BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bradley Manning. Traitor.

I am going to try my best to see this debate through to the end, though I must admit I am worried about time constraints. This is only my second debate, and the first one I participated in I failed to complete. I accept your challenge, and will be arguing that Bradley Manning is NOT a traitor. I will not, however, be arguing that he is a "hero or whatever we people call him," as "hero" and other such classifications are entirely subjective and difficult to prove factually.
Do kids imitate what they see on screen, cinema, videogames, etc. and if so should we stop it

Hello and I have limited time s I will have to make it shortYou Say "what that means is that children who play violent videos have a much higher chance of developing violent behavior."With Kids having a higher chance does not guarantee that they will become more aggressive and for a statement like that where a higher chance is incorporated there must be some sort of ratio. and you do not have to state one I am just stating that there should be one and it would have to incorporate; all children who have been known to play violent video games or television, who have actually became more aggressive, who did not, and which households did the parents explain to their children the differences.and a ratio like that is hard to achieveAnd I must now mention that I understand the aggression part of this debateNow I may add that in the evidence you present in"[4]" it states in Children's Imitation of Causal Action Sequences 7 at the bottom last paragraph that From the learner's perspective, the problem is that they observe an action sequence, and then observe whether or not the effect is elicited [1] The word elicited means Evoke or draw out (a response or fact) from someone by actions or questions: "their moves elicit exclamations of approval". Draw forth (something that is latent or potential) into existence: "war elicits all that is bad in us[2] this goes into the fact of needing to obtain a reaction for a joke or a certain "shock value" and goes with my earlier argument that it also is the parents fault if the child is to imitate what they see on television. the parents have to state to the children that the reaction they are going to get by imitating what they saw or what will happen will be a lot more different then what they had seen. from your last point said with the "OBVIOUS BARRIER" is that you conclude that children should be limited to what they watch. in the past limitations are set so things do not get out of control, but limitations are not needed when met with a compromise or a "win win" situation and all that means is that parents need to take time to talk to their children and their life
Do kids imitate what they see on screen, cinema, videogames, etc. and if so should we stop it

Greetings! The first part of this debate, “Do kids imitate what they see on screen, cinema, videogames, etc.” is largely an evidence battle. I, as Pro, will be asserting that yes, children do, in fact, become more violent for watching violent movies or television shows or playing violent video games. I feel more than well-supported by the scientific literature here. First, children who played violent video games were found to be more aggressive in the next months, regardless of nationality. [1] Although the studies in the referenced meta-analysis likely used adults, given the similarities in reactions to various social situations between children and adults, I’d suggest that evidence of video-game-induced violence in adults could also be used as evidence of video-game-induced violence in children. [2] I present two other studies which not only conclude that players of violent video games tend toward more violent behavior, but offer explanations of the mechanisms involved. [3][4] Second, there are also multiple studies indicating the same increase in aggression linked to other violent media. [5][6][7] Again, I feel as though the scientific literature supports my position here. Feel free to contest the evidence provided or provide counter-evidence for dispute. The second part of this debate, “Should we stop it,” is a moral decision. However, I believe this is easily answered by asking ourselves if we want to predispose large numbers of the future generations to more violent behavior. I think any rational person would agree that this is not something we want for the future. Under a utilitarian stance, as the benefit of violent video games (short term pleasure) does not even come close to cancelling out the potential negative outcomes (a higher propensity for war, violent crimes, overall rudeness, crudeness, and douchebaggery), I suggest that, if it can be established with reasonable certainty that violent video games, movies, and television shows cause more violent behavior in children, they should be withheld from them. [1] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [2] http://www.soc.iastate.edu... [3] http://web.missouri.edu... [4] http://lol.medieraadet.dk... [5] http://www.psychology.iastate.edu... [6] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org... [7] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
Do kids imitate what they see on screen, cinema, videogames, etc. and if so should we stop it

