BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video Games Lead To Violence

There was a study done with 200 kids, with kids the age of 10 or 11, showing that the longer they played video games, the more aggression was stored up in the kids. Children who played for longer than three hours each day had higher levels of aggression and lower levels of academic engagement. Considering the vast number of children and youth who use video games and that more than 85% of video games on the market contain some form of violence, the public has understandably been concerned about the effects that using violent video games may have on individuals, especially children and adolescents. Now admittedly that video games are not the main reason for mass homicide and school shootings because it all comes from the person's family, environment, and chemical imbalances that they might hold but like you said, "Video games can assist with the growth and development of our brain." While video games can be healthy for brain development they can do just the complete opposite in people, especially in children and adolescents, because their brains are still developing. Scientific research has demonstrated an association between violent video game use and both increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive affect, aggressive cognitions and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy, and moral engagement. Playing violent video games causes more aggression, bullying, and fighting. 60% of middle school boys and 40% of middle school girls who played at least one Mature-rated (M-rated) game hit or beat up someone, compared with 39% of boys and 14% of girls who did not play M-rated games. A 2014 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that habitual violent video game playing had a causal link with increased, long-term, aggressive behavior. Several peer-reviewed studies have shown that children who play M-rated games are more likely to bully and cyberbully their peers, get into physical fights, be hostile, argue with teachers, and show aggression towards their peers throughout the school year.
Video Games Lead To Violence

First and foremost, video games can assist with the growth and development of our brain. A recent study by neuroscientists have shown that video games have many cognitive benefits. The study has found that video gaming can stimulate neurogenesis (growth of new neurons) and connectivity in the brain regions responsible for spatial orientation, memory formation and strategic planning. Neurogenesis and neuroplasticity improvements were observed in the right hippocampus, right prefrontal cortex and the cerebellum. These brain regions are involved in functions such as spatial navigation, memory formation and strategic planning. Increasingly, the level of connectivity between brain areas is being linked to higher intelligence and consciousness.
Church's chicken is superior to KFC's chicken

=). Thanks for the round Koopin. I affirm the topic: Church's chicken is superior to KFC's chicken. Some definitions, defined from Messiah's book of Righteousness. Church's chicken- an unearthly food that is melt in your mouth delicious;not in fact old chicken wrapped in fried napkins KFC's chicken- an abomination to all that is good in this world; bland Contention 1- Church's chicken is blissful A) Amplified by the side-dishes One reason that church's chicken is just so melt in your mouth delicious is because it has a variety of side-dishes that are cooked to perfection. Things such as honey-biscuits, mashed potatoes drizzled in warm gravy, and french fries all put together to compliment your choice of spicy or original chicken, available in the forms of a tender, finger, or burger. . http://www.churchs.com... B) Signature Sauces Unlike KFC, Church's has a variety of signature sauces, such as purple pepper sauce, ranch, creamy jalepeno, BBQ, Sweet & Sour sauce (my favorite), and honey mustard. C) Tastes Better Church's chicken has a better taste due to love and care put into it, along with perfect spices fried to perfection. . http://www.churchs.com... For a biref side-note I would like you to see a fan comment: Evolet B. - "I never tried KFC or Popeye,s chicken, anyways i dont want to! There nothing better than Church's Chicken =) They have drive thru n they open until 11pm. Cajun rice yummy Fried chickens crispy / lil oily / Jalapeno chz bombers hoooot Corn buttery Biscuits delicious. " Contention 2- Church's is not only superior taste wise, but competition wise. Due to the new, KGC (kentucky GRILLED chicken), kentucky fried chicken is now a thing of the past, overshadowed and unnoticed. Church's chicken doesn't have that, thus being superior market wise. Thank you whoever is reading this debate. My only request of you is to vote not on your personal preferences, but who did the better debating. Thanks, and now to you Koopin. =)
I will not break a rule

I do believe that my wording of Rule 26 was very clear. Rule 14 could regulate what Spanish words can or cannot be said; this in no sane way implies that it could regulate what Spanish words must be said. My opponent claims that the rule only requires that I have a choice in Spanish words. How he could possibly arrive at this interpretation in English, I'm not really sure. Rule 26 rather obviously restricted Rule 14 to only allowing or disallowing Spanish words; it did not say in any way that the rule could ban Spanish words in any way, so long as choice was avaliable. In the way the rule was worded, with "may" and "may not" but not "must," the choice to say no Spanish words had to be avaliable; my opponent failed to offer such a choice to me. For an easy illustration, imagine that we have a government agency that regulates what lightbulbs Americans may or may not buy and use. This agency posts a list of lightbulbs that may be used and lightbulbs that may not be used. If this agency were to require that Americans use lightbulbs, it would be overstepping its bounds; nowhere did it have the power to force people to buy or use anything. For a real-life example, look at healthcare. It is a popular view that government has the power to regulate what healthcare may or may not be sold in the United States; however, it is another debate entirely about whether or not the government can require healthcare, and nowhere in that debate does any sane man claim that "may or may not" can ever translate to "must." In conclusion, Rule 26 stated that my opponent's rules could only regulate what Spanish words "may" or "may not" be used, broken by my opponent when he typed Rule 14, which regulated what Spanish words I "must" use, which carries an important and significant distinction. As my opponent broke a rule, vote CON. By Rule 8, vote all seven points to CON. 38. Neither debater may curse in this debate. 39. Neither debater may post any hyperlinks in this debate. 40. Both debaters must exist.
I will not break a rule

