BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video games are the sole reason for violent teens, and other persons.

Ok well first off I thought you were taking the other side on this debate. However it was my mistake I will do my best. Counter #1: You say that almost all of the mass murders were carried out by mentally ill people. However you do not know why they killed those people. They very well could have been influenced by video games. As a matter of fact being mentally ill will make someone even more submissive to video games influence. Example: A mass shooting in Washington, D.C. In which an angry, mentally-ill young man shot and killed a dozen of his fellow citizens. This happened on the week that the popular game Grand Theft Auto V came out. Now just because they are close to each other does not prove anything. This report was made on the subject: According to Media Matters, MSNBC"s Mika Brzezinski of the Morning Joe show said that "it"s kind of hard not to make a connection [between games and the Navy Yard shooting] when you hear [the shooter's] friend saying that he would watch on a life size screen these violent video games for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours." The Telegraph"s Nick Allen described the shooter"s "darker side" which "saw him playing violent "zombie" video games in his room, sometimes from 12.30pm until 4.30am." Is it odd to describe a mass murderer"s "darker side" not as his killings or other unstable interactions with people, but as an activity he shares with millions of other people? (http://www.forbes.com...) Counter #2: Now just as you said in your first argument,"Almost all of the homicides, and mass murders in public are carried out by mentally ill persons." The video games are affecting the mentally ill not so much normal people. I too play video games but if a mentally ill person is playing GTAV then maybe they think it is possible. I cannot write my opposing argument due to the limit. However I want voters to remember I accidentally started this.
Video games are the sole reason for violent teens, and other persons.

Thank you for accepting. Lets do this. For one, my position is against the statement "Video games are the sole reason for violent teens, and other persons." Argument #1: Almost all of the homicides, and mass murders in public are carried out by mentally ill persons. For example the Sandy Hook School shooting was done by a very ill person who has no care for peoples lives. Another example is the movie theatre shooting in the recent news. The person who started shooting was clinically ill and needed to be treated. Argument #2: I play "violent" video games and I have never had an urge to kill people and walk into a public places and open fire. Only people who has mentality issues do this. Not once have I had a thought like "Oh hey, since I can kill people in an animated environment, completely fake, and un-real, that means I can kill people in real life and have no consequence?" People who think that video games are the main reason for violence are morons. Our society just needed something to blame all of these random killings on. Therefor, saying that video games can alter a persons mind so much that they would want to kill people is bull crap. This concludes my first supporting argument, I am eager to hear my opponents position and reason.
Football and basketball ought to be undergraduate degrees.

1. The commitment needed to perform at the high level college athletics require is similar to that of an undergraduate degree. Con asserts that "schools are meant to be schools," and cites the dearth of students playing sports professionally, undermining that scale of college athletics, in terms of both commitment from the players and revenue for the schools. An NCAA survey showed that athletes spent upward of 40 hours a week with their sport[1]. That's more than the time commitment necessary for college classes; that's the time commitment necessary for a full-time job. The work these students put into their sports reaps billions for their schools: the University of Texas produced $165,691,489 in revenue from athletics[2]. Certainly schools ought to be schools, but these numbers make it clear that they are doing more than just educating. 2. Unmotivated athletes take up valuable seats in classes they have no business being in. Con continues to perpetuate the myth of the successful student-athlete, claiming that "many people who play these in college still put school ahead of other things such as football and basketball." However, a CNN survey showed that football and basketball players at the University of Georgia averaged an ACT score 18.75, a whole 33% lower than the rest of the student body [3]. The title of that CNN article, "Some athletes play like adults, read like fifth-graders," accurately captures the problems with forcing athletes to learn when they're only interested in playing football. An college degree for one of these athletes might be giving them the chance for a successful future, but its giving that chance to the wrong person. There are people who would do anything to be in a college classroom, who have put in the work in high school, and just don't have the money. These are the people who deserve a degree, not the better football player. Furthermore, making college sports a degree doesn't prevent a student from minoring in something else and getting something useful from college. 3. A degree in a sport would allow athletes to truly become students of the game, and more easily get to the next level. Lastly, making competitive college sports degrees would allow athletes to do what they love safely and with less injury. The 40 hour work week wouldn't be in addition to classes, and this would allow for better rested athletes and a better product on the field. Sources: [1] CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com...) [2] USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com...) [3] CNN (http://www.cnn.com...)
Football and basketball ought to be undergraduate degrees.

