BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Riparian landowners should allow the public free access to their property

Thank you for this debate, and although at this point there will be two debates between us, I hope to enjoy each one of them. Good Luck! I agree to your definition and choose not to be abusive. . http://www.telegraph.co.uk... My first argument is that how can you call the rich people bad and at the same time forget the rest of the people, those who aren't as rich, who own the property individually and want some privacy in their gardens? Secondly, at present, 70 per cent of the English coast is accessible therefore your argument about the injustice of the status quo is not a pressing problem. Thirdly, you make it seem as though the people should all be treated with respects and therefore get their birthrights? Correct? Well, if so, then why are you infringing upon the right of the people who own coastal property? As the bill goes, the people won't get compensation for the land they loose therefore the bill is being hypocrite and unjust. Finally, the birthrights are not ability to go on someone else's land and steal it from them, the right are the ones of freedom of speech, the ability to be treated fairly with justice and equality based on race and gender etc, not as what you define it. Also, because you are infringe on the people who own the property you must also infringe upon the government's property, yet, the bill isn't designed to do that now is it? So all in all the bill is being unjust and we can see that the history of the government that takes people's property without compensation must therefore be disallowed to do again. Ask your self, is the bill fair? No! Should the bill be rewritten? perhaps, but the debate at this point must be on whether it is fair or not.
I will not contradict myself(I promise)

1. Do you like to sing?No.2. What's your name?My name is Chris3. When was the last time you ate pizza?I cant remember 4. Would you ever betray a friend?No.5. Do you take notice of the time?sometimes6. Do you like mooting?I do not know what this is. So i say no7. If someone assaulted you, what would you do?I throw my money in the opposite direction and run. 8. Do u liek mudkipz?Yes9. What is your favorite color? blue10. What is your favorite painting?http://www.funlol.com...
I will not contradict myself(I promise)

Ok.1. Do you like to sing?2. What's your name?3. When was the last time you ate pizza?4. Would you ever betray a friend?5. Do you take notice of the time?6. Do you like mooting?7. If someone assaulted you, what would you do?8. Do u liek mudkipz?9. What is your favorite color? 10. What is your favorite painting?
(MiG Tournament) Exclusivism is Sound Christian Doctrine

Many thanks to KRFournier for the debate. Thanks to MIG for the tournament.Points of noteJust to be perfectly clear to the reader, we're obviously presuming the existence of God in this debate. Furthermore, I'll tend to be arguing based on the traditional conception of Hell (I don't agree with this totally, but KR does, and exclusivism doesn't benefit based on the traditional conception... that's for later though) being presumed .One other point is that it's best for the reader not to get stuck on semantics here. For instance, a debate over the purpose of doctrine is likely to be a side issue in this debate.Finally, I have one thing to state - although R2 is not to be used for rebuttals, it is possible that my arguments may lend themselves to countering KR's naturally. Basically, my intent will be to provide arguments that contradict with KR's, although these won't be rebuttals per se.I hope the above doesn't confuse anybody. Let's have a good debate!
(MiG Tournament) Exclusivism is Sound Christian Doctrine

This debate is part of round 4 of Man-Is-Good's Debate Tournament.SynopsisThe resolution should also be understood to read, "Does the Bible teach Exclusivism or Inclusivism?" In other words, Logic_on_rails and I have agreed to share the burden of proof. We will each make positive cases for our respective positions. I will be arguing for Exclusivism and Logic_on_rails will argue for Inclusivism.DefinitionsInclusivism – The position "that even though the work of Christ is the only means of salvation, it does not follow that explicit knowledge of Christ is necessary in order for one to be saved." [1]Exclusivism – The position "only faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible leads to salvation or heaven." [2]Sound - Based on valid reasoning. Free from logical flaws. Logic of or relating to an argument in which all the premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises. [3]Christian - Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents. [4]Doctrine – A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma. [5]RulesThe debate shall adhere to the following structure:Round 1: Acceptance, Rules, and DefinitionsRound 2: Opening Statements, No RebuttalsRound 3: New Arguments and RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and Closing Statements (No new arguments)The only rules I insists upon are the following, but I will accept any reasonable clarifications or amendments Logic_on_rails might choose to provide in Round 1. Arguments and source citations must appear within the four rounds of this debate only. Arguments and citations may not appear in offsite links, other debates, forums, or comments. Dropped arguments are not concessions. Arguments should be seen as whole units from opening to closing statements. Sources http://www.theopedia.com... http://www.theopedia.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Violent games lead to violent actions