Remember, it doesn't matter how many rules I broke in the last round, since CON broke a rule in round 2. If I can prove that I didn't break one before him, I win, My opponent has made much of the fact that, in my rule 14, I made it such that he had to write at least one word of Spanish. He claims that this is in contravention of rule 26. However, if this was what he intended when he wrote that rule, it wasn't explicit in the wording. He may try and add in a "strict interpretation" after the fact, as he did with rules 31 and 36, but when I wrote rule 14, I only had the wording of rule 26 to guide me. Remember: the rule says that rules written by me must "regulate what Spanish words may or may not be used in this debate." All this says is that a variety of choice must exist in what Spanish words my opponent can use. I could not, for instance, have written: "CON must write the word 'adios'", or "CON must write 'ciao'". That would have forced him to write specific words, and would have contradicted the rule. However, I wrote instead that "CON must end round 2 with a Spanish word for "goodbye". This gave him choice: he may or may not have written the word "adios", or, if he was not so inclined, the word "ciao". Or, indeed, any other Spanish word for goodbye that can be found in Merriam-Webster. As such, that rule was perfectly in line with rule 26, and because my opponent broke it in round 2, I win the debate. Vote PRO. 23. CON must declare war on the world in round 5. 24. CON should express his love for the admin at debate.org. 25. CON must launch a Precision F Strike http://tvtropes.org... in his final round.
I will not break a rule

As Logician said, this debate hinges entirely around the combatibility of Rules 14-16 and Rule 26. By Rule 26, my opponent could not cause Rule 14 to do anything besides what Spanish words may or may not be used in this debate. Stating that something may or may not occur is never synonymous with saying that someting must occur; Rule 14 could not require anything to happen. However, my opponent typed Rule 14 so that it required me to post a Spanish word for "goodbye." Requiring the use of a Spanish word was not allowed by Rule 26. It is true that I was offered a choice between a few Spanish words. However, while my opponent was allowed to say that I may use a Spanish word that means "goodbye," or that I may not use a Spanish word that means "goodbye," he was not allowed to require such a word. The very fact that I was able to break the rule by not using a Spanish word for "goodbye" demonstrates that the rule is invalid. My opponent claims that I was "allowed" to use a Spanish word for "goodbye," then turns around and says that because I did not, I broke the rule. This is contradiction, as if I am only "allowed" to do something, I may still not do it if I do not want to. My opponent clearly means that I was required to use a Spanish word, even though giving Rule 14 such authority violated Rule 26. This also applies to Rule 15 and 16, which required the use of Spanish words with forbidden authority, although I followed Rule 16 with "Revive 2010" and ignored Rule 15 due to its exception clause. Note that my opponent fails to post an internet video, and breaks Rule 26 again by empowering his rules with requirements that they may not have. http://www.youtube.com... 35. There is a difference between "allowed" and "required." 36. All rules must be interpreted in the most strict sense possible. 37. In Round 5, both debaters must summarize the other debater's internet video from Round 4.
I will not break a rule

Rule 3 states that: "A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses." My opponent clearly broke rule 14 in round 2, by not ending it with a Spanish word for "goodbye". This debate now hinges on whether my setting of rule 14 was in contradiction to rule 26. If it was, my opponent wins the debate. If it wasn't, I win the debate. Rule 26, essentially, stated that every rule that I created henceforth had to "regulate what Spanish words may or may not be used in this debate." This is what I did in rule 14. He may have ended with the word "adios", or the word "adieu". Or, if that were not good enough, the word "ciao". Contrary to my opponent's claim, rule 26 doesn't say that I was not allowed to require that he write Spanish vocabulary. That additional criterion came later on, in rule 31. It only says that I must regulate which words he is allowed to use. He was allowed to write any Spanish word for 'goodbye' that is present in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. He did not do so, which means he broke the rule. 20. CON's internet video in round 4, as provided for by rule 33, must include a bunny with a pancake on its head. 21. CON must write the phrase "Revive 2010" in round 4. 22. CON must write round 4 in haiku form.
I will not break a rule