Schools are meant to be schools, and not exactly places that provide undergraduate degrees for sports. By considering the fact that less than 2 percent of NCAA Athletes actually go into pro sports (Business Insider), this would easily show how sports like football and basketball should NOT be undergraduate degrees. Not only such, but it would degrade the fact that schools are actually places for learning things instead of places where people go to play sports. Athletics are a great way of providing optimal health and people who are very motivated to do good things. But one thing is without a doubt. Sports have no place in the scholar community. They have no benefit to society, and the only jobs available for football and basketball are pro. That is why many people who play these in college still put school ahead of other things such as football and basketball. This would be to show many things about it. But also saying that a scholarship is not about that, but also consider who would go in for these undergraduate degrees. Very few people would actually do such for many reasons, such as many kids who get a scholarship or want to get a degree understand that there are more reasons than football that they would accept the degree. They want a successful future, and that is the very important thing to them.
Football and basketball ought to be undergraduate degrees.

The relationship between scholastic and athletic participation we have here in the United States is unique to this country for one key reason: in a country this massive, schools provide the infrastructure necessary for competent athletic competition. Beyond this, the ties between an education and the multibillion dollar behemoth that is college sports is nonsensical. Because of how ingrained sports are with the university system in the United States, separating the NCAA from the schools remains impossible. Regardless, I have three reasons why the ideal way to mitigate the effects of forcing these athletes to also be students is making football, basketball, and other profitable college sports undergraduate degrees. 1. The commitment needed to perform at the high level college athletics require is similar to that of an undergraduate degree. 2. Unmotivated athletes take up valuable seats in classes they have no business being in. 3. A degree in a sport would allow athletes to truly become students of the game, and more easily get to the next level. I will expand on these points as the debate continues and demonstrate why college athletics and academics would improve with the introduction of sports degrees. I am looking forward to hearing what the other side has to offer.
Who is a better Avenger: Thor or Iron Man

Statements made by the opponent- 1- He (Iron Man) creates weapons that defend thousands of Americans and help keep the freedom 2- He fights crime, defends America, and is a part of the Avengers 3-Thor has family issues. To address point number one, Iron Man did once make weapons that did defend a good amount of people in America, but those exact weapons also ended up in terrorist's hands which were then the reason for all of the shrapnel in his chest. It is wrong to make weapons that will ultimately end up in your enemies hands (as in Iron Man's case) To address point number 2, does Thor not also fight crime, defend America, and is a part of the Avengers? When Thor comes to earth from Asgard, he does so to address a world-wide threat to the well being of those well beyond the U.S.A when it is a small little skirmish, he knows that he can count on pawns like Iron Man to take care of it, but when something big actually happens, he knows his duty and comes to protect his friends on Earth. Point 3; In Iron Man, his father neglects him and ignores him. This is a family problem, whereas in Thor, his father nurtures him, punishes him when needed, and finally loves him. All of the basic principles of good parenting. Thor's only family issue arises with his brother, who is still given the necessities of life by his mother, father, and brother. To conclude, Iron Man is not better than Thor. Iron Man is egotistical, pessimistic, and selfish, on the other hand Thor is understanding, caring, and frankly, awesome. Thor is clearly the better avenger.
Who is a better Avenger: Thor or Iron Man

In Iron Man he creates a renewable source of energy that should theoretically solve the Earth's energy problems. That seems like an act of a god. He creates weapons that defend thousands of Americans and help keep the freedom. He fights crime, defends America, and is a part of the Avengers. While doing all of this he manages to still have a girlfriend, keep a good social image, and promote the Avengers everywhere. Whereas Thor is not a very good member of the Avengers, he is less help with defending the world than his mortal girlfriend, and he cannot even protect his kingdom from his evil brother Loki-who he let out of prison knowing very well that he could go evil again. Thor has family issues, cannot keep a good relationship, and lacks common sense. As opposed to Iron Man, who is a witty, resourceful, genius, who has contributed to the good of America for his entire life.
Who is a better Avenger: Thor or Iron Man

