BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Will posting students" grades on bulletin boards publicly motivate them to perform better or is it h

In what I've seen in my life if you don't put out your A-game you will not get what you want out of life. In high school I had to put my absolute best in order to continue playing football. Why is it like that?, why would someone go thru this in order to be on top. Reasoning being is that their is someone better then you. You have to put in the time in-order to achieve. Where Im from if you dont put out 100 percent of your effort then stay home. Skills are learned from mistakes. It was a mistake that you got a low grade. You learn from this and strive for better. You see you got the highest grade and become competitive to remain in that spot. If you received a low grade you work your butt off to beat that guy out of first place.
Will posting students" grades on bulletin boards publicly motivate them to perform better or is it h

You too make some very good points. However, I see a shift in a lot of modern tech companies, where grades in school do not matter as much anymore. Google would be a great example of this. When Google hires new employees, they have strayed away from people who have graduated at the top of their class and have come from "brand name" schools like Harvard and MIT. Rather, they go for those who display intellectual humility. In other words, those who fail gracefully. Posting grades in the public eye does not teach students how to fail gracefully, but rather sets them up to exist in an environment in which failure is not allowed. This creates a paranoia about doing poorly, and makes students focus on getting that extra point rather than learning skills that will stick with them for a lifetime.
Terrorism is Sometimes Justified

Would please give an exact definition of terrorism so to better clarify the debate? The actions of terrorists commonly include murder. So, you must thereby justify murder. As I see it.... The intent of Terrorism: To inflict fear into the enemy in hopes that they will waver and falter so as to provide a victory for the terrorists in which they may achieve their objective. The Means of Terrorists: Via displays of inhumanity and by proving their capacity to violate justice in order to achieve their objective. (usually murder, kidnapping, bombings...etc.) The Ends of Terrorism: The only certain end in terrorism is death. A victory or defeat is unpredictable and the whole cannot be justified by an uncertain end.
Would Changing the Past Via Time Travel be Moral

I doubt backward time travel is possible, and even if it were possible, I have some doubts about whether or not the past could be changed. I a debate with a friend over that while back. But for the purposes of this debate, I'm going to assume backward time travel is possible, and that if somebody went back in the past, it's also possible that they could change things.I think whether changing the past is moral or not depends on what change you make. Even in the present, whether any action you do is moral or not depends on the action. Some actions are moral and some are immoral. So, too, if you went back in the past, some actions would be moral and some would be immoral.So I don't think that any change you made to the past would be immoral. I think it's possible to go back in the past and change things for the better, which would be moral.Now, let's consider Pro's argument. He argues that if you go back in the past and save many Jewish lives by killing Hitler, you would, at the same time, be preventing many people from being born, which he says is worse than murder.I don't agree with that at all. If preventing somebody from being born was worse than murder, then any kind of contraception would be immoral for the same reason. In fact, it would be immoral not to procreate every chance you get because every time you refuse to procreate, you're preventing somebody from being born.Preventing somebody from coming into existence is not immoral because it doesn't harm anybody. You can't harm somebody who doesn't exist because they don't exist. Clearly, murder is far worse than preventing somebody from coming into existence because when you murder somebody, you actually take somebody's life who already exists.But even if Pro were right in saying it's worse to prevent people from being born than to kill people who are already born, that is not enough to say that it's immoral to change the past. All that would follow is that it's immoral to change that particular thing in the past. So even if killing Hitler would be immoral, it doesn't follow that any change you make to the past would be immoral.
Would Changing the Past Via Time Travel be Moral

Would changing the past be moral? While some might say so, think about this for a second. If you do succeed in, say, stopping Hitler from gaining power, you save millions of lives, you also destroy millions of others. For example,if a woman's first husband is killed in WWII, she later decides to remarry and has children. If you prevent Hitler's takeover, the woman's husband never dies, and she never remarries. And thus, the children are never born. Essentially, the time traveler committed a crime worse than murder.
Would Changing the Past Via Time Travel be Moral