My opponent is an idiot, so all of his points should be disregarded. Someone on the front page agrees with me; therefore, I am right. While I was still given an option between two words, I was still required to use one of them. By Rule 26, Rules 14-25 may not require the use of certain Spanish words, as that is neither allowing Spanish words nor banning Spanish words, but requiring them, a separate category in itself. I can be prevented from using Spanish words for "goodbye," or allowed to use Spanish words for "goodbye," but I cannot be forced to use Spanish words for "goodbye." Therefore, Rule #14 broke Rule #26, and my opponent broke a rule. Round 2 contained two logical fallacies, not one. The circular reasoning is at the top of the argument. The falsely extended inductive reasoning is in my third sentence, claiming because I cannot find something, it cannot exist. Rule #31 is in perfect harmony with Rule #26. Rule #26 does not forbid doing anything that would make Rules 17-19 only able to allow Spanish words, and no longer regulate them. 32. All arguments claiming that either debater broke Rule #14 must be posted in the smallest font size avaliable. 33. In Round 4, each debater must post one internet video. 34. Neither debater may post any hyperlinks not required by Rule #33.
I will not break a rule

CON's round 2 made him sound a lot like Hitler, thus we should ignore him. This further means he broke a rule. I didn't specify which Spanish words CON had to use - e.g. he may have written either "adios" or "adieu". Choice was available. Those two words are in the provided dictionary, so CON broke rule 14. His round 2 only contained one logical fallacy, breaking rule 12. Rule 31 contradicts rule 26, as I'm no longer allowed to specify words which CON may not use. 17. CON may write "adios". 18. CON may write "adieu". 19. CON may write any other Spanish word allowed by rule 13.
I will not break a rule

I cannot have broken a rule, because I did not break a rule. My opponent has broken Rule #7 by creating two contradictory rules, #13 and #14. All Spanish words for "goodbye" that I have encountered so far are not in the required dictionary, so no Spanish word for "goodbye" is in the provided dictionary. Therefore, to end Round 2 with a Spanish word for "goodbye" would be to use a word not in the dictionary; following Rule #14 would be breaking Rule #13. My opponent has broken Rule #26. By typing Rules #14-16, he has caused them to require Spanish words to be used in arguments. However, according to Rule #26, the rules may only regulate what Spanish words may or may not be used in this debate, not what Spanish words must be used in this debate. The rule is allowed to say that I may not use a particular Spanish word, or that I may use a particular Spanish word, but it cannot say that I must use a particular Spanish word. 29. Each debater must use the phrase "Revive 2010" once in this debate. 30. Neither debater may use any words not found in an online English dictionary. 31. In Rounds 3-5, neither debater may restrict the other debater's freedom of word choice.
I will not break a rule

My opponent has broken a rule, because he cannot prove that he hasn't broken a rule, and because I need for him to break a rule so that I may win this debate. 14. CON must end round 2 with a Spanish word for "goodbye". 15. In round 2, CON must provide a Spanish translation for every English word he writes in that round (using the translation service at http://babelfish.yahoo.com...), unless doing so would lead to him breaking rule 13. 16. In round 2, CON must directly quote a Spanish-language news article, accessible online, which celebrates Spain's victory at the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
I will not break a rule

My opponent has broken a rule, because he cannot prove that he hasn't broken a rule, and because I need for him to break a rule so that I may win this debate. 26. Neither debater may do anything that would cause any rule documented with a number between 14 and 25 inclusive to do anything besides regulate what Spanish words may or may not be used in this debate. 27. Neither debater may post an argument that uses more characters (with spaces) than their opponent's Round 1 argument does. 28. Each debater must commit two logical fallacies in each round, without using any logical fallacy more than once.
I will not break a rule

0. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. If both players break a rule, the player that breaks a rule first loses. 4. With the exception of the Instigator's first round, a player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null, unless a future rule requires otherwise. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule, and an opportunity to discuss rule-breakage. Rules may not require players to do anything within specific time periods, nor may they require players to do anything outside of this debate. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. 9. All rules are assumed to only apply to future actions and rules, including the rules and actions in the Round in which they were posted. 10. Each player must document his or her rules using the numbers 11-25 for PRO and 26-40 for CON. -------------------------- 11. No rule posted by CON may discriminate between the individuals PRO and CON in any way beyond what may be required by the foundation rules. 12. CON must commit two logical fallacies in each round. No logical fallacy may be used by CON more than once throughout the debate. 13. CON may not use any words not in the dictionary, according to this website: . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Which constant should be taught in school, tau(pro) or pi(con).