Only one of my arguments was challenged in the last round. Accordingly, I will only respond to it and will close this debate with a few choice words. “The American Academy of Pediatrics has shown research that a child that has been educated in the media was less likely to be vurnerable to the violent aspects of the media. It is also the idea of simple logic that when talking to a kid about something it does make it better and help them …it does not take a psychologist to talk to a child and help them separate reality from fiction. and I know that not every parent will talk to their child about what they see on television but some will and that is what makes a difference in the type of child” “A child who has been educated in the media is less likely to be vulnerable to the violent aspects of the media.” Okay, I’ll concede that. But here we have “less likely.” This indicates that there still is an effect to be mitigated. Furthermore, your comments on parents helping the child see what is and is not okay in the real world is irrelevant, for the following reasons: 1) Not all parents lecture their children on such matters. In fact, although I have not a single study to support, I would venture to say that most parents don’t lecture their children on such matters. 2) Even among the children who are lectured and taught that the actions in movies and video games are not acceptable in the real world, there is still an increase in violent behavior. At this point, defending children’s playing of violent video games and watching of violent movies is silly at best, and culturally damaging at worst. “It is also the idea of simple logic that when talking to a kid about something it does make it better and help them” You would be quite surprised to know the number of people who are not only reluctant to speak to their children on these matters, but are willing to throw logic entirely to the side for the purposes of achieving what they think will be a desired effect. Concluding remarks: Throughout this debate, I have presented multiple studies demonstrating the link between observed virtual violence and real world aggression. I have also present several studies indicating that imitation plays a key role in this behavior in children. Furthermore, I have presented very good reasons for carrying out a cut and dry procedure of restricting what children watch. Lastly, I have shown that Con’s alternatives are futile attempts at correcting the damaging effects, and are far harder to carry out and enforce. With this said, I assert, again, that not only do children imitate what they observe in video games and movies, it would be an appropriate course of action to withhold such things from said children. Thank you for the debate.
Do kids imitate what they see on screen, cinema, videogames, etc. and if so should we stop it

I Understand children imitating what they is a bad thing. But The American Academy of Pediatrics has shown research that a child that has been educated in the media was less likely to be vurnerable to the violent aspects of the media. It is also the idea of simple logic that when talking to a kid about something it does make it better and help them[1] Also I do realize that a ratio like the one I described earlier is nearly impossible to be made exact. I was not stating you had to give one. Now I know that all parents are not psychologists but it does not take a psychologist to talk to a child and help them separate reality from fiction. and I know that not every parent will talk to their child about what they see on television but some will and that is what makes a difference in the type of child[1] http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...
Do kids imitate what they see on screen, cinema, videogames, etc. and if so should we stop it

I have no new studies to present, so this round will consist entirely of rebuttals and defenses of my statements. Statements in quotes which begin a paragraph are taken from Pro’s rebuttals in round 3. “With Kids having a higher chance does not guarantee that they will become more aggressive and for a statement like that where a higher chance is incorporated there must be some sort of ratio. and you do not have to state one I am just stating that there should be one and it would have to incorporate; all children who have been known to play violent video games or television, who have actually became more aggressive, who did not, and which households did the parents explain to their children the differences. and a ratio like that is hard to achieve” This does absolutely nothing to refute my claim that children who play violent video games or watch violent movies are far more likely to act violently. The fact that an exact ratio is virtually impossible to establish does nothing more than testify to the number of variables affecting the situation. I'm sure that you will find that the studies indicate that the ratio is quite high, however. “it also is the parents fault if the child is to imitate what they see on television. the parents have to state to the children that the reaction they are going to get by imitating what they saw or what will happen will be a lot more different then what they had seen.” This, whether true or not, is entirely irrelevant. The fact is that kids ARE imitating what they see on TV, which is what is to be shown in this debate. “you conclude that children should be limited to what they watch. in the past limitations are set so things do not get out of control, but limitations are not needed when met with a compromise or a "win win" situation and all that means is that parents need to take time to talk to their children and their life” 1) Most parents are not psychologists. Given that it is not likely that parents worldwide will suddenly start reasoning with their children on matters of morality, and simply limiting violent media intake is far easier, since violent media doesn’t impart any know great benefit to society, it would be far better to simply limit children’s exposure to it. 2) The problem with assuming that if parents simply talk to their children, the children will have a lessened propensity for violent behavior after watching violent movies is that even among adults, violent media is still positively correlated with violent behavior. Furthermore, you’ve not presented evidence that parents who speak to their children about violence before or after or during a violent movie are going to produce less violent children. Extend all other arguments.
Mankind Is the Main Cause of Global Warming

