BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Are Videogames Art

Ok firstly I would like to say I am sorry that I was unable to post my round 3 debate I had some issues at home which prevented me. Onto the debate. I would first like to point out that I was also wrong on the "Cash Crop" and that my opponent has some very valid points about it, but when I first glanced at it I didn't even know where it was taking place or it helped with the power of Chicago. Per say, I was a tourist in an art museum and "Cash Crop" was on display I wouldn't really know a lot about it unless I had researched it or there was a brief history next to the display. My Opponent: "It is put in a fictional sistuation, in which the gamers main goal is to kill the enemy. therefor all the gamer learns from experiencing this game, is that you need to kill, and thats the only moral the gamer will achieve." This may be so, but if anyone has actually ever played through the whole game, they would know that it does have parts of it that are inspirational, for instance they actual game cutscenes that you CANNOT elude, like at the end when the Reapers attack, all the species on the station ban together in one final stand. (Link at bottom of debate) If that's not even the slightest bit inspirational I don't know what is. My Opponent: "Back to what you were saying with the "Cash crop" painting. Even if that painting had no specific meaning, it couldn't be called a piece of art. Every piece of art must have a meaning. you cant just draw a scribble on a piece of paper and call it art. for it to be able to be claimed "art" their must have been creativity and imagination involved in its making AND the viewer must gain a sense of progression and learning from the artwork." I know what my opponent is saying that all art has SOME form of meaning in it, no matter how extravagant like in Starry Night or to something much more subtle as in Mass Effect. The viewer (or in this case gamer) usually does gain some sense of learning I will just run through 2 examples. 1) In Mass Effect, the gamer learns of leadership, choices, and team work. I know that playing the game doesn't make it art, but the fact the developers put that in there because all 3 of those points are a big part of the game and it gives the gamer a sense of leadership. 2) In the game, Legend of Zelda, a gamer learns of heroism, the art of love, and adventure. This is my final round, I would like to thank philosphical for accepting this debate and for making it such a challenge, I hope, sir, that we dance the battle of debates soon in the future. Thank you for reading, dear viewers, and whomever you vote for, please actually consider this, I wont be telling you to vote Pro because it just may not be your view, just vote on what you really like and dislike, but if you do vote Pro donate a couple points to Con, and I also hope that you will to me if you vote Con. Again thank you to philosophical for a great debate. -TSM Mass Effect Cutscene: http://www.youtube.com...
Are Videogames Art

forfeit eh? pity, i was looking forward to a good response. quicly i will re-iterate my points 1. video games are not art because they have no value among society or moral. 2. art is imagination, creativity, and meaning. although games were created with this, the games themselves are not art. the game makers themselves are the ones who deserve the credit. 3. Games are fun. alot of peopl will look at this debate and probably think i am against video games. this is intrue, so please judge off of that. I love video games, but i dont think they quite fall under the category of 'art;. thankyou, and i look forward to my opponents refute
Are Videogames Art

ok to start out, my opponent mentioned that the painting "cash crop" does not have a meaning to it. being that this is a semi-famous painting, it holds a certain significance among humanity. alot of times though, the meaning of a certain painting is hidden, and left for the viewer to discover. for example the painting "cash crop" does actually have a meaning to it, if looked upon it from a wider perspective. here is what another view of the art work "cash crop" analyzed: the ohio valley is the most productive farmland in the world. This has contributed to the strength and power of Chicago as the Corn Ftures and Commodity of the world. Without compromise, the agriculture strength is depicted in this piece by the background of ten thousand dollar bills. The artist uses rich abundance of vibrant colors to express the relationship of the corn plant to financial wealth. MY OPPONENT: "In Mass Effect it is that when disaster strikes, it brings out the best in people and sometimes even rivals join forces to do what's right." This game although is really fun and had alot of creativity put in it, does not help the gamers gain any sense of art. It is put in a fictional sistuation, in which the gamers main goal is to kill the enemy. therefor all the gamer learns from experiencing this game, is that you need to kill, and thats the only moral the gamer will achieve. If the game was really promoting bringing the best out of people, it would focus more on defining the qualities of men and their actions in these situation. Video games are a good part of life. Alot of times when people are bored or lonely, someone can turn to video games for entertainment. But thats all a video game is, is just an entertainment process. When someone goes to play a videogame they are expecting or hoping to be inspired, just cured of their boredom. therefor you cannot really claim that videogames promote 'art' when the individual doesn't learn anything but killing, or adrenaline rush from a video game. MY OPPONENT:"I never anywhere said that the players were artistic for viewing and playing said games." I know this, but that was was only part of the point. People who view, hear, or re-inact an artwork, aren't always artistic themselves. But when they do participate in learning from an art work, they are usually enlightened with the usage of the specific artwork. Back to what you were saying with the "Cash crop" painting. Even if that painting had no specific meaning, it couldn't be called a piece of art. Every piece of art must have a meaning. you cant just draw a scribble on a piece of paper and call it art. for it to be able to be claimed "art" their must have been creativity and imagination involved in its making AND the viewer must gain a sense of progression and learning from the artwork. Thankyou TSM for the rebuttal and i look forward to your next. -philosophical
Are Videogames Art

