BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Do video games really cause bad behaviour to children

My opponent, in his opening statement, said that "Video games can't really put bad behavior into the lives of the kids of today". I, therefore, will argue the opposite, that video games can cause bad behavior in the lives of today's children. As my opponent provided no definitions, I will do so now. I define a "video game" as an electronic game played by means of images on a video screen and often emphasizing fast action[1]. A "kid" or "child" is defined as anyone under the age of 18. Rated GamesMy opponent begins by explaining that while some video games can cause nightmares, attempts at killing, or serious harm to self, these video games are typically rated at a higher age recommendation than other games. First off, my opponent in this argument has conceded that violent video games do, in fact, cause bad behavior in children. My opponent believes that with the rating system in place, this kind of bad behavior can be deterred. However, it has been shown many times that not all kids follow the rating system. 50% of boys between the ages of 12-17 and 14% of girls in the same age range have a favorite video game that is rated M or AO (above their age level recommendation)[2]. Therefore, since violent video games cause bad behavior, and kids are playing violent video games, video games are causing bad behavior in the lives of kids. Education GamesMy opponent next says that some games can be educational. This argument is irrelevant. The topic of this debate is whether or not video games can "really put bad behavior into the lives of kids today". This does not mean that all video games have to cause bad behavior for the resolution to be true. We know that there are some video games that cause violent behavior and agression[3], and therefore, kids playing these games will be negatively influenced. KidsMy opponent claims that "kids will never stop playing games, if they are good for them or not". My opponent suggests that we should include education in these games in order to teach kids from playing games. My opponent is straying from the topic of this debate. We are not arguing about what should be done about video games, we are arguing about whether or not video games, as of now, are causing bad behavior in children. In conclusion, since violent video games are causing agressive behavior in children[3], and many children are playing violent video games[2], video games can put bad behavior in the lives of kids today. [1] . http://mw4.merriam-webster.com...;[2] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;[3] . http://articles.cnn.com...;
Do video games really cause bad behaviour to children

Rules: Stay on topic and may the best person win!!!Video games can't really put bad behavior into the lives of the kids of today. Here are some reasons of this:1) rated gamesa) Many games such as Halo, Call of Duty and other war like games can put kids intoo nightmares or even try these killing procedures. Kids play these games and can really hurt or kill themselves, like trying to play with a nife. But if kids stick with the rated games to their prior age, i t can stop this. Games that are rated for kids would be like Super mario, or games such as Kung fu Panda or Indiana Jones. 2)Educational Gamesa) Games can also be educational, such as learning step games for kids, and mah-like gmaes for older ones. Games are useful in many ways. Games can be used to help kids want to learn of the futer genrerations. Some websites that i have seen before that has done this is such as a game that teaches math by snowmen. Everytime you get a question right, you get to decorate the snowman. This is how games can be educational3) Kidsa) Kids will never stop playing games, if they are good for them or not. If you are able toi puch education into thesegames, then it would be possible to teach kids from playing gamesThis is my judement on if video games are goo f for kdis or not
The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

The electoral college is NOT an ineffective way of dealing with the presidential election. You state in your point that the electoral college is ineffective because, "...there have been four times where the electoral college has given the presidency to the candidate that did not win the popular vote." I must say immediately, why is it that you sourced all your other facts but not this one? I would like to see you provide evidence of all *4* times this happened. Secondly, even if true this does not demonstrate the fact you so proclaim, that the electoral college is ineffective. This article states: "There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States." The duty of the electoral college is to place their votes for the presidential candidates and they have done that every single time, resulting in a very effective process. Although you may disagree with the direct vs non direct voting system, you cannot say that the electoral college in ineffective. Although it is wrong that the Electoral College is in effective, it is true that the Electoral College isn't obligated to vote the popular vote, which some say is wrong. I believe it is vitally important to have men and women of politics, education and wisdom voting for the president instead of the masses. Look at the masses now, if they could have their way, the popular vote would be for a hopeless buffoon, a leading figure in culture. This is a country to be run. It needs the right type of leader to be elected, not the one that the masses like the most. With presidential elections that result in a popularity and advertising contest, we need a stage / phase that can base their decision more wisely AND with what the masses want. The E.C is not ineffective, and it is necessary to keep our country running and not become a laughing stock of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States) http://www.archives.gov...
The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

