BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap, and rock music does NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE!

Dropping my argumentsMy opponent has dropped my arguments. He simply does not respond to them. Thus, they still stand.Refuting my opponent's argumentsI'll take a quick moment to refute my opponent's arguments."Wars that we have, that didn't start from music lyrics."My opponent produces a red-herring. I am not arguing that Rap/Rock music causes all violence, but rather that it causes some violence. So this is simply irrelevant."Religion, territorial arguments, family disputes, didn't start from music lyrics"Once again, I am not saying that Rap/Rock music is the cause of all violence in the world, but rather that it does cause violence in the people who listen to it."Teenagers know right from wrong. They know the consequences of their actions that they choose. They do it cause they want to, but they need something to blame for it"My opponent's arguments here are also invalid. This is a fallacy of one cause (1). In reality, there may be a network of causes that bring about violence in certain circumstances. "Even if you take the music away people will still act violently. It's in some people nature to act violent. Music isn't bad at all. It's a nice way to show your personality, and feelings."Once again, this simply misses the point. I am not arguing that Rap/Rock music is the sole cause of violence in the world. I'm arguing that Rap/Rock music causes violence in the listeners.ConclusionIn conclusion, my opponent has dropped my arguments, and has not presented a single sound argument to show that Rap/Rock music does not cause violence.He has made an assertion, and failed to meet his burden of proof. I have done more than I need, and even shown his statement false. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rap, and rock music does NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE!

Music lyrics does not cause violence. Wars that we have, that didn't start from music lyrics. Religion, territorial arguments, family disputes, didn't start from music lyrics. Teenagers know right from wrong. They know the consequences of their actions that they choose. They do it cause they want to, but they need something to blame for it. It's ridiculous people blame their actions on entertainment. Even if you take the music away people will still act violently. It's in some people nature to act violent. Music isn't bad at all. It's a nice way to show your personality, and feelings.
Rap, and rock music does NOT CAUSE VIOLENCE!

To begin with, the resolution is: "Rap and rock music does not cause violence." Thus, the burden of proof is on my opponent to show this statement is false.As of yet, he has not provided an argument to support this proposition. Thus, he has not met his burden of proof, and the resolution remains unaffirmed.My opponent states:"Ok. What's your proof that rap, and rock music cause violence?"However, this is a fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. (1) My opponent is making a claim, thus he is the one who must show it to be true.Let's go a step furtherNow I've already refuted my opponent's arguments, so I don't even need to present an argument to win. However, I think it would be interesting to present some studies.We have numerous examples of different studies showing that rap and rock music cause violence. In these psychology experiments, there were three sections:(i) Those watching a violent music video(ii) Those watching a non-violent music video(iii) Those who did not watch a music video at allAt the end, the three groups were asked to fill out a 12 item questionairre. Scores between 12-16 meant highly aggressive, while scores below 6 indicated less aggression.According to Eliana Tropeano, those who had watched violent music videos regularly scored in the "violent" region. (2) Furthermore, those who watched a non-violent soothing music video were in the "less violent" region. This confirms the tests done by Anderson et al. which show that violent music does in fact cause violence in the listener. (3) In addition to this, we have psychology tests done by Arlin James Benjamin Jr. which have the same results. (4)ConclusionIn conclusion, my opponent has not met his burden of proof. He has made a statement that rap and rock music do not cause violence, and has not met his burden. On the other hand, I have referenced and shown studies which demonstrate that listening to violent music does affect a person's psychology and their behavior.The resolution remains unaffirmed. Vote Con.==Sources==(1)http://www.nizkor.org...(2)http://library.wcsu.edu...(3)http://www.psychology.iastate.edu...(4)http://www.csulb.edu...
God

Correction, I frequently watch Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins. I enjoy watching well-informed, educated, and intelligent people talk about a higher power. Also, what evidence do you base your beliefs off of? Because, you have shown no reason to be atheist. Although I do not know everything there is to know, I have never told anyone there religion was wrong. (Atheism is not a religion because a religion is defined as believing in a higher power. This is from a Bill Maher segment that I believe is called Bill Maher on why Atheism isn't a religion.) All religions are based on at least some fact that there is a higher being that created us. My opponent has shown no proof that there is no god, while I have clearly shown evidence of a higher power using a theory commonly accepted throughout the fields of science as fact known as the Big Bang Theory. He has also failed to answer any of my questions that I clearly gave to him to answer. Con has also blindly stated that science isn't, "concrete," while giving nothing to back up his claims. Con has also tried to disprove the flood theory, which was not mentioned until he brought it up, and failed to realize that this was never accepted as proof of God. I strongly urge a pro vote.
God