Please read everything below before accepting. Full ResolutionI will be arguing that mankind is the not main cause of global warming. We will not be arguing if global warming exists or not, it will be assumed that it does; only if global warming has an anthropogenic cause. BoP is shared. DefinitionsMankind: "The human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind. "[1]Main: "Chief in size, extent, or importance; principal; leading;"[2]Cause: "A person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect. "[3]Global Warming: "Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation. "[4]Rules1. The first round is for acceptance.2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)Sources[1]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: . http://dictionary.reference.com...[4]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Disney should continue the Star Wars Saga in perpetuity

DIsney is currently producing Star Wars Episodes VII, VIII, and IX as well as anthology films that are not part of the main saga. My position is that they should end this particular saga at Episode IX and then, if they wish to make more episodes, begin a new saga or trilogy. There are several reasons I think they should do this. 1. Don't beat a single storyline to death when you don't need to. As is what happens with most corporate-driven movie franchises, the series will eventually "Jump the Shark" and run into the ground. This did not happen with the (IMO badly-made) prequels, because the problem with those films wasn't a lack of ideas, but a sloppy execution of them. The more films get churned out in a franchise, the higher the probability it will meet that dreaded "nuke the fridge" moment. If they end the saga at IX, then that moment is more likely to occur in some other story. Who wants Star Wars Episode XXIII to be the film where Luke's great great great grandchild comes across the Starship Enterprise? Better that happen in an anthology film. 2. Stories with definitive endings are much more satisfying. The Star Wars saga is one long continuous story. Episode VI appeared to be the definitive ending until VII-IX was announced, and the story of how the Jedi rebuild the order became likely to be told onscreen. If the two existing trilogies were instead two completely separate stories, one might feel differently, but as it stands, the saga is a single storyline. All stories need an ending. 3. John Williams and saga consistency. There are many things that run consistent throughout the six existing films. Only one of them (the 20th Century Fox intro and fanfare) has to be eliminated by necessity. However, the more of the format that remains consistent, the better the saga will work as a single set of films. If we end at IX, there's a chance John Williams will live long enough to complete the whole saga and provide musical consistency. If we stretch beyond IX, there is no chance of that happening.
Disney should continue the Star Wars Saga in perpetuity

Con's understanding of my arguments is flawless, but I do think the saga has the potential to develop new loose threads (or sequel hooks) indefinitely. Of course, the hardest part is to do it right. One way to do it is to plan a plot twist many movies in advance, allowing for its progressive introduction through clever foreshadowing. Plot twists have always been a major element of the Star Wars saga experience, so hopefully the writers will pave the way for many more of them as the serie goes. On the long term, plot hooks followed by reveals are the best way to hook up the audience. On the matter of loose threads from episode VI, allow me to mention one more. The consequences of the defeat of the Sith on the dark side is ambiguous. Since the Force still visibly exists, so should the dark side, so it's only a matter of time before we see people use it on screen. For now we still don't know who are going to make use of the dark side; maybe Luke will, but since the old Jedi Order steadfastly refused to use or teach the dark side it's unlikely the new one will. Another possibility is that there are Sith survivors who continue to practice it and to take up new disciples. Or maybe the dark side is going to be spontaneously rediscovered at some dramatic moment in a later installment of the saga. No matter what is going to happen, it is undeniably a loose end from the original trilogy, and I expect to see an answer for it on screen. Of course, to continue the same saga in a way that make sense, there must be a logical connection between the movies. Unresolved loose ends are one, and so is the trilogy format, among others. But apart from these, they are still free to push the story in whatever direction they are comfortable with, and doing so is not harder than adding the relevant loose threads where they are needed in order to take the saga is whatever direction the writers want it to. As long as the audience likes it, of course! In conclusion, I continue to postulate that continuing the same saga indefinitely is an excellent way to reach the audience, because sequel hooks are the best way to get fans to watch the next movie, and because the saga, being the main installment of the franchise, innately has the best format to use hooks. I appreciated debating with you, AaronMC. I thank you too and I look forward to reading from you again.
Disney should continue the Star Wars Saga in perpetuity