[1] Avenger- to take vengeance or exact satisfaction for: to avenge a grave insult. [2] Thor- Thor is the Asgardian God of Thunder and the son of Odin, All-Father of Asgard, and Gaea, the Elder Earth-Goddess. Combining the power of these two worlds, Thor is perhaps the greatest and mightiest defender of both . Armed with his hammer, Mjolnir, Thor is the mightiest warrior of Asgard, a founding member of the Avengers and one of the strongest, most powerful beings on Earth. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.comicvine.com... Thor may have been born into his position as heir to the throne of Asgard (the realm in which gods live) but on all levels, he earns his future position. In the first Thor movie, Thor is cast out by Loki as Odin the All father goes into Odin-sleep. Thor is exiled to Earth and is drained of his power. His hammer (Mjolnir) also travels through the bi-frost with Thor, however, he cannot pick it up as Mjolnir is made of the core of a star and is incredibly heavy. Thor is forced to live life as a human for a few days until Loki sends the guardian of Asgard to kill Thor. At this point, Thor is still unable to pick up his hammer. When he is willing to sacrifice his life for the town in which he is currently residing, his godly status is returned to him. In Norse mythology, only a deed of pure good can turn a mortal to a god. Then Thor picks up his hammer and crushes the Asgard guardian to little itty bitty pieces. Because of Thor's eventual understanding and observance, he earns back the title of heir to the Asgardian throne. Iron Man on the other hand is mortal (as Thor briefly was) but did not become an Asgardian god. Because Odin is all seeing in his sleep, that means that he saw both Iron Man and Thor's actions and only found Thor's worthy of his godly status. Clearly Thor is the better avenger.
The debate. Org website is pandering to internet users and NOT debaters.

It is not the fault of debate. Org that there are internet users debating. It is on the internet after all. Those avid readers if they truly are what their name describes will be reading. Internet users will be on the internet. Simple question. Who is more likely to use a website on the internet. People on the internet of people not on the internet. Still, If you object so much to internet culture, Why are you using a meme as your logo? If the demand for a literature section is high enough, There will be a literature section. As is stands, Debate. Org is meeting the demand of all the internet users who use it. I thank you for your time. Goodbye.
Dogs are better pets than cats

My appologies for not clarifying whether or not I was accepting. This is my very firsy debate, and have no clue as to what I'm doing. Dogs are known to be "mans best friend". This phrase can be taken literally. Dogs can go on runs or walks with their owners. Many dog owners take their dogs on errands, and even go restaurants with their dogs (restaurants with outside seating that is.) You can't do any of these activities with cats.
Dogs are better pets than cats

My opponent has listed several reasons against cats; however, my opponent is only considering one type of person, one type of character, the "dog person." I will be considering the "cat person." Arguments: 1. Care Cats are much easier to care for than dogs, because they care for themselves! You don't have to constantly wash them like dogs, because they wash themselves. And you don't have to constantly take them for walks like people do dogs, because they do their "business" in a litter box. And since they constantly clean themselves cats most definitely smell better than dogs-if you've ever smelled a dog. 2. Manners Cats treat your guests much better than dogs, as dogs most often go crazy, barking and clawing your guest. While a dog does anything to get your attention and the guests, a cat is a little more shy and might hide when your guest arrives. Or come and greet your guest with a cute tail twitch but nothing drastic. Same is to be said with a guest coming for dinner. A dog will most likely jump up and take your food when your not looking, but a cat, will stay close, but will behave. 3. Exterminators It is common knowledge that a cat will get rid of your mice population, but their curiosity also leads them to chasing flies, ladybugs, and other insects. Cats will keep unwanted pests from your house-whether it be mice or insects, while a dog would probably just sit there and growl and them. Rebuttals: 1. "Dogs can go on runs or walks with their owners. Many dog owners take their dogs on errands, and even go restaurants with their dogs (restaurants with outside seating that is.) You can't do any of these activities with cats." While this is first and foremost, a good quality, cats can still do the same things. My opponent is telling me you can't take cats out for walks or anything, etc, because it's illegal, or something. (I don't know why because my opponent never specified.) I say: show me a law that says this. I have taken my cat out for a walk before, I really have. 2. "Cats, on the other hand, tend to be anti social, moody, and don't express any form of loyalty to its owner." This isn't always true. Cats are more independent, yes. This is a good quality that makes them easier to take care of. But they do show "loyalty" to their owners, just not as often as dogs do. Dogs are so clingy to their owners that it often makes it overbearing. Sources: http://www.theonion.com... http://animal.discovery.com... Considering the majority of Americans are on the run these days, cats are the more ideal pet than dogs.
Any World War 2 topic

Thank you for introducing our topic. I as Con will say that the Franco-Thai war was forced. By 1942, Japan had control over Indo-China, and they had problems keeping the Vietnamese in line. France had already surrendered to Germany, so they could not say no if Hitler request they turn over their ports and bases to Japan. Like I said, Japan were having trouble keeping the Vietnamese in line, and this shall be my main argument. I will point out that Thailand were forced into the war by Japan's needs to stop the small Free French army in Vietnam, and the not so small Vietnamese army out as well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Thai_War
Capitalism is better than Socialism