I personally do not play violent video games regularly, but I have watched many different gamers play a plethora of violent games, ranging from CS:GO to Grand Theft Auto. If you look at how people react or express themselves while playing these games, you can notice a well-defined trend of screaming, cursing, and in extreme situations, attacking/hitting something. If you are thinking that this is just because of the competitive nature of many violent video games, you are misinformed. Honestly, you cannot tell me that you get the same reaction from dying on CupHead and dying on a tied CS:GO game. This is because the flashes of gun muzzles and blares of gunshots creates an environment that simulates yourself inside the game, as the game developers want you to be. Everyone gets immersed in a game that stimulates all of your senses and in one where you are able to do things that you wouldn't be able to do in real life. This is how Grand Theft Auto attracts so many players, as you can shoot guns at people, speed in fancy cars, go parachuting from the sky, break into stores, break into the military base, go to the strip club, and so much more. This draws a gamer into the game, and they get the realization that you can do all of this in real life, but many do not think of the consequences, ranging from killing yourself to killing others around you. This is why violent games should be restricted to a certain point around growing teens and youths, as they cause them to think that the world is just like the video game they play.
Violent games lead to violent actions

I love video games, but does the high violence sometimes you violent ? No that"s a load of nonsense of course it doesn"t. But that"s what some people actually believe, and today I"ll tell you why some people believe it and why some don"t. By the age of seven, Yes SEVEN! You can tell the difference from fantasy violence and real world violence and when you play and watch more violent content that skill grows greater and seriously who on earth will just start thinking they"re hitman and start running around doing flips off cars and shooting people. And I"m not just talking nonsense here is proof from an American newspaper article: Playing violent video games does not cause kids to commit mass shootings. Over 150 million Americans (and 71% of teens) play video games. There have been 71 mass shootings between 1982 and Aug. 2015, seven of which (9.8%) involved shooters age 18 or younger. Some people think that violent games lead to violent actions and this is why: their exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. In a study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Jeanne Funk, PhD, Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at the University of Toledo, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. I stand with video games for life.
Violent games lead to violent actions

I completely agree with nicksto99, Cameron's argument focuses on video games as a whole, not specifically violent video games. Also, I don't believe that coming up with an argument should just be limited to copying and pasting a news article. The American Academy of Pediatrics warned that violent media set a poor example for kids. Video games, the academy noted, "should not use human or other living targets or award points for killing, because this teaches children to associate pleasure and success with their ability to cause pain and suffering to others." With examples like GTA V, you get money for killing someone, allowing you to purchase more guns, vehicles, and ammo to kill even more people. Further than that, in that game, you can go on missions where you smuggle out drugs, rob banks, and be chased by police, all to be rewarded and encouraged if you accomplish those goals. Think about how these achievements can affect people, especially growing youths. You don't want people roaming around the streets with the belief that shooting someone or robbing a bank is good, just because it is in a video game. If you look at youtube or twitch gamers that play violent video games or games where you kill people, it is so common to see cursing, shouting, and raging.
Violent games lead to violent actions

People have the will to control their anger whether they do or don"t is a matter to blame themselves for not to blame something and playing violent games make you smarter. ( https://www.theregister.co.uk... ) A meta-study carried out by the American Psychological Association has claimed that playing computer games has many positive effects on children and, in some cases, the more violent the game the more beneficial the effect. The research, published in the latest issue of American Psychologist, found that modern video games are much more socially orientated, thanks to the growth on massive online gaming environments, and that certain types of game can help kids learn problem-solving skills and creativity. "Important research has already been conducted for decades on the negative effects of gaming, including addiction, depression and aggression, and we are certainly not suggesting that this should be ignored," said lead author Isabela Granic PhD, of Radboud University Nijmegen in The Netherlands. "However, to understand the impact of video games on children's and adolescents' development, a more balanced perspective is needed." The biggest surprise in the paper was that randomized, double-blind trials with young games found that a few rounds of a first"person shooter showed they developed faster reaction times, higher spatial resolutions, and "enhanced mental rotation facilities" " meaning the ability to visualize shapes from different angles. One of the studies cited in this conclusion came from a 25-year study following child gamers worldwide, and found that these specific skill sets were good indicators for success in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) skills " more so than academic courses in some respects. In addition, games that encourage players to work as a team to achieve a task such as World of Warcraft or Farmville can be very beneficial in building up social skills and reduce aggression, both during the game and after play has finished. The paper notes that games such as Angry Birds that can be started and played quickly help relieve anxiety and reduce stress, and bring about a more positive mental state. They may also promote "emotional resilience." "If playing video games simply makes people happier, this seems to be a fundamental emotional benefit to consider," said Granic. Surprisingly, games marketed as "brain trainers" show very little evidence of improving cognition and problem-solving skills. The paper notes that this may be down to the fact that most are designed by medical practitioners, teachers and researchers, who don't make particularly efficient games developers.
Violent games lead to violent actions

