms are acceptable, I will allow my opponent to assume the Burden of Proof, and present his case in the next round. If these terms are not acceptable, let us negotiate them in the comments section, in order that we may save space here. I shall honor any agreements made there.
Lego Universe shouldn't go offline

1. Alright over 59,000 indulge in the game Lego Universe. Now how many of those accounts are presently active? We don't know that, and since Lego Universe is shutting down due to the loss of players we can assume that most of them are inactive. We can also assume that the amount of players had decreases drastically over the years. 2. We are talking about an MMO here. 59,000 players for a MMO is not a large number. Look at games such as World of Warcraft, Warhammer online, and Eve online. Some of those games have over 10 million players. .. 59,000 players isn't a large amount for an MMO. If anything Lego Universe probably had double the amount of players to begin with. 3. Lego has already announced the closure of Lego Universe to say otherwise is just a useless gesture. To you that may not seem like a lack of players, but to the company it is. Have you monitored the increase and decrease of active players who play Lego Universe? I didn't think so, only the company has. If the company has noticed a rapid and constant decrease in active players they will eventually result to terminating the program, before they loose anymore revenue. 4. Yes we are both done with the debate due to it being the final round. I wish not to address the ignorance that you've displayed with your last comment but I must, with the circumstances that are present with Lego Universe and the president of the company announcing its closure, (as well as offering one free month as a parting gift, and displaying that it will indeed close on the site) we can concur that Lego Universe will in fact go offline and shut down. This may be depressing and aggravating to the fans of Lego Universe but it is to only better the company.
Lego Universe shouldn't go offline

I just went to the Lego message boards and found out that way over 59,000 play lego universe. I counted 59,000 and then stopped. With so many people lego must not be shutting down. They said that they were shutting down because of a lack of people. That doesn't look like they are lacking anything. Basically I'm done with the debate. You can count it as you win i don't care anymore because I now know that It won't go offline
Lego Universe shouldn't go offline

1. Thank you for the clarification, I now understand that you are referring to the rating of the game. The point that the game is clean and should not be shut down for "being clean" is a minimal statement. There are hundreds of "clean" games out there with or without aspects of creation (I will further explain this in my third point). When we look at the reason that this game is being shut down is because the decrease in fans. When we look at it in a financial stand point, the game being "clean" or not makes no difference (for the reason of its closure). To some Lego fans viewing the game as being "clean" could be a bad thing. Allow me to create a scenario, some of the fans may want the violence, vulgarity, gore, to be present in Lego Universe, but with the absence of it, it may have caused some of the previous fans to stop playing, as well as shun away the players who would want that in a game. Now we are not here to argue about the types of players indulging in this game, I am just trying to display that the game being known as "clean" is not a valid reason to keep the game operational. 2. Yes Lego does make a large profit selling its toys and games. I do not understand why you would say such an odd statement in your defense. It is a slight contradiction, if anything it applies more towards my final point...You are talking about the revenue that Lego gains from selling its product. Lego Universe is (I say this loosely) a product. Now lets use some common sense here, if you were to sell a product and after a long period of time you noticed that fans began to loose interest in it and you began to loose profit, wouldn't you take the product off the market (In this case shut down the program)? Yes you would, and this is what Lego is doing, they found that there products profit is decreasing because of the fan basis so they have decided to shut down the game before they loose anymore money. 3. Yes I have a list but before I display my list I would like you to take in to consideration the real genera of this game. It is an MMO with the aspect of creation, If I were to create a list of games with the MMO genera I would be here all day, and since you are referring to the creation part of the game I will construct a basic list, based on the creation aspect. Roller Coaster Tycoon series, Spore series, Sims series, Little Big Planet series, Minecraft, Halo forge, Farcry2 map creation, Tony Hawk skate park creation, and Mod Nation Racers. This is only a few of them there are many more. Now as I said before the game is an MMO with the creation aspect now the games I listed all have the creation aspect to them as well. My main argument still stands the game should go offline to further the "lifetime" of the Lego company.
Lego Universe shouldn't go offline