Again I would have to disagree completely, not based on bias, but based on the history of capitalism. I explained how despite heavy government involvement in welfare, the amount of poor have not declined. Actually, it gets worse with government involvement. Whenever government tries to give handouts to everyone who signs up for them, you see a massive shortage in the labor force. People get very unmotivated to work when the government is giving then money for doing nothing, and that's a fact. Capitalism does not keep the poor poor at all, you're arguing against hard evidence here. The majority of people who are born into poverty do not stay in poverty. You have to pay for college out of your own pocket, but that's why the US has the best universities in the world. There's many ways to pay for it. Bank loans always have worked, there's scholarships, the military. In In socialist countries, college isnt free either, nothing is ever free. Taxes are ridiculous in those countries. The funny thing is, even though college is "free" there, there are shortages of doctors and other professions. They all move to countries such as the US where the government doesnt tell them how much they can make or in which ways they can treat their patients. It isnt impossible for kids in poverty to go to college, plenty of them do! Also, you don't need to go to college to get out of poverty. You gain work experience and move on to better jobs. This is the way its been for centuries in the US. Though you have made a few statements, they do not have any data or evidence to support them. You did not counter any of the points I made, which I dont really blame you for since its nearly impossible to argue against facts, such as the quality of everything in the private sector is better and more efficient. There is one thing you must know. Government can NOT end poverty. Wether they try to increase welfare or take control of production, it never works. The private sector does a far better job at reducing poverty. Now I'm not saying its perfect, but the alternative is much worse. Welfare is needed for those who are disabled or cannot work of course, but it's so easily abused. Government handouts only keep the poor in a false sense of victimhood, giving them little motivation to work. So in the long run, government does not help, in many cases it makes things worse.
Capitalism is better than Socialism

A county will always have poor, and I'm not blaming capitalism for the fact that there are poor people. Rather, I'll argue now that capitalism keeps the poor poor. In a capitalist system, the government involves itself very little in the matters of who is rich and who is poor. That can be good in the right circumstance, but not in the way I am addressing it. If the government does not involve itself at all, then the poor will have great trouble pulling themselves out of poverty. In order to get a college degree in our capitalist economy you must pay obscene amounts of money--money that the poor do not have. Thus , te majority of the poor cannot get a college degree. But how does one get a job with no degree? Its getting harder and harder, and soon it will be impossible to get a job without having a degree. Capitalism creates a circle of poverty that's nearly impossible to get out of.
Capitalism is better than Socialism

Wikipedia defines capitalism as "an economic system in which trade, industry and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making profits in a market economy." Capitalism is efficient in the sense that it achieves its goal: those who privatize trade and industry make money, and they make a lot of money from it. If making money is your only worry, capitalism is good--but making money should not be the government's biggest concern. The biggest concern of the government should be providing for its people, which capitalism doesn't have room for. In 2012, 15% of people in America (46.5 million) were in poverty. 14.5% of people (49 million) didn't have enough to eat. Of course our capitalist country offers food stamps, but that's hardly enough to live off of. $4.50 a day is all food stamps offer, and that's barely enough to buy a meal at McDonald's much less buy something nutritious. In a socialist government, there is cooperative management of the economy, meaning everyone owns and everyone gets money out of it as opposed to capitalism, where (nearly) everyone works and if they're lucky they'll make enough to support their family. It's give and take, but it's extremely slighted to those who are already rich.
Capitalism vs Communism

The early Christians were Communists: All the believers were together and had everything in common. (Acts 2:44) Health care Under Communism, health care would be provided to all who need it. Under Capitalism, many thousands die every year, unable to get health care under a profit-driven system. Consumer is King Production is market-driven in a planned economy also. Rise to the Top The concentration of wealth is not a good thing. "The essential condition for the existence and rule of the bourgeois class is the accumulation of wealth in private hands, the formation and increase of capital" (From The Communist Manifesto, Chapter I) Loans Since Islamic law forbids the collection of interest, loans are going to be in short supply in any Moslem country, Communist or Capitalist. The profiteering "Pay Day Loan" industry is extremely exploitive of the poor. Mobility There is nothing in Communism that ties a person to a particular trade. University At least, under Communism, any qualified person can attend a University without undue financial strain. Contrast this with Capitalism, where, as my Opponent points out, "How would a poor person get past Harvard/Yale/Princeton without loans? They wouldn't." War War is endemic to Capitalism, in its constant quest for new markets, raw materials and enormous wartime profits. The United States, in particular, stands ready to start a war on any excuse. Vote however you please.