Thank you very much nicksto99 for your helpful insight on this topic and the debate. This is what nicksto99 said: According to a meta-analysis done on video games; The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and pro-social behavior. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......). This article in the U.S National Library of Medecine strongly disproves Con's arguments. Con also uses the False Cause fallacy, saying that since Japanese people play more videos games and are less violent than Americans who play less of them, therefore their gaming tendencies reduce their violence. This blatant use of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc does not prove anything since it does not rely on any empirical data; drawing conclusions on two correlated tendencies that do not necessarily have causation between them. Indeed, the low levels of violence could be caused by the non-presence of illegal immigrants or guns in the country for example. This is not the only case of studies showing a correlation between violent video games, as seen by reputable news sources telling of how many mass murders have been influenced by violent videogames and have even used them to train themselves for the horrible acts they carry out. Just look it up.
Violent games lead to violent actions

Pewdiepie is that kind of person that shouts and whacks stuff but that's not because of video games it is because of himself thank you for bringing this up and thank you to Simple_Logic for your opinion Simple_Logic : Violence does not come from video games, violence comes from people , violence can be biological or psychological, whether a person has the will to control violent actions is a matter for science. You are very right as violence does come from people not video games. People are people, people have free will video games should not spoil that free will just because you think they make people angry. It"s not the video games it"s the person.
Violent games lead to violent actions

Thank you khlover520 for your helpful insight on this topic. For any doubters that think that violent games don't cause violent behavior, look toward Pewdiepie's recent outlash while he was playing PUBG, a survival game where you try to outlast everyone else in the game by killing them with guns or vehicles. He was getting close to winning, with the final few left against him. When he was shot, the previous violent actions bottled up and let out the racist, derogatory n-word. This is not the only occasion, as seen from a plethora of videos on the internet of player lashing out at other players, their gaming tools, and their screen when something does not go their way in the violent game. These, in themselves, are violent actions, but they can also lead to actions outside of someone's house or gaming area. In violent video games, actions like attacking and killing other people are rewarded and encouraged, since that is what must happen to win the game. This can be translated into real life, since children will feel encouraged to do these actions outside of the game. According to a 2015 peer-reviewed study," Two teenagers in Tennessee who shot at passing cars and killed one driver told police they got the idea from playing Grand Theft Auto."(p2) This terrible incident shows that teens are capable of doing these attacks, just because of what they did in a game. Grand Theft Auto is an explorative game where your character can do many things, including stealing cars, driving recklessly, and attacking people with weapons. When you kill someone in the game, you receive money, which can be used to buy vehicles or fancier weapons. This kind of rewarding system is motivating the gamer to continue doing harm, which can severely impact what people do outside of the game, especially with guns. Shooter games trained players actually have better accuracy in shooting a real gun, and they're more likely to aim for the head, which is much more lethal. This is important because with the increase of violent video game sales, more and more teens and children are being exposed to this negative encouragement. This will increase violence rates among children, and could carry with them even when they become adults. While humans are trying to end war and violence, even more problems are growing right under us, seeping through the screens, speakers, and controllers that teens and children use to interact and become characters that steal cars or shoot people. We don"t want to let gamers think that aggression against others will be rewarded, in the game and in real life. It's clear that violent video games are increasing violence levels in teens and children all over the world.
Violent games lead to violent actions

