BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Violent video games cause increased aggressive behavior

1. Meta-analytic reviewsCon claims that meta-analytic reviews show that methodologically superior studies show that video games do cause violence. However, many meta-analysis studies which show that there is a link between video gaming and violence are plagued with publication bias and methodological problems, such as citing studies which were not published or selecting certain studies and ignoring others. (http://www2.psych.ubc.ca...) 2. Non-Laboratory resultsA survey is not a study: it can be affected by the personal biases of teachers and students. As the teachers knew which students whose violent behaviors they were rating, the survey that pro cited was not sufficiently blinded. (http://drdouglas.org...) Also, many experts, parents, and paediatricians agree that violent video games do not cause violence. (http://www.theguardian.com...) If the survey that pro cited were to be counted as valid evidence, then this should be too.One of the methodological flaws of using labratory results is that the violent clips and video game content are often served to the groups of youth outside of their contexts; the entire narrative of the violent work of fiction was not provided. This is different than in real life situations. (http://www.independent.co.uk...)3. Crime RatesPro claims that crime rates decreased in spite of violent media becoming more popular. I propose an alternative idea: violent media has nothing to do with crime rates. Studies have shown that the one thing that correlates with crime is gasoling lead levels. (http://www.ricknevin.com...)
prochoice folks should agree: babies born during botched abortions should be finished off

what difference does an inch make? if they are allowed to kill inside, why not outside, if it was merely a mistake? you provide a meaningless distinction, less than an inch etc. to use your example, a person is not allowed to kill the homeless man in the house. they must kick them out, call the police, perhaps in some cases go for eviction etc. sure, lethal force is allowed sometimes, but only when there is no other option. to follow your reasoning fully, the baby should be merely removed, and if it dies, so be it. so, is the only reason the baby terminated so as to avoid the suffering that would be involved, and perhaps deformed growth? if that's the case, there's no reason it couldn't happen outside of the womb. here we're not talking about soverignty and risk to the mother. we're talking about termination for other purposes. if lethal force inside the womb is permissible, outside should be. and if it's not permissble, it could very well apply the other way too. if we dont want to go down the road of not making it permissble, we still have consistency and other policy considerations to evaluate as mentioned. you've not demarcated a significant point for why lethal force is okay inside the womb, but not outside.
prochoice folks should agree: babies born during botched abortions should be finished off

A woman's right to an abortion is based off of her being sovereign over her most personal piece of property, her own body. If you throw a homeless person out of your house knowing full well they have little chance of survival on the streets it is not considered murder. It is your house and you have the right to kick them out. Similarly a woman has a right to kick the baby out of her womb. But once it is out of her womb she has no right to demand its death. If the baby manages to survive outside of her womb then it has a right to life just as the person evicting the homeless person can not follow the homeless person afterwards and kill them if they manage to survive. In the future artificial wombs may be possible and then that should be required for women who want to end their pregnancies. That way the woman's right to her own body would be preserved and at the same time the baby's right to life would be respected and we can all be happy.
prochoice folks should agree: babies born during botched abortions should be finished off

Because before viability there is no chance of the fetus surviving anyways, so it should not be put through unnecessary suffering. And in some cases the means of removing the fetus may mean the fetus dies and modifying the means so the fetus may live may pose a threat to the health or life of the mother. As for sovereignty not being an issue outside of the womb. You're right it's not an issue. Hence why in a botched abortion the doctors should try to help the baby survive if the baby has a chance. If not the doctors should give the baby euthanasia. Saying so does not support pro's position since I only support ending the baby's life if there is no chance of survival. Otherwise the baby should be given a chance to live and given all the medical support the doctor's can. The woman need not be on the hook for those medical expenses and should be able to leave after the abortion and not have to even know if the baby survives or not.
prochoice folks should agree: babies born during botched abortions should be finished off

it is possible to remove the baby without killing it. they do it all the time, kill it, inject drugs into the mother, and induce the baby to come out. you continue on about how it's her right to soverignty. i'm not arguing against abortion, though. you just argue it for no reason. you in fact ignore my points about soverinty not really being an issue, when the baby could be removed. or even if it couldnt, if it's a 'botched abortion' and the baby is outside the womb, teh soverignty issue isn't there any more. con basically has continued to give no meaningful or signfiicant distinctions for why termination is permissible inside the womb but not outside.
prochoice folks should agree: babies born during botched abortions should be finished off

