BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence

Violent video games do not cause individuals to take real violence lightly. Habitual video game players are not physiologically numb to real violence. You cited a paper arguing for this conclusion with serious methodological flaws and are attempting to use it to draw a conclusion it does not actually permit. Ones physiological responses to any stimuli diminish after prolonged exposure to a stimuli. If you play violent video games or watch snuff you will have a reduced response to it. The study in question establishes quite well that video games and videos of violence are processed in the same way. I'm sure you could use violent movies to find the same triggers. The huge flaw here is that such studies assumes humans cannot contextualize stimuli. Watching hardcore porn is a different experience than having sex. Similarly, watching violence, either computer graphics, movies, or snuff is completely different than "real violence". The study in question is finding that videos of violence and video games of violence are processed as similar ways. Duh. If one wishes to properly find a connection to show such stimuli it shouldn't be done purely in a cushy lab. Have one set of people play violent video games for an hour and then rush in, point a gun to their head, proceed to beat them with baseball bats, and rape them. Do the same to the control group without the violent video game and see if there is a difference. -- Implicitly even reading this you should be horrified in exactly the same way and realize that the video game is a moot point. Humans aren't stupid. We understand that it's a video game, that movie monsters can't hurt us, and that videos are images of things not happening now and not threatening us. This line of psychological work is seriously flawed. The video game industry is massive in Japan. Seriously, that's where we get our video games. They have an astoundingly minute amount of violence. Many soldiers in Iraq and other places have grown up playing violent video games. Seeing real violence first hand they are returning with post traumatic stress disorder in droves. Nobody ever gets post traumatic stress disorder from a video game or videos of violence. Video violence, violent movies, and video games are terrible analogs for the real violence.
Violent video games desensitize individuals to real violence

Violent video games desensitizes individuals, causing them to take real violence lightly. People habituate the video game violence and become physiologically numb to it. Nicholas Carnagey, an Iowa State psychology instructor and research assistant, and ISU Distinguished Professor of Psychology Craig Anderson collaborated on the study of "The Effects of Video Game Violence on Physiological Desensitization to Real-Life Violence" with Brad Bushman, a former Iowa State psychology professor now at the University of Michigan, and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. 257 college students, 124 men and 133 women, were tested individually. After measuring their heart rate and galvanic skin response and asking questions about their video game preferences and general aggression levels, a participant were exposed to of eight randomly designated violent or nonviolent games for 20 minutes. The four possible violent games were Carmageddon, Duke Nukem, Mortal Kombat or Future Cop; the non-violent games were Glider Pro, 3D Pinball, 3D Munch Man and Tetra Madness. After the 20 minute duration, the test subjects were subjected to the same tests. Participants were then asked to watch actual violent episodes constructed from TV episodes and commercially-released films in the contexts of courtroom outbursts, police confrontations, shootings and prisons fights. Physiological differences were observed throughout the entire viewing. When viewing the actual images of violence, participants that played the violent video games had a significantly less skin response than those that had played nonviolent video games. In addition, the participants that had played the violent video games had a lower heart rate than those that played noviolent video games. The people that participated in the experiment had no discrepancy in heart rate or skin response before the beginning of the study or immediately after playing the assigned games The results demonstrate that only 20 minutes of exposure can cause people to be less aroused by violence. If you wish to verify this study or this information, go to . http://www.sciencedirect.com... or . http://www.public.iastate.edu...
Halo 3 has the smoothest in-game graphics of all time

Since the release of Halo 3, no game has matched the clear, sharp, and detailed in-game graphics of Halo 3. I debate that Halo 3 alone, stands as the highest quality game ever. Although this debate is strictly graphics based I would now like to take the time to abbreviate the success of Halo 3. Before the Map Expansion pack, which was becoming a routine Halo custom, having 2 multi-player map packs for halo 2 ( putting all CoD competition to shame ) Halo 3 had a wide variety of maps, with an in-game Map editor, in-game camera, Match re-view library, and a campaign accommodating 4 players (+online). The weapons included the Halo 2 favorites as well as reintroducing the munitions of the first Halo ~ which was such a success they remade the game. Setting up for novels, prequels and sequels Halo 3 was the surely the most notable game of the era. The broad range of character armor selection even included Extra Rare armor one needed to unlock by discovering hidden treats in the game. While others indicated the complete success of the varying difficulties. SO a player could be assured that his opponent was as involved int eh games story and fandom as he was himself. The Moderators even had an unlock-able helmet including flames on the players head. Which was a tournament award, or a credit a moderator dawned on competitors at his becking. Demonstrating the deeply immerse community of Halo. Halo was such an inspiring Game that the movie was postponed because it would have been a shame to release a movie that did not reach Halo Standards for the community. A movie we assuredly await in eager humility. So, as we reminisce of the bullets fly, the grenades sparkle and dazzle upon our screen or that of an ally/foe with a grenade upon their faces or rolling about our feet, see the High-jacking of a sky-ship, hover-ship or a jeep, and even in halo 3 the mongoose quad. Be assured, this debate will be ever in my favor. For Halo 3 had the smoothest in-game graphics ever to reach the market.
Halo 3 has the smoothest in-game graphics of all time