Believing in something doesn't make it a fact. I don't need beliefs, I have evidence to support my theories. Obviously you have never heard a debate or watched a documentary from/about Richard Dawkins or Bill Maher. Why not? It is just as believable as your religion, who are you to tell someone that there god isn't real, but yours is? The Bible is also quite amusing by the way. Not really, why not come up with a new design? Why not make something different? Why make billions of stars and only inhabit one of them? Wouldn't that make the rest of them kind of a waste?
God

"Nothing in science is concrete." So everything we as a species have been working on for over 2000 years isn't, "concrete." Yes, something we accept as fact one day can easily be disproven the next day, but until that day comes, we know what we know. Saying your wrong and one day it will be proven that your wrong and I'm right because of science, does not make you correct. Allow me to ask you more questions that you will completely ignore. What exactly do you base your beliefs on? You have no facts or data behind any of your beliefs or ideas. Do you believe that there is nothing higher than us because smart people like Richard Dawkins and Bill Mahr call everyone who does stupid? I beg you to answer these questions in the next round, or at least answer any question from the rounds above that you simply ignored. Also, thank you for bringing the FSM into this. As we all know, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is 100% proof that there is no God. Although I do find the gospel of the FSM quite amusing, as I do own one, it really has no place in a religious debate. Either find real evidence that there is not a higher power, or don't be so upfront and radical about your atheism. I believe that God made us in his own image because it makes sense that he would have. If you were in God's shoes, would you have not made the human race in your own image?
God

You claim that these particles violate the conservation of matter law, but nothing in science is concrete. We're always making new discoveries. Something we accept as fact one day can easily be disproven the next. "I also must say that Silvertechfilms has done a lot to try to disprove the bible, and I really do not know why. I have never said that the bible is true and therefore god exists. Why are you putting your time and effort into proving the bible wrong, when this debate is about God, not necessarily the Catholic and Christian God?" Well maybe there is a flying spaghetti monster, or a pink unicorn controlling everything. Maybe it is Master Yoda who is really in charge. But wait, maybe there isn't a god at all. "No amount of belief makes something a fact" - James Randi
God

I have more questions for Con if he could be kind enough to answer them in the next round. Where are these particles that come from nothing? What have we found at the edges of the Universe that proves there is no god? To answer one of Silvertechfilms' questions, I refer to the morals that say treat your neighbor like you treat yourself, blessed are the meek etc. I also must say that Silvertechfilms has done a lot to try to disprove the bible, and I really do not know why. I have never said that the bible is true and therefore god exists. Why are you putting your time and effort into proving the bible wrong, when this debate is about God, not necessarily the Catholic and Christian God? I will end with some final questions for Con Particles that come from nothing defy the law of conservation of matter, that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Isn't this further proof of God? Doesn't this prove that God did not need to be created by another intelligent force? Couldn't this be the means by which God creates things?
God

Correction: you stated "tried" it should of said "successfully" If you want morals, the Bible is that last book you should be looking at. To which morals do you refer, The part where God created mass-genocide and flooded the earth, or when he told the army to rape all of the virgin woman in the village. The Constitution mentions nothing of supporting slavery, there is only the amendment that outlaws slavery. If God has a plan, then his mind would never change, what we do would have no effect on his decisions. We've proven scientifically that there exist particles that can form out of literally nothing, and after so many years (I mean a LOT of years, like 10^100^100^100 or something like that) Then those particles coalesced into the singularity. Followed by Big Bang, and once the universe ends he same thing will happen again. As we come to the end of the universe, we find evidence of the big bang, there are particles there from when it happened. So when TNT is ignited and blows up, was that God doing all of the work? I didn't think so. If God is real, he is unwilling to help people, he doesn't really care. Why don't you tell some of the starving kids in Africa that God has a plan for them, Is that his plan? to make them suffer.
God

