BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
videogames

Main ArgumentsVideo games have been known to cause depression, stress, sleep disturbances, and addiction. A study at the University of Gothenburg found that "people who played video games online faced a greater risk of suffering from depression...Daily computer gaming for 1–2 hours meant an increased risk for symptoms of depression in the women"[1]. Another study of 3,000 students in Singapore reported that "these heavy gamers, who played an average of 31 hours a week, compared with 19 hours a week for other students, were more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and social phobias. They were also more likely to see their grades in school drop and have worse relationships with their parents"[2]. Video games do not only worsen depression, they make people less social as well.Gaming addiction is also a problem. Addicts who game constantly slump in their seats, causing them to have back problems. Migraines, cold sweats, anger, and frustration is also part of gamers' lives[3]. When you game, your calorie outtake decreases (no exercise), leading to the gaining of weight. You limit your social interraction with your family and friends, and the effort you put into school, grades, finding a job, or working, decreases.Finally, people who play violent video games often tend to be more aggressive and engage in more fights. "numerous studies show that video games, especially ones with violent content, make teens more aggressive"[4]. Numerous studies confirm this statement, as well as showing declines in school achievements among gamers and being more prone to confrontation with their teachers[4]. To sum up, video games do nothing but make people depressed, addicted, agressive, and less happy. Sources1. http://charlotte.cbslocal.com...2. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...3. http://theweek.com...4. http://www.pamf.org...
THE FLASH V/S GREEN ARROW. Superhero Face-Off (Pro = Flash, Con = Green Arrow)

You are doing good for a first debate! Wish you good luck sire! ;)We are talking about the Flash, who can catch bullets fired at him! Why won't he be able to catch an arrow? Arrow was able to hurt reverse Flash in S01 of The Flash only because Flash (Barry Allen) had him distracted. Besides Flash can think and interpret things as fast as he can run. He can create 'fake' flashes around Arrow (Speed Mirages). Arrow won't know which one is real. When he does though, it will be too late. There is no way the Green Arrow will beat The Flash.Sources- http://www.listland.com...
THE FLASH V/S GREEN ARROW. Superhero Face-Off (Pro = Flash, Con = Green Arrow)

Dear respected opponent, it has always been in my considered opinion that experience overshadows strength. The Emerald Archer with his grey matter can outmanoeuvre the Scarlet Speedster quite easily in the similar manner as Batman did in the comics. He can use his horse tranquilizer to disable The Flash's speed. The Flash without his speed is no match for The Emerald Archer. He is proficient in several forms of hand-to-hand combat including Judo, Kickboxing and Karate. It is worth noting that he has been trained by the same person who trained Deathstroke. At one instance, he got the upper hand while battling Batman. The Emerald Archer with his trick arrows, sharp-witted mind and tonnes of experience will prove to be quite a deadly opponent for the Flash.
THE FLASH V/S GREEN ARROW. Superhero Face-Off (Pro = Flash, Con = Green Arrow)

Hey respected opponent. I think the Flash can beat up The Green Arrow quite easily.R1 - ArgumentR2 - rebuttal and conclusionThe Flash's powers - Super Speed. (Obviously)Supersonic punchInfinite mass punch (equals to the weight of a dwarf star)Can throw energy boltsWalk through wallsTime travelArrow's Powers - Fancy arrowsEven if Arrow uses an arrow that can jam Flash's speed, it won't be for much long due to Flash's super fast healing powers.I await your argument.
In Hebrew.

Have I offended you in someway? You are the one to start the debate. And you have no proof/links that god in Hebrew is doG. While I have facts that say it is not. I listed links which you probably didn't click on. Please click on https://www.google.com... where it shows that god in Hebrew is not doG. But you probably wont so I will tell you what it says. אלוהים : God אֵל : God, deity, divinity, power אֱלֹהִים : God אֱלוֹהַ : God אֱלִיל : God, false god, idol אֱלֹקִים : God בּוֹרֵא : Creator, maker, god הקב'ה : God ה' : God בַּעַל נֶחָמוֹת : God רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם : God בַּעַל גְבוּרוֹת : God מָקוֹם : Place, room, locality, location, premises, god שַׁדַי : God והים : God All of these words mean God , or something close to god, in Hebrew.
In Hebrew.