Pro makes a valid point about suffering. In cases where certain death that is to say terminal illness results from the baby being removed then euthanasia to end suffering could be justified. Otherwise the baby should be given a chance of survival. Pro completely ignores my line of reasoning. A woman's right to an abortion isn't about some sort of right to kill, it's a right to sovereignty over her own body and the death of the baby is incidental to that. Hence if it were possible to remove a baby from the womb starting from conception without killing the baby then the law should require that. Unfortunately that is not currently possible. For another example if someone were about to die unless you were hooked up to them you would not be legally required to do so, because your body belongs to you. Similarly requiring a woman to provide nutrition and sustenance to a fetus as well as a risk to her own health (as people still die from complications related to pregnancy and childbirth) violates her right to bodily autonomy.
Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

A societal acceptance of same sex relationships gives vulnerable children the impression that same sex relationships are good, moral and healthy. Not only does the Bible condemn such behavior, but medical professionals have affirmed that these kinds of sexual relationships are unhealthy. A society that accepts immoral relationships cause children to stumble into immorality. Jesus Christ said that "if anyone causes one of these little one"s to stumble, (sin) it would be better if he put a mill stone around his neck and throw himself into the sea." Matthew 18:6 Acceptance of these unnatural acts sets a society up for gender and sexual confusion, which brings about widespread immorality, which tears the family down. Logically speaking, if everyone"s sexuality was expressed heterosexually, then humanity will survive and perpetuate our own kind for generations to come. But simply put, if everyone"s sexuality was expressed homosexually, we would go extinct. Therefore homosexuality is counter productive to the survival of the human race. Children need the stability of a traditional family. Children need a real male Father and a female Mother for proper and healthy development. Naturally speaking, there is the necessity of each of the male and female contributions to a child"s life. (It has already been proven that boys without fathers end up in jail and practice destructive behaviors a great deal more than those who have fathers.) The vast majority of the public knows instinctively that it would be better if both parents are present in a child"s life. Once concealed research shows that a child who is brought up in a homosexual home may be more likely to engage in homosexuality. But is it loving to expose children to the predominantly damaging lifestyle of homosexuality? If homosexuality can be learned, what does that say about the argument that people are born that way?
Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

I love that you brought out primative habits and biology. It was found that giraffes had high homosexual tendencies where 94% of giraffe sex is male on male, 1% is female on female, and 8% is heterosexual. Laysan albatross is a species of bird that mates for life and on one of Hawaii's many islands, 31% of 'marriages' is female on female. The best part is, they rear children because they allow males to procreate with them and then rear there child like any other pair does. The need to procreate has also led to homosexual acts. Many male bugs have sex with other males and then plant there sperms on them in hopes they will soon do the second to a female and by chance get her pregnant with its sperms because of luck and sperms egg contact. People have reached a point where males feel pleasure so we have a reason to want to have sex, why our sex drive is high in early years. Men have their climax for a huge psychological push to have sex and children. Women have orgasms that if man can make her feel good, then she will want to stay with him and bear more children. Penguins are also at a similar state as they have pleasure so they have a reason to have sex. This has led to female Penguins committing themselves to one another for the week mating period that heterosexuals would. In that time they are encouraged to have sex with one another has the females stimulate each other more than males.
Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children.
Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

Gay marriage is a human right. You can't stop loving someone so why should you not be allowed to be in the greatest show of there love, promising to be with them forever. The biggest part of marriage is the love, so why shouldn't America, a place where Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution, seen in the First Amendment, not allow it. Many religious scholars have started to point out how in Sodom and Gomorrah, God didn't kill them for homosexual acts, which by the way, the term homosexual didn't become a word until the late 1800's, God killed them for gang rape, a widely yet horrible crime that was very usual in this time.
Gun control

You make some interesting points. Another group of people we should keep guns away from are mentally insane or ill people because they don't know what they are doing with them. The shootings at Virginia Tech, Tucson Arizona, Aurora Colorado and the Sandy hook shootings were done by mentally Ill people. Also a total of 61% of gun homicides are done by Mentally ill people. http://frontpagemag.com.... I hope you respond this time.
Gun control

