BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Firefox is Better than Internet Explorer.

Let me quote NSG's comment on this debate. "I am with revleader on what he has just stated: Most Web sites are built to work best with Microsoft's IE simply because it's what sits on most PCs. That means some sites may not look quite right or may not be accessible at all via a browser other than IE. I can see your point too,abney317: Firefox offers tabbed browsing, which means that users can jump back and forth between different sites with only one window open, and live bookmarks, which show users the most recent headlines on their favorite sites and lets them go directly to those articles. " About seeing abney's point, IE has the same thing in version 7. It also has easy-to-access RSS feeds and favorites. On your argument that Firefox keeps the session going when the computer is off....that is a huge security flaw. Viruses can easily enter if the computer is accessible through the web at all times.
Are video games corrupting children

You see, even if you do have the money to support yourself and don't need to work, you are pretty much deleting your purpose in life. No one will gain anything, including yourself if your life is wasted on video games. The difference is that it's not face to face interaction. People loose their social skills such as non verbal communication. Some people even loose their sanity and think they can do things they can do in the game. You'd still think that's just one person, but it still is a problem. A reason why kids hate books is they are being forced on them. If we just lowered the amount of video games in our day to day life just a little bit it can show great inprovement. You know a boy got cancer from staring at a screen all day.
Are video games corrupting children

I agree that food is a survival need, and so is advancement and progress. Me and my dad have debated about this many times. You cannot talk about what will happen if this happens. All it is, is speculation. Yes, there are people who live in their parents basement and do not have jobs. However, to a certain degree that is the said persons fault. If someone said that they will pay all of your expenses and give you money to get things. Would you not take it? Humans have brought a lot of the problems we face upon ourselves. If electricity was ripped off of this world than yes. there would be riots. However, we would survive and adapt. If someone is completely happy with playing nothing but games, and had the money and means of supporting it. Than by all means do what makes you happy. In the since of being social. What does it matter about if you are socializing face to face or on a computer? it is still socializing.
Are video games corrupting children

Food is a survival need. We will survive without playing video games. They are destroying social skills, causing obesity, and people souks rather sit in their house all day then appreciate life. It's currupting our brains, gamers, and by that I mean intense gamers who spend their life playing video games do not do so well. Some people are quitting their jobs to play minecraft! (Stampylongnose, I like his videos but that is just insane!) Humans are becoming too reliant on electricity and if it was ripped off this earth forever there'd be a riot. That's what extreme fans do when their team looses the world cup. And it's fun debating with you too.
Are video games corrupting children

I agree that some people children in school do play video games over doing their own homework. However that is completely their choice. I know from experience because I am currently in college taking online course, and right next to me is my PlayStation 4 with destiny in it. I always do my work before playing games. Your argument targets more of the willpower of kids than weather or not the games are corrupting. It would be like saying food is bad because people become obese. Anybody can become addicted to anything. It is a fact of life, and one we cannot avoid as humans. The question is whether or not we as humans can overcome that addiction. Also it is great to be debating with you.
Are video games corrupting children

Kids are getting addicted to video games. Some of my classmates are getting 30% or under grades and they tell me they didn't study, they needed to beat their friend's high score. We did a graph of how long we played video games. Some children were reaching as high as 15 hours. Two boys who never do their homework talks every day about video games. Video game's unhealthy addiction is causing grades to fall, amount of sleep decreased, and intelligence lowered.
Are video games corrupting children

I am on the con side because of multiple reasons. I have heard that video games are corrupting the minds of children for quite awhile. Now my whole view point is that I do not thing video games are corrupting kids, nor are they "bad" in any way. I mean I guess you could use the argument that kids have (for instance) played superman and then jumped off a roof. These kind of arguments make me laugh. So just because someone is allergic to peanuts then they should ban peanuts? the kid that jumped off of the roof had some kind of ailment. Now do I think that a 8 year old should be playing grand theft auto? No, the ERSB rates games accordingly. However I do think that if a child is 15 and shows maturity for their age than yes they should be able to play such a game. There is physical age and also mental age.
Are video games corrupting children

Sad we've been debating heatedly at each other yet not one person voted. The reason I listed those two deaths however, is because the parents were so addicted to the video game they forgot their responsibilities. The kids who shot their parents were so addicted to it they wanted them out of the way to get their game back. The reason the kids get violent over a game is because they are so used to slashing and murdering they view it as normal. Nice debate we had.
Are video games corrupting children