Excellent point to raise, fellow competitor. I'm not too sure about the possibility of backwards time travel as well, but this is simply a hypothetical argument. All of your points are valid in the present sense. That is to say, people can't procreate every second so every possible human can be born. It's not practical. Let me put this into a more familiar context. Let's say (for the sake of the argument, please don't take offense to this) that your mother had two possible suitors to choose to marry, one being your father, and the other being another man. As you exist today, your father was obviously chosen. The other suitor, bitter and angry over the rejection, decides to travel back in time and arrange for your father to have an unfortunate accident before he met your mother. His actions would, effectively, cause you to cease to exist. That's an example of what you would consider an "immoral" action. The man traveled back with ill intentions, and was obviously in the wrong. Now let's consider a different scenario. Your grandfather lost a good deal of money in a fit of reckless gambling many years before your father was born. He was forced to live his life in poverty up until present day, where you and the rest of his descendants still suffer from his long past mistake. After coming across a time machine, your grandfather decides to travel back in time to tell his younger self to bet on the winning horse in the race. If this succeeds, your grandfather will make a good amount of money, and create a happier life for his family. However, your father met your mother in the slums after your grandfather's gambling loss, and they fell in love, and had you. In the new timeline, your father never lived in the slums, and thus never met your mother. As a result, you were never born. All because your grandfather wanted to right a past wrong and make life better for his family. And this brings us back to the meat of the argument. I still support not changing the past to protect those who exist today. It doesn't seem right to write a person out of existence. Apologizes if I was too confusing. Time travel tends to be that way.
Video games encourage violent behavior

Thank you for this debate. We agree that video games although they are not the only cause of violence, they are a cause. Since exposure to the flashing screen is always present in the video games, playing video games leads to violence. I think it would be safe for anyone to infer fro your information that playing video games for more than three hours a day would cause an increase in behavioural problems. Because your statment only focuses on 5-7 year olds there is no way to know whether it only affects children of that age or if it affects children of that age the least meaing there is a significant increase of behavour problems in children age 8-11 which isn't shown. I don't believe that your arguments follow. that just because a part of these videos are fake that all of them are fake.The audio of kids playing xbox should be enough to prove the increased violent behavior. It ought to be concern to everyone who hears the amount of "I'm going to kill you," and you suck at life type comments. If someone talked to me on the phone like that, I'd call the police. However, this behavior seems all to commonplace in the virtual world. Sadly it carries over into the real world and thats one of the points of the study you first posted. At the end of this debate, There is this conclusion. Video games are not the only encouragement of violent behavior. My opponent provides evidence that they are a method of encouragement for violent behavior even though his stance claims that cracked (a dirty european fluff magazine) is more credible than a study vetted and published by a leading college. Cracked doesn't even include sources. Because my opponent provided the study that he wanted to debate, my burdon of proof was to provide social evidence of the behavior in question which I did. My opponents burdon of proof was not to prove that other factors also encourage violent behavior in children. It was to prove that vidoe games are not a factor which he failed to do.
Video games encourage violent behavior

Most of the videos are most likely staged, as were the first two[1][2].Next, "Flashing light cause migraines, and migraines come from stress." Only problem is, yes, Flashing lights can cause migraines, but stress is a trigger for migraines, and does not mean that you are always 100% stressed when you have a migraine after playing video games. It's worth noting that studies conducted by the UK say that it's not video games that cause the violence or misbehavior, but screen exposure. Watching more than three hours of TV a day at the age of five lead to a small increase in behavioural problems in children between the ages of five and seven. Also a much lower number of children spent as long playing video games as they did watching television[3]. Keep in mind that video games are not the only source of violence in the media, as television and movies also have their own surplus of violence. Other studies claim that violence is a biological trait, has something to do with led exposure, etc. etc.[4] There are so many ways that people can develop violent behavior video games can't be the only blame.Sources:[1]http://www.cracked.com...[2]http://newsok.com...[3]http://www.ign.com...[4]http://www.npr.org...
Video games encourage violent behavior

I think most people have seen these two clips before. This next one is extremely epicThe next link is just a search on youtube of "boyfriend gets angry playing"Flashing light cause migraines, and migraines come from stress. You can find several stress inducing factors on this website including flashing light, stress let down,excitement, anger, fear, and anxiety which are all factors that may be incurred from playing video games.Although violence does not occur in every one after playing a video game, I do not need to prove it is 100% true for everyone, only that it is a factor just as Drunk Driving does not always result in a car accident. Or that Alcohol is not the only cause of domestic violence, but it is a leading factor You have already provided research claiming that video games are a factor in encouraging violence, but you have provided no other information other than you don't believe it. Believing doesn't make it true or not true. Evidence makes it true.here is a particularly innocent game called unfair Mario I don't really consider the graphic to be all that violent but time and time again, it cause anger and violence. One is a specific video of the violence and anger, the other is the link so you can search other eventshttps://www.youtube.com... I also wanted to share a specific video of a girl talking trash while playing Xbox but there were just too many commonalities to only share one, so pick your poison. https://www.youtube.com... but the overall use of fire arms in violent crimes are not directly related to video games.
Video games encourage violent behavior