I understand your confusion, for many of my friends think the same thing. But, god in Hebrew is not doG. It is אלוהים. If you go to https://www.google.com... it proves this. And if you go on to google translate from Hebrew to English and type in doG, it comes out doG. This is because Hebrew doesn't have the same alphabet as English. If you go to this link https://www.google.com... it shows you the Hebrew alphabet and this https://www.google.com... is the English alphabet. As you can see, they are nothing alike. So the word "god" would not be in English letters, it would be אלוהים.
Facebook, your identity and privacy promotion

"It may harm someone elses privacy to add a false name, but the fact that you can't anymore defies the whole point of privacy altogether." Well first, Facebook doesn't REQUIRE you to give out all your information, the point is, WHY give out fake information and IMPERSONATE someone when you can leave it blank? Second, the point of Facebook is to be a social network tool, so it is not SUPPOSED to be anonymous. "Your choices and hence your freedom is limited by not being able to choose a nickname instead. Facebook should work based on a nickname" Where does it say you cannot use a nickname? A nickname is not false information. "Then people could choose if they want to add their real name or use a nickname instead." They already can because a nickname is not false information. "This would cancel out the conflict of privacy and identity misuse." There is no conflict. "Once again, a nickname or username should become the central focus and not the person's real name. I see a big niche market here for any Facebook competitor." First, how does that have anything to do with creating an account under someone else's name and impersonating them? Did you even read which part I was responding to? I was responding to the part where it says not to create an account under someone else's name without permission. If I went on Facebook and created an account under your name, how would you feel? "Adhering to the main topic of this debate which is, "Facebook, your identity and privacy promotion". I still vote con that Facebook, while helping people to reconnect to their old friends have similarly demolished peoples privacy by making everything publicly online and available. Hence the term, 'privacy promotion'." Again, it is not required to fill out all your information! If you don't want people to know what your phone number is, LEAVE IT BLANK! It is not a hard concept. "When FB later realized how massive they were becoming, they realized they needed to pretend what they are doing is not wrong on some levels and in the process, begin promoting privacy with nifty buttons and tools. The point here is although your FB page may be hidden by those you hide it to. Your entire life has become centralized at the mercy of the Facebook corporation who are making billions of your information." Again, you DO NOT HAVE TO PUT ALL YOUR INFORMATION!!! What part of that do you not get? They do not force you to put all your informtation! Only post what you want people to see. It is not a hard concept! Voting Spelling and Grammar- My opponent has overused the word hence, and he used it in several unnecessary places too. Arguments- I have proved that you do not have to put all your information, that you choose what information to make public. Conduct- My opponent: "Facebook, what a lame word" I think that explains the conduct point enough. Sources, I have sources Sources https://www.facebook.com...
Facebook, your identity and privacy promotion

"So? They do not make it mandatory to provide most information, why not just don't provide it instead of providing false information? If you provide false information, it may be someone else's information and harm their privacy. " It may harm someone elses privacy to add a false name, but the fact that you can't anymore defies the whole point of privacy altogether. Your choices and hence your freedom is limited by not being able to choose a nickname instead. Facebook should work based on a nickname. Then people could choose if they want to add their real name or use a nickname instead. This would cancel out the conflict of privacy and identity misuse. Hence make a nickname central, and not the real name. "That is good. Without that, I can just create some random person's account and use it. That would using their identity to do stuff, which is illegal. " Once again, a nickname or username should become the central focus and not the person's real name. I see a big niche market here for any Facebook competitor. "I already proved that they do not violate your privacy. " You made your point there. "Again, I already proved this is false. " Point made Adhering to the main topic of this debate which is, "Facebook, your identity and privacy promotion". I still vote con that Facebook, while helping people to reconnect to their old friends have similarly demolished peoples privacy by making everything publicly online and available. Hence the term, 'privacy promotion'. When FB later realized how massive they were becoming, they realized they needed to pretend what they are doing is not wrong on some levels and in the process, begin promoting privacy with nifty buttons and tools. The point here is although your FB page may be hidden by those you hide it to. Your entire life has become centralized at the mercy of the Facebook corporation who are making billions of your information. It goes to show that the easier something becomes, the more prone it is to corruption as we've seen throughout the ages. There are more ways of finding all your lost friends and communicating them. Switch now before you regret you ever joined Facebook. Facebook, what a lame word. Be the smart one.
Facebook, your identity and privacy promotion