OK, I am well aware of the studies that you speak of. As for the "certain studies" that create violent behavior. These studies have been done for a long time, and the only thing that they have is the things that you have listed. All of the things you have listed is NOT because of video games, but merely a reaction that someone (who obviously has mental problems) got mad about their parents taking away their psp or halo 3 and reacted in a horrible way. However in both of these instances it does not matter about what was taken away, it is about the child's problems. These problems are so little and happen in a ratio of one to one hundred thousand. But the media wants to inflate it to something that is not a problem. As for the couple that let their baby die. That was just bad parenting, once again it lies in the people not the thing. It is very possible that video games change your brain. As a neurology major, I understand all to well that a lot of things can change your brain. Not just video games, but the statement that violent video games make kids more violent is absurd. The fact is that people get more angry than others. I could run a study on kids that swim and kids that do not swim and say that the majority of them are angry. It does not matter that the kids are swimming, some are just angrier than others. It has been great debating with you sir.
Are video games corrupting children

It's different when you are doing it on a computer at work. You get up early, working all day doing something productive to make money for your family. People playing video games are waking up whenever they want and playing games all day wich won't help anyone or anything. Video games stop kids from studying, eating properly, and getting enough exercise. Certain studies show that most violent games tend to create violent behavior in kids, since they become blind to the difference between real life and games on tv/computer. It also blocks children from the importance of social life and causes them to be isolated! Playing violent video games a lot makes an individual's brain less responsive to violence. This leads to and increased aggressive behavior, as over time, the brain does not perceive that agression to be anything abnormal. Dr. C. Shawn Green of university of winsconsin concluded video games can change your brain. Things you used to be interested in now no longer holds any interest. Playing videos for long hours reduces sleep one gets, leading to insomia. Back pains are also common for game addicts since they are sitting in one place. A research carried out by the National Institute for media and the family says video games can increase anxiety levels and depression. Another study shows children aged 9-15 years who play mature and violent video games causes them to bully, becoming abusive, beating, or clobbering siblings and peers. Not only do gamers get bad grades, they also cut school, and even drop out. In 2005, a 28 year old man from south Korea collapsed and died of cardiac arrest playing a video game for 50 hours straight. In October 2007 a teenager from Ohio shot his parents for taking away his game halo 3. A Korean couple, in 2009, spent hours playing video games, neglecting their 3 month old baby, who died from malnutrition and dehydration. A 16 year old from south Philadelphia killed his mother in the year 2010 for confiscating his psp.
Are video games corrupting children

See, the thing that I do not understand is, what gives someone the right to say you are wasting your life on something? If someone wants to sit and play video games all day everyday than who are you to say they are wasting their life? And I disagree, you will gain something. You will gain happiness. You argue that the reason social media hubs like Facebook and Twitter do not work is because it is not face to face. That can actually be a good thing. Think of non face to face as practice. Someone typing to their friend can practice how they word/say things. Also video games have been proven to help with hand eye coordination visual acuity and social disorders. Video games have a lot of pros to them, these pros well outweigh the cons. As for the comment you made about a kid getting cancer after looking at a screen all day, I could not find a single article or news article that said anything about it. However, even if it were true, you cannot say that every kid is going to get cancer because they watch t.v all day. If that were the case than all the people that go to work everyday and stare at a computer screen should have cancer. Which brings me to my next point. If you go to a work place and stare at a screen all day working on programs and making money than you are doing something productive, than you are accepted. But if you play games all day and make money than you are cheating and not being productive in society.
should indians be illegal

"indians should be illegal because they have a big red dot on their foreheads" Not justification for them to be illegal. "i don't like indians because indians they stinky" They only stink because of the spices in their food. Their stench if present is extremely nominal. "also they shake their hands and drive on the f-cking left side of the road" I don't think they shake their hands much. Please provide a source. They drive on the right side of the road in the US if the Indian drives.
should indians be illegal

"indians worship cows" Some of them are Hindu, But not all Indians are. About 20% of Indians aren't Hindu(http://www. Censusindia. Gov. In/Census_And_You/religion. Aspx). I don't know if Hindus worship cows, But just incase they do, Freedom of religion is in the 1st amendment, So it doesn't matter. "they don't eat mcdonalds" I don't eat McDonalds, Should I be banned from the country? More over, It's unamerican and anti capitalist to force people to buy McDonald food. You have yet to provide a good reason for why Indians should be illegal.
The God Of the Christian Bible is perfect.