Firstly, I would like to point something out. "GAMEMAKERS "but also they are allowed boundless opportunities to use their creativity and imagination, which sounds like art to me. " video games in themselves are not where the creativity and imagination spark from. the creators of the game being the ones who put forth all the creativity are the ones using imagination and creativity. " When I stated they are allowed boundless opportunities, they DID refer the game creators, themselves, not the game. I never in any said that the players were artistic for viewing and playing said games. "While the people who made them game used a form of art in making the game by being creative and imaginitive, the game in itself does not provide a form of productivity or, seemingly, a specific influential point. For example, everything that is considered art has a certain meaning or phase to the the benefit of learning. meaning Every piece of art must have an influential meaning that can be used as pertaining to human life. Although games like halo and final fantasy did have alot of imagination and creativity used in them and are very fun, they pose no specific point or influential benefits. " Not all art, in said case, does have meaning. Take for example, the painting called "Cash Crop. " This painting is simply a picture of a couple of houses and trees, with rows upon rows of housing areas in the background. Now, don't get me wrong this is a very nice painting, but my opponent says that ", everything that is considered art has a certain meaning or phase to the the benefit of learning. Meaning every piece of art must have an influential meaning that can be used as pertaining to human life. " I don't see how this painting holds any beneficial point or helps humanity learn anything. "When and if a game pertained to the inspiration of mankind other than the destruction of it, it could be used as an example of 'a piece of art'. however this is not the case with games such as in all the games you have listed. " As you say, that a game is pertained to the inspiration of mankind rather than the destruction of it, that may be true. If you truly think though sometimes disaster brings out the best in us. For example I will take the game "Mass Effect. " The main problem is that an army of synthetic robots led by a rouge agent are trying to resurrect an ancient destructive force known only as "the Reapers. " As humanity's and probably the galaxy's only hope, you defy the odds. Also take into not that humanity, in game, is very young in the galactic age, and most of the other species revere them as insolent and incompetent. When the Reapers finally attack, though, all the species ban their forces together and take one final stand as one peoples to defy a god. I know that I said not all art has a lesson, but in this case and in many others, both in real life and in video games, it has. In Mass Effect it is that when disaster strikes, it brings out the best in people and sometimes even rivals join forces to do what's right. Thank you for reading - TSM
Are Videogames Art

art: "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." http://dictionary.reference.com... using the word production in the definition of art, means for it to be productive to the soul and those who view the form of art. Thus i will be basing this off productivity. GAMEMAKERS "but also they are allowed boundless opportunities to use their creativity and imagination, which sounds like art to me." video games in themselves are not where the creativity and imagination spark from. the creators of the game being the ones who put forth all the creativity are the ones using imagination and creativity. Such as paintings and soul music can be considered a form of art because of this creativity and imagination that they themselves put into the particular frame of art. but those who view the art, cannot be said to have used the creativity and imagination, simply by viewing the said artwork. so the point here is that the game itself does not spark creativity and imagination, however, but the makers of the game art the ones who have used creativity and imagination. UNPRODUCTIVITY While the people who made them game used a form of art in making the game by being creative and imaginitive, the game in itself does not provide a form of productivity or, seemingly, a specific influential point. For example, everything that is considered art has a certain meaning or phase to the the benefit of learning.meaning Every piece of art must have an influential meaning that can be used as pertaining to human life. Although games like halo and final fantasy did have alot of imagination and creativity used in them and are very fun, they pose no specific point or influential benefits. when and if a game pertained the the inspiration of mankind other than the destruction of it, it could be used as an example of 'a piece of art'. however this is not the case with games such as in all the games you have listed. Dont get me wrong, i enjoy playing video games, and i do think they are fun, but i do not beleieve they would fall uner the category of art. thankyou -philosophical
Are Videogames Art