Pro has brought up many agreeable points that unfortunately do little to strengthen the case for an indefinitely continued saga, so for my concluding argument, I'd like to review how Pro's latest rebuttal relates to the problem at hand and see what we can determine. Pro argues very sensibly for the Star Wars franchise to continue indefinitely. I am in complete agreement, as is evidenced in my opening argument when, instead of suggesting that Disney shut down Star Wars after the conclusion of this saga, I suggest they begin a new saga or trilogy. Where Pro's argument becomes problematic is when it hinges on a conditional that is actually near impossible to be true. The conditional is: "If it logically follows from one movie to the next, and there is an advantage to watching all of them in sequence, it clearly can be the same saga." The conjunctive antecedent of this conditional is only true *when there are loose threads*. Watching the saga in order of Episode number leaves us with only two loose story threads at the end of Episode VI: A power vacuum that needs to be filled and only one trained Force user in the galaxy. Once the power vacuum is filled in a fixed way and the question of the renewal of the Jedi order is settled, there's no more story to tell. The only exception is if there are *new* story threads left loose once these things are accomplished. If this kind of pattern continues indefinitely, with the ending of one story overlapping the beginning of another, the audience will always be left wanting to know what's going to happen next until the saga becomes unpopular enough to end it. At that point, you'll have a saga that dips in quality at the end. However, ending the saga at the first tying up of all loose threads and then beginning a new one will avoid this situation. It will also free the creators of the new saga from the formal restrictions of the old, allowing more creativity and freshness into the series. In conclusion, Pro and I both agree that the Star Wars *franchise* should continue indefinitely, but for reasons already explained, the best way to do this is through multiple sagas or trilogies (along with the anthology films) rather than a single saga trotted out to the point of mass distinterest. It was a pleasure participating in this debate. Thank you for reading and thank you, Network, for taking up the Pro position.
Disney should continue the Star Wars Saga in perpetuity

Now that we have elaborated on Con's arguments, on my counter-arguments and on his counter-counter-arguments, I think it is time to introduce positive reasons to make Star Wars a long runner in the first place. 1. They may still attract the audience that was captivated by it and wish to see a sequel being made. Most fans are receptive when their favorite show gets a canon sequel, at least until they see it. Star Wars may date back from the 1980's, but the universe still has many strong adherents to the franchise and even more casual watchers who are more likely to watch future movies than to read extended universe material (especially since the main saga's canon takes precedence over the extended universe's canon). There is an expectation from the audience that, if a story has an obviously sequel hook that is fun enough to have its own movie, and the movie itself was well received, a sequel will eventually be made. 2. Because Star Wars has so many fans, it can certainly pay itself from one movie to the next as long as the saga remains good. This is the basis of what is called a cash cow franchise, after all. While the name has a pejorative tone, there is not fact nothing intrisically bad about it, as long as the audience thinks paying to watch the movie is a good investment. In a sense, I'm saying that as long as the serie remains sufficiently good and continues to make money, there is an undeniable advantage for Disney to keep making it. And who knows, maybe they can use the money to promote even better movies? 3. Long runners can obviously exist on different medias. I chose the examples of Spider-Man and Doctor Who to reflect that. Doctor Who is a TV serie, so a new episode can be made once a week. Spider-Man is a comic book, which can be released once a month. In general, a long runner retains the format it originally had, other formats being used for extended universes, alternate universes, and reboots. Terminator, for example, is nearly as old a franchise as Star Wars and the first installment of its new trilogy has just been released. For now it's too soon to know if that trilogy will end the whole serie or if they will just find a different way to twist the serie and keep it running. 4. If it logically follows from one movie to the next, and there is an advantage to watching all of them in sequence, it clearly can be the same saga. The second trilogy can be watched separately from the first; both make for great story. But together, the stories make more sense (and are far more interesting) than alone. So could it be from the following trilogies.