Counter ArgumentsPro accuses me of semantics. I don't know what he's talking about, I haven't played anything. My arguments are clear and directly aimed at his arguments. Pro claims he never implied the wall was imperfect. This is a non-sequitur. My point stands regardless of whether he implied such a thing or not, besides that he did in fact imply such a thing;"If we continue to isolate attributes apart from others it is like looking at one wall of the building and saying it is imperfect or perfect. " Yes he said both perfect and imperfect, but given the resolution, imperfection was obviously the implication I would focus on. It doesn't matter whether you focus on one attribute or God in his entirety, an imperfection is an imperfection regardless. If anything, pro is the one trying to argue semantics here. Pro claims that I twisted the sources. I did no such thing. Pro didn't specify what part of his source he was using, so I checked out his sources and assumed he was putting forth the strongest argument I saw. You can't leave your argument so ambiguous and then complain when you're misunderstood. Pro says that our actions are logically prior to God's foreknowledge, but his foreknowledge is chronologically prior to what we do. This doesn't actually rebut the issue I brought up before, in fact it's pretty much entirely self-contradictory. How can our actions be "logically" prior to God's knowledge but not actually prior? What does that even mean? And how does this fix the problem of omniscience with free will, exactly? This isn't a matter of me missing the big picture. This is a matter of Pro trying to out-run the inconsistencies I've presented, rather than countering them. ConclusionPro never actually countered my arguments, he just asserted that it all made sense when you don't focus solely on the parts that seem contradictory and when that didn't work he falsely accused me of semantics. The weakness in Pro's arguments are obvious.
The God Of the Christian Bible is perfect.

Most gracious response!As this debate has clearly turned into Con twisting words and playing semantics I will once again use the few characters I have to show the error in his response. He stated the rotten wall argument when not once did I imply the wall itself was imperfect, but incomplete and we have God Himself on trial not one attribute out of the context of the entirety of God. Second, as he chose to twist the sources instead of using them properly I will clarify them by use of the final statement of the video." Your action is logically prior to what God foreknows, but His foreknowledge is chronologically prior to what you do" It is the same issue as the building argument he has isolated a small section of the video without the entirety of the video to show context and the whole picture. So as each wall in the structure of God is perfect itself we must ask ourselves this question how can a God have so many contradicting attributes working in perfect harmony with one another? How can God be full of anger and hatred towards sin and evil, yet have perfect patience? The answer is found in the acts of God, the answer is found in the cross .[1] The attributes of God working together in perfect harmony with the acts of God cause this God to continue to be perfect in all His ways as the cross is the perfect demonstration of God hating evil yet loving man so much that He would pay for them, the perfect love of God. Once again without choice there would be no love, without love God would be far from perfect. In conclusion God has not been shown to be imperfect by Con simply twisting half truths to bring a charge against the perfect God. Not only did the God of the Christian Bible die for our sins, He died for us because of who He is: perfect, holy, and not able to commune with evil for He is perfectly good. The verdict is not guilty of imperfection for no real evidence has been presented.Thank you http://www.youtube.com...
The God Of the Christian Bible is perfect.

=======Counter Arguments=======Pro states that the main problem with my arguments is that they only focus on one attribute of God, rather than looking at the whole picture. Pro says this is akin to focusing on the imperfection of a wall and saying the whole building is imperfect. The problem with this is that if one of the building's walls is, say, rotting; then the building is imperfect. Yes, the imperfection is specifically in one wall, but because that wall is part of the building, the building as a single unit is, in fact, imperfect. This doesn't mean that the whole house should be condemned, but the house would undeniably be imperfect and as per the resolution of this debate, one imperfection is enough.In response to my argument last round, Pro links a video that makes the argument that God acts as a perfect barometer. It is always right about the weather, but it doesn't dictate the weather. The problem with this Argument is that the weather doesn't have free will. Weather acts in a predestined way, so it's not an equivalent analogy. If weather had free will, then it could act against the barometer's predictions, making the barometer fallible. If the weather does not have free will and the barometer punishes the weather every time it rains (let's just say it can) then the barometer is unjust, therefore imperfect and so the problem remains.Pro also argues that God is outside of time and sees the entire timeline simultaneously (according to his link). This argument presupposes that the entire timeline exists simultaneously on some plane of reality, which means that our actions are, in fact, predestined because they already exist and we can't escape them. Pro's own source outlines this problem [1]. =======Conclusion=======Pro's attempts at side-stepping the problem I've presented are not logically sound. God is imperfect so long as he is not completely perfect. God cannot both offer freewill and be omniscient. The resolution is negated. 1. http://goo.gl...
The God Of the Christian Bible is perfect.