First my opponent said that people who want guns will simply steel guns on the black market. So basically what you're saying if people are going to break a law why have that law? Does this apply to murder too? People break that law any way, A lot of times with gun, with no regulations on them. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com.... There is the source for the 40% of felons go back to prison, but thats not my point. My real point is if you're felon you need to pay the price for your actions for the rest of your life. You also shouldn't have a gun because you're still a risk to society because we know you have the ability to commit a bad crime. You also said that Norway has the lowest crime rate in Western Europe but Norway also has an assault weapon ban and also you must go through a test to obtain another type of gun. http://en.wikipedia.org.... I got the source that time for you. You said the government shouldn't be able regulate guns because it would give the government too much power, I agree that the government should have less power than it does right now, but I still think they should have the power over gun regulations. They should because one of their jobs is to protect its citizens and they should be doing that by taking the guns away from the crazy people we have in our country.
Gun control

I would like to see that statistic on the homicide rate going down in the UK. When debating it's good practice to cite things.Here is a nice peice of counter evidence, http://i.dailymail.co.uk... "Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not." (1)Background checks are would be ineffective and only a burden on the tax payer and law biding citizens. People intending on breaking the law, would simply buy them on the black market. To that point you made about convicts getting sent back into prison, 40% is less than half, I don't think that punishing the majority of felons without a basis is good policy. (I'll be waiting on that source too)It would only seem logical, if i was going to kill someone, I would want them to be unarmed to make my life easier. You can't legislate morality and gun control only makes violent crimes easier to commit. A harvard study stated that "...Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate."If there is a demand for a product and the product is prohibited or restricted to hell, then the black market will provide. I don't feel like any more needs to be said about that.The second ammendment arguement is honestly irrelevant and you were misparaphrasing the 2nd ammendment. For the readers "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."- (Directly from archives.gov) I assume you're talking about a federal ban or a federal mandated background check, and the constitution strictly grants all "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."(2) So even to the lamen, the federal government does not have the power to do so, even by a paper I despise because it gives too much power.Sources:(1)http://theacru.org...(2)http://www.archives.gov...
Gun control

Thanks for the tips and the acceptance of the debate I do have many reasons why gun control will work and keep our country a safer place. Reason #1 Background checks. Background checks will keep guns out of the hands of lunatics and mentally ill people who don't know what they are doing with the guns. Lets say you have a felony on your record and you want to buy a gun. You should be denied because of your history and there has been a study that states 40% of released felons find them selfs right back in prison. Reason #2 Other countries have gun control that works. In Australia after gun control was put into place in 1996 homicides have dropped 59% and there have been 0 mass shootings. In the U.K an assault weapon was put in place and the same thing happened, homicides went down drastically. Also in Japan has gun control and only 11 people were killed by guns last year opposed to 12,000 in the U.S. Reason #3 Misunderstood amendment. The second amendment is greatly misunderstood, the amendment reads" People have the rights to bear arms under a well regulated militia". Key word in that amendment is regulated, so yes the constitution actually does give the government the right to regulate our guns.
Gun control

It would be productive to state what your utility is for saying one thing is better than another. And if more gun control would produce that effect then it would be deemed superior. Safer doesn't suffice in my opinion. Also i think it would be good to state what is your specific definition of gun control, such as stricter background checks, no gun permits at all, or whatever your preferred method of gun control is. I assume the burden of proof would be on both parties since it was not stated otherwise. Thanks for the debate in advance.
Agnostics vs Atheists

Alright then "RE: "An atheist strictly denies existence or the possibility of existence of all deities period." Correct." Yet, an agnostic doesn't deny anything, but just claims to lack knowledge. Now, you made a sneaky attempt to try and coin the term "agnostic atheist." However there is a difference between an "agnostic atheist" and an atheist. You see, where an atheist is in strict denial, an agnostic atheist simply doesn't "believe" in a deity, but claims to lack definite knowledge of this and therefore opens up the door for possibility. Atheism alone doesn't imply knowledge or lack of knowledge, just lack of belief. Mere lack of belief without knowledge to back it is just like belief without knowledge to back it: it's an argument of ignorance. Perhaps atheism and agnosticism aren't contradictory, but that still doesn't make them equally sensible. Atheism comes in many variations, and although agnostic atheism is one of them, gnostic atheism is another.... Let's ask ourselves this question: Do ANY deities exist A pure theist would say yes, a pure atheist would say no. But why? Well, the truth is we don't really know, so both claims would lack evidence to prove such a thing. Logic favors agnosticism. And though agnosticism would be logically sound without the addition of atheism, atheism isn't logically sound without the addition of agnosticism (hence the term "agnostic atheism") :) Well that's all the time I have for now. Peace
Agnostics vs Atheists