Well, although I would like to remind the readers: Burden of Proof always applies to both parties of a debate - Con must prove Pro is not correct* (Halo 3 does not have the smoothest in-game graphics off all time [ is his debate ]) One must remember while reading this debate, Animation and design detail do not entail a smooth quality** The amazing new maneuvers and diverse life like movements are not a contingency of "smooth in-game graphics", nor are high-quality-rendered models. The smoothness of in-game graphics is the transition of pixel resolution as they move across the screen. Because the eye can only capture some 24-32 fps, when a object moves across the screen in animation exceeding these rates, the eye does not receive the entire image simultaneously and the art becomes a blur (some pixels being recognized while others are not, so that the entire image received is in fact several separate images montaged. ) { in what way can this be deemed smooth. ] However, Last Light does look amazing... I think I lost with that game... which was a pity, because I would continue to argue that Arma, BF4, and crisis are in fact much choppier screen progressions. pity. I forfeit after the Metro example... despite all efforts.
Women can do ANYTHING men can do

Thanks to Pro for her prompt reply. Misinterpretation?Pro finds my opening argument misleading. Allow me to reiterate my opponent's entire Round 1 argument:"My opponent will have to explain why women can't do everything men can do (good luck)"Given Pro's all-encompassing position, my list of physical, social, and legal differences between men and women negate the resolution. Had Pro wished to discuss only certain issues, perhaps earlier clarification, sources, or a second sentence may have been appropriate.Women in the Military Pro claims women have the ability to fight on the front lines in the US military. However, my point was that they cannot yet do so legally. I ask my opponent to present sourced arguments to the contrary. ClosingMen and women are not perfectly identical (thank God). Pro is well aware of this and thus completely ignores most of my points. I understand and appreciate the ongoing battle for gender equality but that is irrelevant here. My arguments extend.
Women can do ANYTHING men can do

Why did you mention protate exams? When I said that women can do anytihng man can do, you knew what I meant, you troll! And, women DO have the ability to be in front-line combat for the US Army! Women's rights have been going on for God knows how long, and women have been ganing rights since 622. But, The world still sees the stereotype of women staying at home & taking care of the kids. Women are 102% equal to men
Women can do ANYTHING men can do

IntroductionsIn this debate, it is my opponent's burden to prove that women can do anything a man can do. It is naturally my burden to prove that there is at least one thing a man can do that a woman cannot. We will be discussing the matter in the strictest terms and presenting good faith arguments. No shenanigans, please. As this entire discussion centers on discerning differences, it is absolutely necessary that the following terms be defined: - Male: pertaining to the sex that produces sperm cells and fertilizes the female egg to beget offspring [1]- Female: an individual organism of the sex that bears young or produces ova or eggs [2]- Can: to be able to; have the ability, power, or skill to [3]Opening ArgumentBeing of sound mind and having been raised in a relatively socially conscience environment, I believe men and women are generally equivalent and should be treated as such. Of course, men and women are not identical and thus necessarily possess different attributes, accesses, and limitations. As far as I am aware, women (currently) do not possess the physical material or social permission to perform the following tasks: Have a vasectomy [4] Have a prostate exam [5][6] Produce sperm naturally [7] Legally engage in front-line combat for the US military [8] Vote in certain countries [9] Enroll as students at certain men-only colleges [10] Each of the tasks above can be performed by men but not women. We have 5 rounds to discuss this topic, so I will leave it at that. I may add additional arguments and elucidations as necessary. References 1. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...2. . http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...3. . http://dictionary.reference.com...4. . http://www.webmd.com...5. . http://menshealth.about.com...6. . http://men.webmd.com...7. . http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...8. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com...9. . http://e.wisegeek.com...10. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