I would like to open up, with the point that I've been hearing that there is a lot of controversy as to the object of video games being a form art. A definition of art can fall into three parts: a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. b. The study of these activities. c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. Video games are very fine examples of art, because they are usually appealing to our sight and hearing. The creators of the games are, yes trying to give us a game to enjoy, but also they are allowed boundless opportunities to use their creativity and imagination, which sounds like art to me. I would next like to present some examples of gaming "works of art" in terms of graphics and storyline. I saw storyline because a lot of literature is considered art and I see it that a well developed story line of a game is also a key to the game being a true master piece. Here are some examples. - The Final Fantasy Series - Halo Series - The Legend of Zelda Series - Mass Effect - Half-Life 2 - Portal Just to name some, all these game(s) all have stunning graphics [for their time] and a very gripping plot line. I think that when it comes down to it all, things like Halo 3 and the Mona Lisa have the basic thing that makes art, art. That thing is basic human creativity and intuition for beauty. I now leave the floor open to a challenger.
Free Will is kept in light of the Free Will Problem of Causal Determinism

Pro's arguments can be summarized as follows: Causal determinism shows that every action has a cause, but not necessarily a necessary cause i.e., there are several effects that a given cause could bring about, not just a single path of events. Therefore, Pro reasons, we can still have free will. Objections.(i) Presupposing alternative possibilities.-- Pro's argument doesn't offer actual substantive analysis. He simply argues that any given event doesn't necessitate a single outcome. But why should we just accept this without argument? Pro's examples furthermore don't offer any reasoning or evidence. It's certainly not self evident that cause X would lend itself to events Y *or* Z and in any case we don't have any evidence provided by Pro to suggest this would be a regularity in human behavior. Remember, Pro's arguing for a generality of free will, not just the possibility of some instances.(ii) Faulty examples.-- The examples by which Pro attempts to outline his contention are also faulty. For instance, Pro claims that in event X where a women's husband calling her causes her to forget her keys in the ignition, but that it's also possible that the women could have simply hung up and then remembered where her keys were. Therefore, Pro reasons, the husband calling only leads to a set of possible effects, none of which are necessitated. The problem with this argument is that Pro's ignoring effecting factors. Husband calling = CWoman answering/conversating = ANot answering/hanging up = NForgetting keys = ECausal determinism would argue that C + A would determine event E (forgetting her keys in the ignition). What Pro is doing is simply changing the equation. Obviously if you change the factors then the outcome will be different. For instance, under Pro's second example, we would substitute A for N. Of course we can't expect C + N to *also* necessitate cause E. But that doesn't refute my position, it actually affirms it. Instead of causing E, C + N would simply lend itself to event R (remembering where her keys were). Pro has essentially acknowledged a direct causal link between outside factors and the actions of the woman in his example.
Free Will is kept in light of the Free Will Problem of Causal Determinism

The first premise can be summed as follows: If a person (x) does something at some time, she could have acted otherwise than she did. Premise one is disputed.. People can, indeed, act on impulse or plan and act. The former and the latter both result in actions, which is, according to the second premise an event. Like everything, every event has a cause and therefore, the event was causally determined by something. The question is, however, whether causal determination results in an event which, in its occurrence, could not be changed by free will. Thus is the causal determination an event in and of itself which would cause the agent to only act in one way and prohibit another? This essay attempts to provide a solution which may or may not be parallel to another. It could be said that a different cause or causes resulted in the same set of event(s). For example, person A gets out of her car and goes to the door, reaches into her pocket to find she has left the keys in the ignition. An action would cause the cause of the event. Such that her husband calls her on his cell phone when she is getting out and this causes her to forget. Or, having had the urge to urine, forgets the keys in the ignition. The preceding cause could result in a changed cause. However, we are only addressing the issues of could happenings. Causal determination results in an action sure, but is it such that the cause could not be changed as well? If A gets out of her car, her husband could call and she could hang up on him and by impulse remember the keys in the car and thereby change a could-be cause of an event. It erases the action of forgetfulness and results in memory of the keys in the ignition. A could-be cause can, therefore, shown to be able to change. Theoretically, that is a solution, but when the cause has already happened, can the event be changed? Let us change the scenario. Person A gets almost gets out of her car when the husband calls. She answers and chats in the same area for fifteen minutes. Once the call has ended, one of two things can happen. A) She remembers the keys and B) she forgets the keys. Causal determination results in two-could be actions. The call could her to forget or cause her to remember. The person can do one or the other, but it is up to a person in a scenario whether or not they choose that action. Free will is kept in such a case. Once the cause has occurred the same event doesn't necessarily result. Free will can be kept in light of essential determinism, however, it can be said that free will could be kept in this case. For example, say Person B has to choose between getting a bowl for Christmas or a clock. The cause of an action essentially is the choice of choosing, free will is kept such that choice is the very definition of free will. She could choose any item for any reason. If she chooses the bowl, consequences result of course just like with the former. Argument one is affirmed, resolution is affirmed.
Free Will is kept in light of the Free Will Problem of Causal Determinism