Thank for your response. The problem with all of Con’s arguments thus far is the same as philosophers throughout history they isolate attributes of God and claim imperfection. Picture a building with 10 walls and each of these walls are held up by 10 poles that meet in the middle. These 10 poles are held together by a coupling in the middle. The way the designer designed the structure is everything is perfect and with one piece out of place the building would cease to be perfect. The walls and poles are the attributes of God and the coupling is the acts ofthis God. If we continue to isolate attributes apart from others it is like looking at one wall of the building and saying it is imperfect or perfect. At best the argument is inconclusive, and as Con has so graciously accepted the burden of proof we have come to a point where we have an inadequate argument against God. In regards omniscience and free will working together they actually show how huge our infinite God is. [1] The claim that you can’t have one without the other is refuted by looking at the other attributes of God, such as God being outside of time. [2] In conclusion if we are charging God with imperfection we can no longer isolate attributes from each other and forget the acts of God as the Epicurus riddle does. The only way God can be omnipotent and hate sin and not prevent it is because He also has perfect meekness, and patience, but we cannot only look at His attributes we must bring in His acts as well.( i.e. the cross) If we are going to claim a God of perfection to be one who prevents all evil, controls everything so nothing bad happens, and so on we end up with a God far smaller than the God we see in Scripture and one who is far from the perfection of the God of the Bible.Looking forward to your response! 1. http://www.youtube.com...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The God Of the Christian Bible is perfect.

=======Counter Arguments=======-----Free Will/Choice-----Pro claims that evil comes from our freewill. That is, God loves us so dearly that he gave us free will to choose good or evil and some of us choose evil. This brings up another problem. Is God not also omniscient? If we have free-will, then God cannot know everything because what is to come is still uncertain. If God knows everything that is to come, then all our actions are already pre-destined. Given what Pro has claimed, either God is not all-knowing (therefore imperfect) or God punishes us for actions that we had no choice in making (making him unfair, therefore imperfect). No matter what option, we have to conclude that God is imperfect given pro's argument here. He could always backtrack out of it, but that only brings us back to the original problem of the Epicurus riddle. =======Conclusion=======Pro's new argument satisfies the original problem, but it brings with it a whole new problem, one that's just as bad as the original. At this point the resolution is negated. I look forward to your response.
The God Of the Christian Bible is perfect.

Thank you for your response! What does the existence of evil say about God? It establishes that there is a God as a moral law giver. [1] The mere existence of evil is not enough evidence to conclude any error in the character of God. The origin of evil comes from what some call freewill, I call it choice. The fact of the matter is when choice is given there has to be consequences. According to the Christian faith evil entered through man’s disobedience in the garden. [2]Epicurus quote not only challenges God’s existence, it uses inaction as a frame for that argument. I have already clearly shown it is perceived inaction. In reality God is not only the moral law giver and Judge, He is also full of love and mercy towards man. Now if God were only the enforcer of some religious law the we could charge Him with some form of misconduct, but He is not as we see in Romans 3:21-26 He is the God who not only hates evil and has to punish it, He is a God who loves us and is willing to pay for our sins with His own blood. Furthermore, the law is a reflection of the character of God and what God is saying through the law this is who I am, I am perfect and holy and I cannot commune with evil. Without evil there would be no love because there would be no choice, only robots.[2] So what some would say is inaction because of lack of knowledge, God's Word says it is mercy because He desires all humans to come to repentance.[3] In conclusion Con has not in any way shown proof of God being imperfect. The implication is not valid simply because evil exist. The purpose of evil in the world is ironically love. Without choice there is no such thing as love, and where choice is there is the option of evil otherwise it would not be a choice. 1http://www.youtube.com...2http://www.faithprinciples.com...3http://www.biblegateway.com...
The God Of the Christian Bible is perfect.

=======Counter Arguments=======Pro's rebuttal is largely unsatisfactory. Pro defines evil as lawlessness. While this is an interesting definition, it doesn't solve the problem of "whence cometh evil" that I laid out in R1. Pro quotes Einstein saying that God didn't create evil because evil is the absence of God, but God is said to be omni-present [1], which makes Einstein's claim nonsensical given the Christian worldview. Besides, this claim falls into the questions of whether God is unable, unwilling, or both to prevent evil as outlined in my R1 argument. Whatever the case, we run into a problem that Pro will have to solve to have a shot at winning this debate. Pro claims that if God judged all of us now, we would all be in Hell very quickly. This is a non-sequitur. The problem I've presented is about the fact that evil exists and what this implies about God. =======Conclusion=======Pro was largely off-topic in this round. It seems as though he is preemptively defending points I've yet to contend rather than defending against the arguments I've actually made. As such, my argument from R1 still stands and the resolution is, therefore, negated. I look forward to your response.1. . http://www.blueletterbible.org...