"The actual definition of 'marriage' has been bent, shifted and twisted to satisfy the fact that people these days will tend to same-sex marry, not implying that homosexuality is new or anything (because it isn't), but simply implying that back then most people needed to be 'closet homosexuals' (secretively homosexual) because they were oppressed and their sexuality was both illegal and frowned upon."Marriage, that is the commitment between man and woman that is everlasting, originates from the church, thus the church, whether the government is involved or not, has explicit control of the definition. The church says that homosexual marriage is not marriage, thus it is not. "Furthermore, nothing directly procreative is mentioned in the definition of marriage. If anything, that would be sexual intercourse with your partner. Marriage does not immediately equal sex, and thus making that assumption is, to be quaint, quite wrong."I refer you to my previous statement. "Sex is more defined as two people of opposite sex being procreative, but even then, gay marriage is not at all directly related to marriage."I do not find sense in this statement, so I will skip over it. "It's not written in the blood or genes of humans to be homophobic, and if you think that it is simply because back in the older days, homosexuality was viewed negatively upon, become educated in this rebuttal. First off, the only reason homosexuality was so frowned upon was because the Catholic Church had power and political influence in the church hierarchy, and people believed that God forbid homosexuality and its acts, thus, this was shared between the government (Monarch) and the Church (Influence). It was also said that monarchs had 'divine right', that they were sent to Earth from God to be kings, serving as mediums. And that they spoke through God and their authority was natural and was to last as long as God did- which was again, out of the question, given the Church had more influence than the government itself. So the church and organised religion in general was the cause of homophobia- the corrupt authority within the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church permitted the open hate of 'heretic' gays and thus, the homosexual populous needed to hide themselves as homosexuals from the rest of society to prevent persecution."Homosexuality is unnatural, granted that it is found in other species, other species also rape, cannabalize, and murder one another. Thus, humans do naturally avoid homosexuality because it is not intrinsic and harmful to one's own body."Humans were 'designed' to have a desire for sex. Nowhere in our genetic code does it specify whether to men or women having sex is good or bad, because you have to be taught that- and you can be untaught that, too. Not to mention that whether you are homosexual or not is a completely natural thing."Humans were designed with a desire to procreate, plain sex (sex that is not procreative) is not relative to our nature and, in a word, unnatural as well.
Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

Oof, this is gonna be tough.Homosexual marriage is not actually marriage. Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage is and always will be a covenant between a man and a woman by which its nature is ordered toward the procreation and education of the children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something different from that. They propose the union between two men or two women. This throws out the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women from which they 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 properly.It also violates natural law. Marriage is not just any relationship between humans. It is a relationship that exists in human nature and thus governed by natural law.Natural law's most basic rule is “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” Through natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. "Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality." ~ TFP Student Action (citations below)Additionally, homosexual marriage denies the child either a father or a mother, depending on what sex is marrying each other. "It is in the child’s best interests that he/she be raised under the influence of his/her natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent." ~ TFP Student Action. WIthout a father or mother, the child will miss out on important life lessons and experiences that cannot be provided by a parent of the opposite sex that would provide that experience and/or lesson.A few quotes (from TFP Student Action):Death of marriage = "progress"1. "Opting out of marriage altogether will provide a quicker path to progress, as only the death of marriage can bring about the dawn of equality for all."-- Dr. Meagan Tyler,Lecturer in Sociology at Victoria University Who needs marriage anymore2. "The real question that should be debated is not whether gay marriage should be allowed, but rather, is marriage really something we need anymore?"-- David VakalisRedefine the institution3. "A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”-- Michelangelo Signorile, OUT magazine, December/January 1994Citations: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org... http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal

This debate is going to about whether gay marriage should be illegal or legal. Con takes the side of defending gay marriage and pro defends their own case about why it should be illegal. I, the con, will be fighting for gay marriage and the right gay couples have to marry, here is a lay out of the debate: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening Statements Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Closing Statement _________________________________________________________________________________________ Rules 1) No insulting. 2) Credible sources only, please. 3) Try to be as good with spelling and grammar as you can be, please.
Christianity is morally superior to Non-Christianity