Rebuttals Article one: "You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook" So? They do not make it mandatory to provide most information, why not just don't provide it instead of providing false information? If you provide false information, it may be someone else's information and harm their privacy. "or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission. " That is good. Without that, I can just create some random person's account and use it. That would using their identity to do stuff, which is illegal. Arguments: "Facebook need to start coming clean about the their true intentions behind the organization's motives. They need to work towards promoting actual account privacy - in the sense that your profile does not have to be linked to your actual identity - than practicing the contrary and promoting privacy propaganda. " I already proved that they do not violate your privacy. "More effort needs to be put into offering more flexibility with less imposition of rules as stated in the TOS. People are not tools to gather into one place and capitalize on so Facebook need to stop taking advantage of their position and start offering a service that is truly honest and un-commercial while actually promoting privacy than offering the opposite with ‘privacy propaganda'. " Again, I already proved this is false.
Facebook, your identity and privacy promotion

Facebook knows that the way they do business directly conflicts with user privacy the minute someone signs up so their main objective in recent years has been to defend the contrary in assuring users the opposite by promoting privacy propagande in all ways possible. For whichever intention by the largest social networking site, the fact remains that Facebook makes it compulsory to reveal your identity as stated in their ‘Terms of Service’. Article 1 of their ‘TOS’ explicitly states, “You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.” A statement in ‘direct conflict’ with remaining anonymous on the internet for guaranteed privacy.Article 2 states, “You will keep your contact information accurate and up-to-date.”. Almost sounds like a direct order doesn’t it?Facebook need to start coming clean about the their true intentions behind the organization’s motives. They need to work towards promoting actual account privacy - in the sense that your profile does not have to be linked to your actual identity - than practicing the contrary and promoting privacy propaganda.More effort needs to be put into offering more flexibility with less imposition of rules as stated in the TOS. People are not tools to gather into one place and capitalize on so Facebook need to stop taking advantage of their position and start offering a service that is truly honest and uncommercial while actually promoting privacy than offering the opposite with ‘privacy propaganda’.
The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed.

"The United States is not a tyranny."I agree, and never said it was. I was stating that it is my easier for an armed populace to overthrow a tyrannical government, and that our founders knew that. Furthermore, at the time of the writing of the Constitution the "Militia" referred to all males old enough to fight.[2]The 2nd Amendment protects the individual right to arms.[1][2]A closer examination of the chart my opponent referenced[3] actually works for my argument. For instance, Sierra Leone, at the time the data for this chart was collected, civilians were prohibited from owning firearms. Yet, Sierra Leone had 2.28 Gun Homicides per 100,000 people, only slightly lower than the United States. Furthermore, with guns in Sierra Leone numbering 0.6 per 100 people, guns were used to commit 87.7% of the homicides.When ranked by the number of gun homicides per capita, the United States doesn't even make the top 25. In the top 25 gun homicide per capita nations, not a single one has a number of guns greater than 25 per 100 citizens.In Brazil, a nation with a population roughly 2/3 that of the United States, and ranked 75th in gun ownership, has about three and a half times more gun homicides and and ranks first in percentage of homicides by gun.In fact, when ranked by total number of homicides by gun, the US ranks 5th. The top for all have populations lower than the US, and not one of them has a gun ownership rate above 15 per 100 citizens. The ownership rate in the US is 88.8 per 100 citizens.What does all of this show? First, a nation where private ownership of guns was banned had a massive percentage of their homicides committed with guns. They saw the error of their ways a legalized private ownership about two years after the data in the chart was collected.[4] The only country that had a higher rate of their homicides involve a gun was Leichtenstein at 100%, but to be fair that was the only murder in the country all year. References1. http://www.constitution.org...2. District of Columbia v. Heller 554 US 5703. http://www.washingtonpost.com...4. http://www.africareview.com...
The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed.

I appreciate the clarification. First, the United States Constitution does state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," however, this is not the only statement made in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment actually beings with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," and then follows "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The interpretation of this Amendment is in no way settled, and it may in fact be more telling of what the framers intention was by the first half of the sentence and not the last. I don't find it necessary to address the second claim, as it is completely subjective. The next claim, "in countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower," is simply incorrect. First, because the United States is has the highest gun ownership rate in the world by 34 % (http://www.washingtonpost.com...). Also, I find it worth noting that it seems my opponent is implying that the United States is a Tyranny, otherwise I don't see this statement to have any necessity. The United States is not a Tyranny. The utterance of this phrase in the last four years is nothing more than propaganda.
The the right to carry concealed semi-automatic weapons should not be infringed.