RE: "You cannot be both an agnostic AND an atheist because the two are contradictory (otherwise I don't think they would be two separate categories)." http://en.wikipedia.org... http://atheism.about.com... Quote from second source: "Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism. " RE: "An atheist strictly denies existence or the possibility of existence of all deities period." Correct. RE: "An agnostic says there is no proof for or against the existence of a deity, so we really don't know (therefore the existence of a diety MIGHT be possible)" Absolutely. However, ask yourself something: How do these two definitions contradict each other? For instance, if I deny the existence of someone more arrogant than myself, but admit that it is possible . . . would you claim I was contradicting myself? Or better yet, if I told you that I did not believe that I'd win the lottery with my lottery ticket tonight, but admit that winning was possible, would tell me that my claims can in no way be made together? What I'm dictating is that the case is the same here. Atheism is merely the lack of belief [I would say "doesn't believe or believes not", but I don't feel like being dragged into semantics in the comment section. ;) ] in a deity; it is not the claim that a deity absolutely doesn't exist or that one KNOWS without a doubt that this is the case. What my fair opponent is thinking of is gnostic atheism. RE:"I am arguing that it is more sensible to be agnostic simply because atheism is built on an argument of ignorance. It assumes that because no deities have been proven to exist, there are no deities. That's almost like saying just because we haven't seen or proven the existence of extra-terrestrial life that means that there are no such things as aliens." Not at all. People in general have all sorts of reasons for becoming atheist. There are some who are atheist because they believe they themselves have proven God to be nonexistent (i.e. Ragnar Rahl). Heck, one of the most recent debates on this website is from someone who believes they have disproven theism. My opponent's problem is with certain atheist and not atheism itself . . . ergo, his argument is revealed to be the red herring fallacy in action. RE: " Keep in mind that whatever we deem a deity doesn't necessarily have to have created the universe or even be responsible for the creation of life. It just simply must have immense power and be immortal." Oh absolutely. Though how is this relevant? RE: "For what I know, we're not so far off from being deities" If that is the case, then by my opponent's rendering of the subject. agnosticism would be equally faulty granted that it is insisting that there is no evidence to make a conclusion, in spite of the evidence clearly being in front of us (quite literally). And that'll do it for now.
Agnostics vs Atheists

You cannot be both an agnostic AND an atheist because the two are contradictory (otherwise I don't think they would be two separate categories). An atheist strictly denies existence or the possibility of existence of all deities period. An agnostic says there is no proof for or against the existence of a deity, so we really don't know (therefore the existence of a diety MIGHT be possible) I am arguing that it is more sensible to be agnostic simply because atheism is built on an argument of ignorance. It assumes that because no deities have been proven to exist, there are no deities. That's almost like saying just because we haven't seen or proven the existence of extra-terrestrial life that means that there are no such things as aliens. Keep in mind that whatever we deem a deity doesn't necessarily have to have created the universe or even be responsible for the creation of life. It just simply must have immense power and be immortal. For what I know, we're not so far off from being deities ;) I rest my case for now. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Agnostics vs Atheists

Greetings. I would like thank my opponent for starting this debate and wish him the best of luck in the proceeding rounds. Whereas my opponent believes that it is more sensible to be an agnostic, I negate this by pointing out that my opponent is comparing apples and oranges. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a deity whereas an agnostic is one who claims to lack knowledge (or to be more precisely, evidence that there is a deity). Basically, one can be an agnostic AND an atheist as belief and knowledge are not the same. This would make any comparison pointless and allow us to conclude that they are at best equal since neither is truly better. Additional contentions may be provided in the next round depending on my opponent's response. Ta Ta for now. :D