Before I address my issues on why Lego Universe should be shut down, allow me to ask for clarification on a few of the statements you have displayed. As well as display my rebuttal to your points. 1. What do you mean when you say it is a "clean" game? Are you referring to its rating? Please clarify the statement. It is not one of the "only games that can be played with friends online" all MMO games are multiplayer therefore can be played with the accompany of friends. 2. There are many games and programs that allow you to build and craft anything you want. The removal of this game in particular will not have much effect on "creation" or "building" games, it will not destroy the genre of this type of game because there are many others like it. The only damage it will cause it to fans of the Lego series and the Lego company it self, more towards the fans of this game. 3. It does in no way teach you how to "be creative" humans are creative by nature. Look at all the inventions and displays humans have created. Better yet look at society at a creative standpoint. Lego Universe is only a program for people to display there creativity, based on the use of Lego. Referring back to my second point due to the large amount of other "building and crafting" games the loss of this game will only have an impact on Lego fans. Now for my main reason why I think Lego Universe should go offline. 1. This success of this game is geared towards the fan base of Lego. The removal of this program is because of the fan basis. With the basis being so low the company (Lego) cannot acquire the revenue that they need to sustain the game and make profit. Therefore the best option would be to close down the game. To keep the game online would not be beneficial to the company. Ultimately having the company (Lego) loose profit and making them one step closer to selling the name and closing down. I am assuming that you are a Lego fan and I am certain that no Lego fan would want the downfall of the company.
There ought to be priority lanes on roads dedicated to important business people

That German saying is lovely, I hope you realise which side it supports.I shall now lay out your arguments bare to show you just how flawed they truly are. Then I shall demolish them beyond repair and smile as I watch your entire ego crumble beneath my brilliance.If I lose a conduct mark for this then so be it. It's totally worth the one point.Now, onto the nitty gritty:1Pro's first assertion: People of higher incomes being entitled to better planes, or seat within planes, than those of lower incomes is analogous to the proposed policy.Con's first rebuttal: The planes are analogous to the quality of the car, they are entirely dissimilar to the lane that the car is permitted to use.2Pro's second assertion: The traffic congestion costs would be reduced by turning one land on an already-built road into a lane only allowed to be used for qualifying individuals.Con's second rebuttal: This will end up costing more because the traffic within the roads, that have one lane less than they used to, will have less space in which to overtake and move along. It is a law of physics that the resistance (equivalent to the intensity a of traffic jam) is inversely proportional to the surface area in which the particles can move. The thinner the space for them to move, the higher the resistance.3Pro's third assertion: It avoids prejudice to the poor by analysing those who need it most.Con's third rebuttal: This is unfeasible, thus impossible to enforce.
There ought to be priority lanes on roads dedicated to important business people

The Germans have a saying: "Im Stau und vor Gott sind alle Menschen gleich"; which translates as "all men are equal before God and in a traffic jam". Not so in Moscow during the Soviet era, though, where some comrades were more equal than others. Until the fall of Communism, Politburo members, senior officials and foreign dignitaries were entitled to use dedicated Zil lanes - Zil being the make of limousine favoured by the Russian elite - which allowed them sweep imperiously by stationary or slow-moving traffic and which gave them priority at junctions. [1,2] Communism has gone now and today Moscow's former Zil lanes are open to Russian oligarchs and the proletariat alike. Nevertheless, individuals are still segregated according to importance at airports around the world where business, first class and private aviation passengers have their own dedicated check-in desks, security lanes and lounges - at no point are premium passengers expected to mingle with the common herd. However, it's often a different story to and from the airport, on congested motorways and around town where banking executives, property magnates, leading industrialists, successful tech entrepreneurs, business tycoons, media moguls, distinguished visitors from abroad and other wealth creators are obliged to squander their precious time sitting in traffics jams. Traffic congestion costs Britain GBP4.3bn a year but this expense could be mitigated with the introduction of priority lanes on certain congested roads and motorways, with lane passes issued to qualifying individuals. In order to avoid the scheme being labeled as "roads for the richest", passes would be granted to those with the greatest need rather than those with the highest net worth, and would be issued on a case-by-case basis, similar to the way that second passports are currently issued. Under this system those ineligible for the pass would span all socio-economic classes from an unemployed person on his way to sign on or meet his friends in the pub; a middle-class mum on the school run, on her way to the shops or the gym; a couple of pensioners on their way to the post office, a jumble sale or tea dance through to a pampered socialite on her way to a spa, upmarket hair salon or Michelin-starred restaurant or an aristocratic playboy on his way to a shooting party, a polo match or dinner at his club. This scheme would not only make key corporate personnel more efficient but would also send reinforce our message to the world that Britain is a business-friendly country. Thank you. [1] http://www.themoscowtimes.com... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
why is public school not getting enough opertunitys