Many Christians hold the belief that their religion is morally superior to other world views. I offer that any moral act done in the name of the Christian god is equally possible with a Secular worldview. In addition, many reprehensible and immoral things have been and are done in the name of the Christian God. The Bible is fraught with immoral teachings, as is the Christian faith. Since moral acts are able to be done equally with a Secular worldview as with a Christian worldview, and the Christian worldview has unique immoral aspects, I propose that Christianity is NOT morally superior to Non-Christianity.
Leather Sex

Since Pro has failed to provide an adequate resolution and a proper resolution, I shall attempt to provide both.Leather--verb, Informal. to beat with a leather strap. http://www.dictionary.com...;(Definition #6Leather sex would then of course mean a form of sadomasochistic activity in which one person beats the other with a leather strap while having sex with them. If one were to have sex under the threat of leathering it would constitute rape.Leathering causes pain. The sensation of pain is not good, as it is a biological mechanism intended to deter the organism from damaging itself. For it to be a deterrent, it has to be bad.Resolution negated.
THW make Ian Johnson the third string RB!

"Also the thought that he would change teams this late into the full year is hard to believe. He needs to get used to a play book." As a probable backup runningback, he should in theory have plenty of time to learn, and he only needs to know a few plays right away. In either case, the resolution does not state that this house would wait this long to make the decision, the alternative "This house would have made one of the moves I described several weeks ago" is quite valid even if it's a little late for the Vikings to do that now. The fact that the mistake was already made does not alter its status as a mistake. The rest of the round contains nothing I haven't addressed.
THW make Ian Johnson the third string RB!

It has been fun for me as this is the first debate I have hosted. Yes there are teams in the league that need help at running the ball. And based on the game on Friday the Vikings had Ian can indeed get the job done at running the ball. 50 yards in 9 plays on the first NFL game you have ever played is impressive. Again I go back to my original statement that: Ian Johnson needs to be in the third string position for the Vikings. 1. He has proven he is more than able to run the ball. 2. He is still learning, based upon the statements he made in an interview. Also the thought that he would change teams this late into the full year is hard to believe. He needs to get used to a play book.
THW make Ian Johnson the third string RB!

"The vikings have an OK pass game. Compared to the rest of the NFL they are rated poor." Poor contradicts OK in a given context. If you are not speaking of the context of the NFL in describing their pass game as OK (say, you are saying they have an OK pass game-- for a high school team) it is irrelevant. " The thing of it is, is that you are putting way to much trust that Ian can perform in the pro's." Actually, only one of my alternatives trusts that. The other one involves trading him off and letting some other fellow do the trusting. Incidentally, your entire first round, and the notion of giving him a spot on the roster in the first place, is premised around the notion that he can perform. :If Peterson was to get injured and Ian could not perform the Vikings all in all are fairly screwed. Premising the season around the injury of a player who contends for MVP votes is not a rational way to play. If that happens they are screwed anyway. Sports teams are not premised around making the losing seasons lose slightly less. They are premised around making the winning seasons win more. Whether your measure is revenue, enjoyment of the fans, or enjoyment of the owner, all would take a season in which people are in high contention for a title and a badly losing season over a moderate winning record and moderate losing record. :Because even is they got rid of Ian, the viking still have a poor short gain run team. The notion that Adrian Peterson is bad in short yardage, from looking around the internet is premised on a very small number of red zone plays in his career. He has the body to improve in that area, if need be, he likely will. With a talent like his, it's highly doubtful that he won't reduce the number of bad plays in short yardage if he gets more experience in it. Also, the Vikings have a 254 pound fullback who appears quite capable of improving short yardage performance this season. http://www.rotoworld.com... Keeping Ian Johnson around just for short yardage duties, when you aren't even certain of those from him, and apparently the coach is confident about the fullback's capability there, is silly and a waste of upside. If Ian Johnson gives reasons in the preseason to be confident about his abilities to serve as the number 2 back, act accordingly, if he doesn't, why not trade to someone who thinks they have a better use for him for something you have a better use for?
THW make Ian Johnson the third string RB!

In the statement about me "Contradicting" myself. I am not contradicting myself at all. The vikings have an OK pass game. Compared to the rest of the NFL they are rated poor. I'm sorry for not clarifying myself in my first speech. The thing of it is, is that you are putting way to much trust that Ian can perform in the pro's. Let me put this scenario into the game. If Peterson was to get injured and Ian could not perform the Vikings all in all are fairly screwed. The only way to drop to a two man Running team is to know Ian can play well in the pros. Because even is they got rid of Ian, the viking still have a poor short gain run team.