In a nutshell, you state that the act of playing video games turns the players into illogical and induces stress, which causes violence. However, you must keep in mind the following: 1: A video game is played for entertainment. I'd like you to explain how games cause stress (Physical strain does not count. We are talking about mental strain, as that is the argument you are using here.). 2: If playing violent video games increases violent behavior in children, as your argument stated, then why is that South Korea, a country that plays over two times more video games than the United States has ZERO shootings out of a sample of 100,000? Sources: [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org... (States that video games are intended for entertainment) [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com... (States that video games have no correlation with youth violence, often associated with shootings/gun murders) If you have any other arguments to present, please do. Until then, I will await your response.
Video games encourage violent behavior

To what extent the content of the video game doesn't make children violent, The content gives "children" (all players really) a way to identify and emphasize with violence. The act of playing video games alone can cause a distorted concept of reality that inhibits the mind from thinking logically and induces stress leaving the players to resort to the most basic human instinct of control-- violence. These are the premises that I will use to start my argument. Please feel free to begin the next round with a detailed exploration of your disagreement with as much or as little evidence as you need.
Dota 2 (Pro) vs League of Legends (Con)

I accept.I must clarify that the resolution is, as stated in the comments: "Dota 2 is the better MOBA, when compared with League of Legends"Dota 2: Valve's MOBA.League of Legends: Riot's MOBA.better: of superior quiality or excellence. [1]This is not an argument or rebuttal, just a clarification so they are not against the rules.1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Dota 2 (Pro) vs League of Legends (Con)

Preface:Pretty big debate between two awesome MOBA's. Accept the challenge if you're serious. I'm pretty excited for this one, and i'm sure there will be a lot of fanboys on this topic for both sides.Format: Round 1 Pro: Explains RulesRound 1 Con: AcceptanceRound 2 Pro: Opening ArgumentsRound 2 Con: Opening ArgumentsRound 3 Pro: RebuttalsRound 3 Con: RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and ConclusionsRound 4 Con; Rebuttals and Conclusions (can't address anything Pro says in Round 4. Only what Pro says in Round 3.)Rules: No trollingNo forfeiting a roundAll sources must be citedFormat I have stated must be followedFaliure to follow any of the rules stated above will result in a loss==================================================Hope to have a great debate!
Naruto vs Luffy

Good morning and sorry for the delay P1. I do not agree with your argument. Teleportation is nothing less than the reconstruction of a physical body to the other, and the body does not come all this distance, because that would be speed. The light for example, running all the way you're running, in this case, so it is fast, even unintentionally put real physical effects in the world of Naruto. And yes, your point is correct, I even witnessed Naruto at that speed, but that speed is not as fast as Luffy. P2. You focused only on the size of rasengan, not in its destructive power, as there was no drastic changes in common rasengan that Naruto can do. Naruto was never seen punching someone to the point of ripping someone's torso completely. And yes, the Rasenshuriken could give damage to Luffy, but since the Isle of newts, was launched on Water Luffy one of a merman able to cut the ground like butter without counting mountains. Luffy able to handle all that damage, since the Rasenshuriken has the same effect. Luffy would only burned, but it would not be cut. P4. I agree partially. For Luffy already had heavy workouts such as a child with Garp "The Hero", as shown in the Goa Kingdom, leaving Luffy picking the monkeys tirelessly all afternoon bruised. Naruto trained not taking a beating. P4. I think not well clarified, the user can not even swim, the more submerged water actually loses energies. But the energy of the sea is more precisely strongly about this. Freshwater not have much effect, as you mentioned, they can shower letting the water drain, which could not only if it was seawater. P5. Thank you. P6. This is irrelevant because Luffy has managed to achieve all of elasticity in a short period of time, not counting the Gear Third, it would inflate their hands, attacking all at once, making all disappear again. P7. The Genjutsu if not work with Luffy because the genjustu relies on manipulating the flow of chakra in the victim's brain, not affecting those who lack such spiritual energy, in which case the staff of One Piece is Haki. Even though the idea is the same spiritual power that exerts influences of power, is not the same thing, so you can not master something that is not chakra, in the case of genjutsu. P8. Luffy, as seen in the movie 10, Strong World, at the end of the film, he manages to leave his leg the size of the fox nine tails, that attack with frighteningly giant, managed to almost destroy the island where they were, surely Luffy defeat the Fox 9 tails (this point is only being added because there is no problem dodging Naruto fox like you said).
Naruto vs Luffy