It may cause them to think that but they can help let out stress. You have no support to back up your opinion so give me the numbers my first debate had the numbers and proof I have now made my debate improved so argue with this: I love video games, but does the high violence sometimes make you violent ? No that"s a load of nonsense of course it doesn"t. But that"s what some people actually believe, and today I"ll tell you why some people believe it and why some don"t. By the age of seven, Yes SEVEN! You can tell the difference from fantasy violence and real world violence and when you play and watch more violent content that skill grows greater and seriously who on earth will just start thinking they"re hitman and start running around doing flips off cars and shooting people. And I"m not just talking nonsense here is proof from an American newspaper article: Playing violent video games does not cause kids to commit mass shootings. Over 150 million Americans (and 71% of teens) play video games. There have been 71 mass shootings between 1982 and Aug. 2015, seven of which (9.8%) involved shooters age 18 or younger. Some people think that violent games lead to violent actions because their exposure to violent video games is linked to lower empathy and decreased kindness. Empathy, the ability to understand and enter into another's feelings is believed to inhibit aggressive behavior. In a study of 150 fourth and fifth graders by Jeanne Funk, PhD, Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at the University of Toledo, violent video games were the only type of media associated with lower empathy. And violence is lower in countries that play more video games. 2005 in Japan had 73 murders compared to the US's poor run of 2,279 just by teens. Basically what I"m saying is that we could do a lot better Japan is one of the most populous countries in the world and they have the least murders. Video games actually stop people being violent . Per capita video game sales were $5.20 in the United States compared to $47 in Japan. You might think videogames are for kids but as an adult pro gamer you get millions even billions. I think as NZ we should start a gaming festival or competition at ASB Showgrounds Auckland every year. I believe that videogames have nothing to do with other people being violent.
Abortion should be illegal

I was once an individual egg and sperm, should people stop masturbating due to the trillions of potential sperm, or fertilize every egg in the womb before it periods? Think first. And read first too, you were the one to answer why animals like chickens and tapeworms are okay to abort as opposed to humans. And if it was because of the value of intelligence, why are animals with supposed sub-human intelligence okay to kill while human fetuses with semi-developed brains are not okay to abort? And to answer your semi-developed question, of course you would euthanize people in vegetable states. They have no more use than a house plant that feeds on human food and water.
Abortion should be illegal

"Why should I care about what happens to a human fetus if I never have to worry about becoming a human fetus in my lifetime, especially when you can remove a fetus painlessly using anesthesia?" I think you fail to realize that you were once a fetus yourself. Your parents did not abort you, regardless if they wanted you or not, I know they didn't abort you because you're typing this debate with me. I asked you a question in the last session of our debate so please answer this: "But let's take someone who is in a coma, their brain is no longer functioning, they have no intelligence during the coma, and they lose the capacity to suffer, so why not kill them?" Back to you.
Abortion should be illegal

"If it is because what the fetus will potentially become, like a rockstar or something. Why do you think we don't have unprotected sex and give birth 24-7? Because, you know, the potential." There is a difference in using protection and abortion. Abortion is the killing of a potential life, and a lot of scientists even argue that it is the first stage of being a human! Biologically, Humans have the ability to feel and experience pleasure during sex, which not all organisms are able to do, and with the evolution of our species and our forming of a society and being able to consciously communicate well thought out ideas, sex has been turned into a pleasureful part of human life and isn't always used to reproduce, but can be used for showing your love to one another and so forth. Protected sex prohibits the sperm from fertilizing the egg, and everyone can agree that the sperm contained in a man is not a living organism. However, once the sperm fertilizes the egg and it reaches fetus stage, the fetus is considered by many scientists to be a living organism. "...how do fetuses with semi-developed brains still get 'souls', intelligence, or the capacity to suffer? " Killing a fetus is the same thing as killing someone who is mentally impaired or in a coma. A semi-developed brain is not a fully functioning brain, we can both agree on that. But let's take someone who is in a coma, their brain is no longer functioning, they have no intelligence during the coma, and they lose the capacity to suffer, so why not kill them? "If it is because chickens or tapeworms..." In regards of chickens, please read the following article: https://medium.com... If you take the time to read it, you will realize we are NOT killing innocent baby chickens. As far as tapeworms go, they are what is known as parasites and cause severe damage to animals and do not have the potential nor do they contribute to society.