The burden of proof is hereby upon me to convince, via propelling arguments, a case supporting free will in light of the Free Will Problem(henceforth called the FWP). In the second round(proceeding), I will present my arguments and the opposing will present his against. A rebuttal is permitted during the second round, however, the opposing must present a compelling case AGAINST FWP, but rebuttal is not required if he/she does not wish. The third round is open for myself to rebut my opponent's arguments and/or mischaracterizations of my statement. The opposing shall do likewise. Further, final round is for closing remarks and last rebuttals. From the onset, the free will problem is stated as this(1), deductively. Some person (qua agent), at some time, could have acted otherwise than she did. Actions are events. Every event has a cause. If an event is caused, then it is causally determined. If an event is an act that is causally determined, then the agent of the act could not have acted otherwise than in the way that she did. Con's burden, collectively, is to prove causal determination is binding and prohibits free will. My task is to refute determinism respectively. Definitions: Free will-The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.(2) 1). http://plato.stanford.edu... 2.) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
the most evil human being is probably very intelligent.

1. Agreed, This evil person is most likely powerful and protected. 2. we just agreed they would most likely have military support. 3. intelligence level. a) to have military support as agreed in premise 2. would require a high level of intelligence. ALSO, To be very evil and not get caught or killed would take a great deal of intelligence and deception. Thus, The most evil human is in a position of great military power and influence and is VERY deceptive and intelligent.
the most evil human being is probably very intelligent.

I honestly believe that anyone who goes into crime is a moron, no offence to any criminals out their:) 1. According to law, unless Obama had the whole US army and international support, he would with no doubt be in prison. Plus, even with that, many US troopers would abandon Obama because they are people too, with families. A pope would be stoned by the Church. 2. If evil people are so smart, don't you think they would compensate for body-guards? A missile would do the trick to wast anyone, and doubles don't usually work very well. 3. We aren't arguing the is or is not's evil, we are arguing the intelligence level of a master-mind criminal 4.It their so smart, why aren't they already in control??? Just because a person can or can't enter a position to effect people doesn't support the fact that they are smart. It doesn't take a smart man to blackmail, murder, or bribe. And are you saying that an intelligent man killing a baby is equal to a biological war begun by a retard. also, many retards are aware of what is right and wrong and of what they are doing.
the most evil human being is probably very intelligent.

1. This super evil person is probably above the police in power and authority like a pope or president, I'm sure LOTS of people would arrest Obama if they could for various evils and treasons, he is just simply too powerful and protected. 2. I'm sure other rivals would kill this evil person but he is too cunning and well protected probably by body guards, a bullet proof car and so on. He may even be smart enough to have a double. 3. This person doesn't turn from crime because he is by definition EVIL. He loves crime, torturing innocents and doing the opposite of what Jesus would do. If we put a mental retard in a room with a baby and I very smart, intelligent man in another room with a baby. and the retarded man accidentally killed the baby or killed it thinking it was harmful or some other such thing while the intelligent man thought about it and killed the baby for some "reason" like he thought it was too innocent or reflected Gods glory or the world had too many babies, or some other "reason" I think that we could all conclude that the intelligent man was more evil, not only more evil but more dangerous. The dictionary defines evil as "profoundly immoral and malevolent" malevolent is "having or showing a wish to do evil to others" Thus the most evil human wishes more than anyone else to "do evil to others" so probably tries to do evil to the maximum number of people and so he would position himself into a place of power where he could effect the most people and generate the most evil. This would take a great deal of intelligence. again, logic dictates that an intelligent man killing a child for fun is more evil than a retarded man killing a child for fun thus the most evil human would have to be very intelligent and not retarded. He would have to be well aware of what is good and acceptable and knowingly choose to violate that in order to be extremely evil and malevolent. Just out of curiosity, do you agree with the premise that the most evil human is probably very intelligent or do you honestly disagree?