Thank you Silvertechfilms. In the last eight paragraphs you wrote, you tried to disprove the story of the flood I guess. I am not really sure what you were trying to prove, but here is my take. The bible was not meant to be taken word for word. It is my belief that the bible contains stories that give you morals to live by. I know you will address the Old Testament that contains slavery, homophobic writings, and death. But let me ask you this question, Did we throw the Constitution out because it had slavery in it? Did Abraham Lincoln crumple the Constitution and say that we could no longer go by it because one part had slavery in it? This is essentially what you are doing with the bible. Let's all remember that this was a much different time. It is my belief that God changes with society as things that once were not acceptable become acceptable. Since I am also sure that you will say there is no God because you have no proof, here are some scientific theories that are commonly known as fact that I would like to share. The Big Bang Theory, which is widely accepted throughout the fields of science, is said to have started the Universe. Because our Universe is expanding, it must have been created. Therefore, all the stars you see at night, the planets, and the sun were created by the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang, there was some matter, but not much. Now this sounds a lot like the bible (There was nothing and let there be light etc.). Amazingly, something powerful must have caused the Big Bang. Something beyond our comprehension. Enlighten me Silvertechfilms. What do you think caused the Big Bang? If it were a super nova, one would think there would be evidence of debris left. As we go further into space, we see repetitions and designs, intelligent designs that are unexplainable. Are you going to still tell me this is just a coincidence? Lets get closer to home. Look around you. Have you ever done that? Sometimes I like to step back and just sort of look around at the wonders we know. Think about this, we have 5 chemicals in our body that practically code for our whole being. How on Earth could that just happen? Let us also look at some theories as to how life got here. Some scientists will tell you that there were protocells hundreds of millions of years ago that came together to form a cell after either a heat source or lightning gave it energy. This theory is simply ridiculous. This goes against Cell Theory, and if this is true why is it not happening in the ocean right now? Wouldn't this still be occurring, if it could happen once it could certainly happen twice. And for these molecules to be in the right place at the exact moment of a sudden heat source or lightning bolt would probably be further proof of a higher power. In the next round please answer these questions, If god does not exist, what caused the Big Bang? How did the first life get here? How is science and everything we see around us just a coincidence? Thank you.
God

and they understand that there is no DNA evidence to show that all animals on earth came from single breeding pairs just a few thousand years ago. Mt. Everest was never covered in flood water, the ark dimensions were supposedly at least 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. It has been proven that a boat that large, made out of wood, would not survive. The ark could also not hold millions of species, what would they eat? where they excrete? Horse Shoe Bend at the Grand Canyon is carved in a hill side rather than points either to the north or south that are lower. The numerous ridges and rock towers show any evidence of water flowing around hard spots, as that would leave islands not peninsula formations perpendicular to the direction of the canyon. Curiously the geology explains all the features of the Grand Canyon with normal known geological processes, just as it explains layers and layers of 20 year old clams on mountaintops, no magic needed. "Erosion. Normal erosion, just as is observed in the canyon today. The original meanders were formed when the land was relatively flat, before the land was uplifted, but they have been "locked in place" as the gradual erosion of the river has cut through the uplifting rock as fast as it lifts up. It's really simple." - Unknown Flood plain rivers grow meanders, but during periods of low flow, as the turbulence and inertia of the water works against the banks that contain such low flow. Floods overtop the banks, and quickly erode short cuts across meanders - again due to turbulence and inertia. This patter holds in the Mississippi, the Nile and other rivers that traverse wide flood plains: - Low flow: erosion carves meanders but the flow is contained in the main channel. - Flood flow: erosion destroys meanders as the flow is no longer contained to the main channel, but overtops it, and the flow direction is then governed by the energy gradient of the whole flooded surface, ignoring the low flow channels. This is why the scablands look like they do: the water was higher than the banks of any existing channels. "Dry Falls" was completely submerged and made barely a ripple in the flow.
God does not exist

I am here to provide solid scientific evidence for the existence of God, which I define as a Personal /immaterial/ omnipotent/ omnipresent/ omniscient /eternal /necessary/ Second space-time dimension (i.e. spaceless timeless cause) who is the creator and sustainer of the Universe.I am also curious to know whether my opponent would be interested in answering this question for me, but obviously does not have to. If the Judeo-Christian God existed, would you pursue a relationship with him to obtain salvation?
God does not exist

To Clarify, I am arguing that God does NOT exist. God - A Supreme being responsible for the formation of the universe and what occurs on EarthExist - Is not a figment of humanity's imagination; has objective reality or beingRules1. ) Keep it civil; No trolling; No Harassing, etc.2. ) Con needs to provide solid evidence for the existence of God3. ) Do in-text citations, however, put the actual links at the end of the text4. ) Use RELIABLE sources (a source from a random blogger is not reliable, neither is a clearly biased website)5. ) Follow the structure of the debate6. ) No "K's"; focus on the debate topic7. ) No Forfeits, if you are going to accept, go through the entire debate, please8. ) No entirely new arguments in the last round (4th Round)If these Rules are broken by Con (or me), they will automatically lose the debateStructureRound 1 - Acceptance Only; Put definitions if needed Round 2 - Each Side puts their own argument. Since I go first, Con should NOT reply to my argument in Round 2. Doing so will result in an automatic loss.
Parents should be licensed.