Pi is a ratio comparing a circle"s circumference with its diameter, which is not a quantity mathematicians generally care about. In fact, almost every mathematical equation about circles is written in terms of r for radius. Tau is precisely the number that connects a circumference to that quantity. And tau makes things in math easier to explain things like radians easier to explain. For example, with pi-based thinking, if you want to designate a point one third of the way around the circle, you say it has gone two thirds pi radians. Three quarters around the same circle has gone one and a half pi radians. Everything is distorted by a confusing factor of two. By contrast, a third of a circle is a third of tau. Three quarters of a circle is three quarters tau. At its heart, pi refers to a semicircle, whereas tau refers to the circle in its entirety.
The Bible is against gay marriage.

My thanks to Con for initiating this debate challenge. Con has asked me to "provide at least one verse in the Bible which explicitly condemns the idea or practice of gay marriage." Accordingly, I will marshall a series of exegetical arguments to show that the Bible explicity condemns gay marriage.But perhaps a word of clarification is required here. What is meant by "explicit" in this context? And explicit by what standards? Exegetical standards? Layman's standards? Con has failed to provide a substantive definition of these words in his debate terms. Lest he redefine his terms, it appears that we're working with very lax standards.Perhaps the clearest indication of God's plan for marriage can be found in Genesis 2:23-24, which states: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."Now at first glance, there is absolutely no mention of the term "marriage" here. But first, why should the passage explicitly mention the term "marriage" in order for it to be considered explicit? A topic does not have to be mentioned by name for a statement referring to it to be explicit. Let's say that I'm in class, and I want to address my teacher. I don't have to mention him by name in order to make an explicit statement referring to him. I could say, for example, "Sir, blah blah blah." The same is true with written texts.If anything, the term "one flesh" is synonymous with marriage, so that Biblical marriage is affirmed as being exclusively heterosexual, even if the exact term "marriage" is not mentioned. This of course also means that all other types of relationships are not considered legitimate in God's eyes. Indeed the very idea of "gay marriage" was historically understood to be a contradiction.Now of course there are also other verses/Biblical arguments against gay marriage, but this will not be covered here, since those are largely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
The Bible is against gay marriage.

BOP will be on Pro to provide at least one verse in the Bible which explicitly condemns the idea or practice of gay marriage. Con's responsibility will be to refute any and all of Pro's examples.DefinitionsBible: the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion,comprising the Old and New Testaments.[1]Gay marriage: is a legally or socially recognized marriage between two persons of the same biological sex or social gender.[2]Against: in opposition to; contrary to; adverse or hostile to.[3]For my opponent's first round, I will ask that they post any number of examples which they can find where the Bible says anything in opposition to gay marriage.[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...;[2]http://en.wikipedia.org...;[3]http://dictionary.reference.com...;
The Bible is against gay marriage.

//"So it's clear that the "one flesh" referred to in verse 24 is that of a type of relationship ordered around procreation with its end goal. And of course, since homosexual relationships are intrinisically non-procreative in nature, they cannot satisfy the Biblical definition of marriage"// My opponent argues that because at one point in Genesis, go told Adam and Eve to procreate, this automatically means that that is the point of marriage. I will ask my opponent if men or women who are sterile should they be allowed to marry? Or what about older couples whoAs a further argument, consider the fact that at the end of creation, it is revealed that God said that it was good. "Good" here is a normative term, denoting the fact that the way God originally created is how creation ought to be. are no longer able to have chidren? My opponent is not arguing that marriage be exclusivly heterosexual, but that marriage is for heterosexual, young, and fertile couples. If procreation is the only requirement for marriage, then homosexuals may satisfy this requirement with in vitro fertilization or a male homosexual coupl having a womn carry their baby. My opponent's own definition of marriage contradicts his argument that it is exclusively heterosexual as homosexual couples are now able to have children together. My opponent then argues that because god said that his creatio was good after he had finished creating the world, this means that homosexuality is not normative. However as homosexuality comes naturlly in nature, if god did create the world he would have also created homosexuals. Here ar some examples of homosexuality occuring in nature. dolphins bison apes elephants giraffes lions sheep hyenas lizards dragonflies penguins vultures pigeons Homosexuality most clealy occures in nature. My opponent als provides a specfic verse from Matthew which he believes proves that the Bible intends for marriage to be exclusively heterosexual. He quotes Matthew 19: 4 Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female My opponent obviously did not read the entire passage as Jesus was answering the question of a pharisee who asked if a man could divorce his wife. Jesus in this passage was simply answering the specifc question of whether or not a MAN could divorce his WIFE. Jesus did not say anything about the concept of who can marry who. He simply answered the specific question. My opponent did not provide the entire passage as he knew that his entire argument would fall apart if he had.