My opponent says, "a public school in Philadelphia and in Los Angeles and in Miami is totally different." How is it different? All three are urban schools filled with the same types of problems. "students know when some on care and giving them text book from 1998 wont help they can feel when a teacher is there just for a pay check and they can feel when they really care." I totally agree with you here. I firmly believe that there are a lot of good teachers out there, but others are there for a pay check. When the bell rings, they are out the gates and in their car. I would also agree that teachers get payed crap, and this needs to change. "ask any student and you'll get the same answers as u can see, your experience met nothing .because if u did you would have never debated me on this topic." I don't want you to misunderstand me. I think any school can benefit with an increase of money, however, I don't believe it is going to change the behavior of kids. You mention that you are taking a sociology class. The central issue, in my opinion, not with lack of funding. I maintain this opinion because I have seen numerous third-world countries with higher test scores than American students on far less money. Its certainly not because American students are dumb. Its because of the culture. This culture is breeding laziness. What American high school students know versus what their counterparts all around the world know is shocking. It proves a shocking ignorance on the part of American students. Sociology would quickly determine the reason why that is, and it has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with culture. In any case, it was a good topic and it was a pleasure debating you. I'm looking forward to seeing your posts in the future. And lastly, best of luck to you and your school! Regardless, I hope the Philly school district will increase funds. Take care.
why is public school not getting enough opertunitys

clearly i was right..a public school in Philadelphia and in Los Angeles and in Miami is totally different...maybe there might be some of the same problem..u say install some principles in the students....that's will make it better...and some some levels i agree. but that has to come from the parents...not the school and i think that money is the major problem..in my sociology class we are still working of a book that was once new...but in 1998...and it is now 2008...and u can ask any teacher if the text books was different then the teachings would be different...students know when some on care and giving them text book from 1998 wont help they can feel when a teacher is there just for a pay check and they can feel when they really care....ask any student and you'll get the same answers as u can see, your experience met nothing .because if u did you would have never debated me on this topic....
why is public school not getting enough opertunitys

My opponent says, "you can not say that based on what some computer might say..come and observe one for ur self." I have. I was in the public school system in Miami. My daughter is now in the Los Angeles public school system right now. And of course I have serious concerns, however, more money isn't the answer to all of the problems. More money won't make a kid want to participate. If society wants its youth to care, then it is going to have to instill principles in them that will want to make them excel. My opponent says, "putting more money will not hurt it..it would make it better." What evidence is there that it would? Though it is the person making the claims' burden to support their assertion, there is evidence to the contrary. http://www.hoover.org... "so clearly you are not the right person to debate this topic..you are clearly one educated in this topic" That doesn't make any sense? Because I have some insight on the topic, that doesn't make me the right person for the debate?
why is public school not getting enough opertunitys

you can not say that based on what some computer might say..come and observe one for ur self. If i would come to America, say from Africa and come to some of the public SCHOOLS..yes i would say that this is the best school ever..but for someone who is currently in a public school in Philadelphia would not say that..and the issue is cause of the lack of money and the fact that the city will not give us but so much money. And putting more money will not hurt it..it would make it better...so clearly you are not the right person to debate this topic..you are clearly one educated in this topic
why is public school not getting enough opertunitys

While I agree that the public school system is basically a joke in the United States, I don't see the central issue being a lack of funding. The problem is American society itself. Case in point: If you look at statistics around the globe, you will see other nations who generate far less revenue are scholastically superior to Americans. That means they get less funding than us, yet do better. Why do you suppose that is? Its because countries that haven't the luxury to be spoiled make do with what they have. Secondly, their work ethic is second to none. If American schools are doing poorly, dumping money in to it will not fix the problem since a lot of the problem is socially derived. Sure, it will help in some ways, I don't deny that. But it is not the central issue of why Americans are failing, especially since America produces the highest grossing income per capita in the world. The central issue is that Americans have learned to be lazy over the past few decades, unappreciative, and apathetic. Fixing the problem starts at home, where parents, who are also lazy, unappreciative, and apathetic, are teaching their kids these same non-virtuous virtues. Americans need to break this cycle soon and come back to the roots upon which it was founded.