Pro makes several mistakes in his argument which I will elaborate on here. "The assumption that the $5.70 return for every dollar spent is "only applicable in households where child abuse occurs" is untrue. "Every $1 spent on a home visit" includes both households with and without child abuse. "The source where Pro got his $5 for $1 statistic (Pro's Round 2 source 2) is titled "Long-Term Consequences of Child Abuse and Neglect". Non abusive homes don't get government visits. This $5.70 return is in the form of "reduced confirmed reports of abuse, reduced family enrollment in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, decreased visits to emergency rooms, decreased arrest rates for mothers, and increased monthly earnings. " These returns are not applicable to non abusive homes. Remember, the purpose of the home visits is to stop abuse and ensure that it doesn't happen again, if abuse is not going on, then the home visits are just wasted time. Pro brings up the point that not all houses would need to be visited. Fine. Let's see what happens when we only visit abusive homes (out of pure luck). Pro's argument ignores the very thing he is proposing. "Background checks and an assessment would generally suffice. " It's fair to say that a background check by the government would cost at least as much as a house visit. Remember, for my example I charitably put $20 as the cost of a home visit, and it cost taxpayers over a BILLION dollars per year. Let's substitute that for the cost of a background check. The Office of Personnel Management handles background checks for other agencies and the cost rose from 2005 to 2011 from $521 to $882 per person. Let's be generous and say that the licensing company only charged taxpayers $100 per person. Remember the number of households with children is 37,147,503. Now, I'll give Pro, and myself a huge break here. I don't want to factor in for all variables so I will undershoot it by a long shot. Pro will get a smaller figure. Each household has just 1 parent. Total cost to taxpayers: $3,714,750,300. That's undershooting it. This is incredibly impractical, and it's not even calculating price for "assessments". I would go further into detail about other problems, but the impossible cost alone should win me this argument.
Parents should be licensed.

1. CON's math contains many false assumptions. The assumption that the $5.70 return for every dollar spent is “only applicable in households where child abuse occurs” is untrue. “Every $1 spent on a home visit” includes both households with and without child abuse. Another assumption is that every single family would need a home visit. Background checks and an assessment would generally suffice. 2. CON quotes me out of context. The sentence about “not disciplinary action” links back to the previous sentence about child neglect due to poverty. The sentence about “the abused and unintentionally pregnant” is a separate point. I am offended CON resorted to blatantly misconstrued my argument. In conclusion, parents should be licensed. This would reduce traumatic childhoods. This would promote parenting standards. This would both save the lives of children and ease the burden abuse survivors statistically add to health care, crime, mental illness, etc. [1].
Parents should be licensed.

Pro's arguments fail in two different ways.1. Not cost effective (Get out your calculators!)Pro gives a fair statistic that the average home visit produces $5.70 for every $1 spent. This return; however, is only applicable in households where child abuse occurs, and the benefit comes from reducing abuse according to Pro's second source. We would not see a return on families where abuse does not occur. Let's take a look at the math behind it. In 2005 there were 899,000 cases of confirmed abuse [1]. Household's with children average 1.86 children [2]. 37,147,503 households with children [3].This produces a total number of 69,094,355 children living in households. Assuming 1 abused child per household (which is favorable to Pro), we get 899,000 households producing $5.70 for every $1 spent on a home visit= +$4,225,300 to the US. Now we look at the rest of the 68,195,355 households where we spend $1 and get no return= -$68,195,355. Total cost to taxpayers is $63,970,055. Now let's be more realistic. Average house hold visit is two professionals making minimum 10.10 (because they're government employees) and 1 hour. We'll round it to $20 spent per house visit with a $114 dollar return on abused children= +84,506,000. Money lost= $1,363,907,100. Total cost to tax payers= $1,279,401,100 per year. That's not even taking into account the enormous amount of money needed to spend on background checks. Hardly cost effective. The exorbitant price alone should win me this debate.2. Pro's case fails with this quote "Additional support from the state is needed, not disciplinary action. The abused and those unintentionally pregnant would be granted licenses, if they are fit parents." If this is not about disciplinary action then we should rely on parents going to the government for assistance, not forcing parents to be licensed. Pro's solution is unnecessary and impractical.
Parents should be licensed.

Licensing parents would reduce traumatic childhoods, promote parenting standards, and be cost effective. CON is worried about tax payer dollars. See in PRO's round 2 speech the evidence for how spending the money to prevent child abuse saves tax dollars in the long run. CON suspects eugenics. However, licensing would be based on ability to raise a child, not any physical trait. Therefore, it is not eugenics. CON worries about discrimination for the poor and others. Precedent for this is states where child neglect is determined by the “condition of the child resulting from parental actions or fault” [1]. This means that if a child malnourished or left unattended due to the parent's poverty, this is not child neglect. Additional support from the state is needed, not disciplinary action. The abused and those unintentionally pregnant would be granted licenses, if they are fit parents. Licensing parents is best for the child, is cost effective, is NOT eugenics, and does NOT discriminate.