First and foremost lets keep round five for recapping. P1. It is called the teleportation jutsu because the use can move from one point to another instantaneously, which is still speed. If you can go from start to finish, the same distance in a shorter period of time, you are faster. Your first point is invalid. Also naruto is clearly seen moving enormous distances almost instantaneously without the use of the teleportation no jutsu. P2. You are referring to pre-time skip naruto. His power has grown drastically since his fight with Kabuto, strong enough to defeat several accomplished ninja by himself using rasengan. I was referring to all forms of the rasengan, and you failed to dispute that the rasen shuriken would severely injure luffy. P3. I will concede it was comedic, however it is still Canon and as such a testament to naruto a staying power. Also notable that naruto trained for 4 days straight with no rest during the zabuza arc, at which point he was much weaker and was twelve years old. P4. False, the creator said in an interview that all water is considered part of the sea. Whether it is streams rivers or lakes, if they are more than half submerged then they're affected by it. That's why they prefer to shower because they can't submerge themselves. P5. I will concede to your point P6. I've neglected to mention narutos ability to create shadow clones by the thousands, and the ability to create six equal power clones in sage mode P7. The elder frogs that naruto summons can use the frog song genjutsu from a large distance, incapacitating the opponent indefinitely so long as the song is heard. The only way to defend against it is by overpowering it with your own chakra, however earlier my opponent pointed out that he did not view chakra and Haki as equivocal meaning puffy would be unable to dodge or escape the genjutsu. It incapacitates the body and the mind so the haki barriers would be gone and naruto could do any technique he pleases. P8. Luffys third gear is similar to lee and guys 8 gates. Lee and guy together, after unlocking 6 gates did no damage to the kyuubi in Naruto Shippuden: Power. At the end naruto was seen damaging and dodging the Kyuubi with no apparent difficulty
Naruto vs Luffy

P1. Luffy is still faster than Naruto, as in Movie 11 OP, he has a surprising agility, not to mention that it is made of rubber and is very rough, and its friction makes it less sliding, moving around even faster. The teleportation is not speed, because speed is distance that a body is in a certain period of time, we will see in machines teleport in movies, they do not move, just have their atoms transported to that place, they do not mecheram a finger for this reason, can not be regarded speed. P2. Actually not quite. The Rasengan does not have a destructive power so massive. When Naruto uses it at Kabuto, he gets burned his abdomen. We can see that Luffy resists bullets that pierce people immediately without problems, since the rasengan can not punch people so easily. Only if you are counting the Bijuu Dama Rasengan shaped, there's another story. P3. This was only shown as a moment of comedic anime, it was not something serious with real physical damage, only part of the fun and time to desestresse. P4. Ai now enters another detail, depends on the water you are talking about, fresh water, does not affect either the Devil Fruit user, because she did not have the energy of the sea. Not to mention that the Haki of Observation kicks in again, predicting that Gamabunta would with, instantly causing Luffy use his blows against him, resulting in Unsummoning own. Not to mention that Luffy can now make barriers Haki, virtually indestructible, not letting the water reach around himself. " P5. The Third Haki enter the time, because with the observation that he has, he would find, because even if Luffy never familizarizado with Kumite, Any abnormality found, automatically Haki can find both Rayleigh explains that in 516 he can observe any living being around his Range while he visible or not.
Naruto vs Luffy

Good argument, though I should have stated that I was arguing under the assumption that chakra and haki were equivocal. P1. Luffy is faster in gear two than anything in naruto. not true, luffy is supersonic in gear three and as shown in the movie Naruto Shippuden: Power, naruto moves faster than can be seen, and yes luffy still could be faster were it not for the fact that when naruto unlocked the nine-tails chakra he learned his fathers teleportation no jutsu, meaning naruto can move faster than luffy in any form. P2. Physical attacks would be useless. Not necessarily, because he is rubber he cannot be damaged by blunt force, however naruto's rasengan grinds into his opponent, and, on occasion explodes. Also not to be overlooked is the fact that the Wind Style: Rasen Shuriken destroys organic matter on a cellular level, meaning that even luffy would be seriously injured my a hit from one. P3. Luffys incredible strength is similar to that of the raikage, tsunade, and sakura. The latter of whom has punched naruto through a mountain, the only injury to naruto being a bump on his head. P4. I didn't want to use this so soon, however remember that the main weakness of people who eat the devil fruit is water, If they are more than half submerged in the water they lose even the ability to move in most cases. As stated in One Piece "They sink like a rock". Although naruto is a wind style user he can summon Gamabunta, A giant toad who can use water blasts. P5. As shown with his battle with pain naruto mastered toad kumite, which allows him to attack without being seen, If you are not familiar with the technique, Naruto seems like his attack has missed yet it still hits its mark with no visibility. It was able to hit pain, while the others were all still alive and visually linked. Even luffy cannot dodge and attack he cannot see.