We will be using the plain dictionary definition of the word "infringed". [1]The reason for this debate, is that all 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws restricting the carrying, or concealed carry of at least some semi-automatic weapons. While the US Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.An armed populace is a free populace. Tyranny cannot gain hold where the people have not only the will but the means to throw off a tyrannical government.In countries with organized governments where firearm ownership is higher, not only are the people more liberated, but crime among the civilian population is lower.The United States should readopt the approach our founders took: An absolute liberty to keep and bear arms.References1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
God may exist

Pro relates this to the Christian God but the title is God. God - http://en.wikipedia.org... God for all practical purposes is considered to be Yahweh, Allah, Etc. Yahweh is specifically the Christian God, which was cons entire case. Deism - http://en.wikipedia.org... This is the belief that God created the universe, and is not an active part of it anymore. There is also no way to negate this theory with empirical evidence, so it remains a possibility. Con drops my entire syllogism which is summarized as this. (1) For something to not be possible it has to contradict proven facts or laws (2) God does not contradict proven facts or laws because he cannot be proven (c) God could possibly exist For God to not possibly exist, there has to be empirical evidence that is directly relative to God's existence. Since there is not empirical evidence directly related to God's existence, he still could possibly exist because the possibility of him existing does not contradict known laws or facts.
God may exist

How Come Praying Cannot Work?In the Bible it says that God will give you whatever you want if you pray.Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! I prayed that I would be struck by lightning in the next five seconds, but it did not happen. There Is No Scientific Evidence Supporting God Was Here God never left any physical evidence of his existence on Earth, and if he did than someone would have preserved it. The Bible is clearly made by man, since if God wrote it than there would not be so many flaws. Huge atrocities such as the Holocaust happened without any response from God. God Contradicts His Rules Exodus 35:2 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death There are many places in the Bible where God asks his followers to kill for example Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. According to Psalm 18:30 .... God's way is perfect. All the LORD's promises prove true. He is a shield for all who look to him for protection. This God—his way is perfect; the word of the LORD proves true; he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him. God cannot exist since he put his followers up to killing people, but that is contradictory, so God cannot be perfect, by transition there is no way the Biblical God can exist.
God may exist

God may exist (IE) God could exist There is a chance God could exist. God could possibly exist ________________________________________________________________ Possible - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.[1] (1) For something to not be possible it has to contradict proven facts or laws (2) God does not contradict proven facts or laws because he cannot be proven (c) God could possibly exist [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Mario vs Sonic

I am assuming I am taking the side of Mario in this debate because of how my opponent seems to have reacted to him originally saying, "Mario is a mental child because he kills his own people. "First of all, that is quite a bold claim by my opponent and I would like to see some evidence of this as none was presented in the first round. As I can not debate his claim as I do not know what my opponent is referring to, my argument for why Mario is better in round one will have two points. Success of the franchise, quality of the games,First of all, the Mario franchise is the number one game franchise of all time, So far, Mario has 529.882 million sales worldwide. That is more than double the sales in the franchise of Sonic the Hedgehog, with it's worldwide sales only totaling 235 million, making it the number four video game franchise of all time. Source:. http://vgsales.wikia.com...Secondly, I would like to talk about the quality of the games coming out of each of the franchise. The Mario franchise has been consistently releasing quality game after quality game. If you look at the scores for Mario games on Metacritic, it is abundantly apparent that Mario has consistently been a quality franchise with it's worst games not even sinking below 50 points out of 100 on the ranking scale. However, if one were to look at the scores for the Sonic the Hedgehog games, you will not see much of the same. Sonic the Hedgehog has eight games in below 50/100, with the lowest score being Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric at a 32/100. Not only will you find that Sonic has the worst game, but you will find that all of the games the Mario franchise has put out with scores under 75 are spin off titles, such as Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix. However, returning to the Sonic franchise, you will see that many games under 50 are main titles such as Sonic Adventure and even Sonic the Hedgehog. Sonic source: . http://www.metacritic.com...Mario source: . http://www.metacritic.com...I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttal.
This House Believes Ontology Necessitates God!

I would like to write the reply, but my back hurts too much. I would for Double_R to also skip the round and the judges can vote with regards to the first four rounds. I realize however that Double_R would not want this, and in that case I concede. So it falls to Double_R what he wants; will he allow this to end at round 4, or will he want the concession. I thank Double_R for this debate. I am very sorry, but for my pain my doctors give me some *ahem* powerful pain meds, and I am not in a state to write an argument.