Resolved: The electoral college should be abolished. I stand in affirmation of this resolution. As it currently stands, the electoral college is an ineffective way of dealing with the presidential election. Already in our nation's history, there have been four times where the electoral college has given the presidency to the candidate that did not win the popular vote. Despite how we wish that the electoral college represents each one of our individual beliefs, it does not. Even within the electoral college, the general population of each state does not get to choose who the "electors" shall be that sit in upon the electoral college. Each of these electors are chosen by the respective political parties at their major conventions for the state. Typically, the electors chosen are those that have shown long-term dedication to a certain political party. To highlight my previous point, I wish to show that the electoral college, while supposed to vote in favor of the state's majority, they are not forced to. According to the U.S archives, there are not any legal ramifications should a state vote Democratic and the electoral college votes Republican. This means that the electoral college also holds an insane amount of power over the country and, should they be corrupted, there is no legal action that could be taken against the electors other than a small fine that may be imposed by a state. To top this off, it is at the state's discretion as to whether or not the general public can even watch them perform this vote, meaning there's a chance for absolutely no accountability. Moving on, the electoral college is has become obsolete. Thanks to modern-day technology, we now have the ability to vote by mail, go to the polls, or vote online, in some cases. The electoral college was originally created in a time period where it was necessary to have this since communication was not something that could done in a timely manner nor could they receive the votes of every person in a state in a timely manner. The electoral college has long overstayed its welcome and thus, I move that it should be abolished. Sources: http://www.archives.gov... http://www.archives.gov... http://www.archives.gov...
The Halo Around "Organic Food" is BS

The ammount of synthetic pecticides people put on to plants in normal farming is insignificant compared to the ammount of carciogens that the plant produces on it's own. There are 10,000 times as much naturaly occuring carciogens in food than what pestcides deliver. [1] You said that the nauraly occuring "pesticides" are better for people. Well in the 1980's, a type of celery that produced it's own pesticide had to be taken of the market because it would cause rashes in people. The same thing happened to a potatoe that had a natural pesticide that caused cancer. The naturaly occuring are not safer, perhaps more dangerous, than synthetic pesticedes. [2] The nutritional content varies widely. As you said from your first resource, which included an inconclusive report, that some organic food contained greater nutritional value. There was another report that claimed the exact opposite. Quote: "The conventionally grown plums contained 38 per cent more of the potentially beneficial polyphenol compounds than the organically grown ones did." [2] This proves that the reasearch is inconclusive because it is very much a random draw. Some studies say one thing, some studies say another. Organic advocates pick and choose the ones that agree with them. The big picture, on the other hand, shows that there is just as much proof for it as there is saying it is worst for you. Organic food is not any more nutrutionaly benificial. If the synthetic pestcides are going to have any affect on you, wouldn't you think they would have more affect on the people who use them directly? On a study of 90,000 farmers, 65% directly used pesticed for over ten years. Being in such close proximity to the pesticides caused no increase in the percent of cancer. Quote: "Historically, most food-related diseases are due to bacterial and fungal contamination, so in terms of health consciousness, focussing on pesticides is probably barking up the wrong tree."[2] Also, due to much preassure, syntheticly produced fertilzers, pecticides, ect are strictly regulated and significantly safer than they were 20 years ago. [3] There is no more evidence that organic food is safer than there is evidence that it is not, therefore, people only believe what they want to belive and organic food is BS.[1] http://www.cosmosmagazine.com...[2] http://www.cosmosmagazine.com...[3] http://www.cosmosmagazine.com...
The Halo Around "Organic Food" is BS

http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...I will use these two videos as the basis of my argument. BS is fertilizer for organic crops [1] No increase in nutritional value [2] Hormones in milk is the same organic or normal. They taste the same There is no scientific evidence that pesticide and herbicide residues are a cause of cancer in the US [3] 1 cup of coffee > 1 year's worth of synthetic pesticide synthetic pesticides are potentially safer [4] takes significantly more land that it would only feed 4 billion people just thinking something is organic makes it taste better [1] http://www.ota.com... [2] http://annals.org... [3] http://ipm.ncsu.edu... [4] http://www.theglobeandmail.com... And finally: http://fborfw.com...
creationism verses evolution

Evolution is a fact. Over 98% of scientists in the field agree. Anyone can go to the Museum of Natural History and witness the evidence for themselves. I already provided links to Wikipedia and other reliable sources that prove evolution is a fact.My opponent still talks about the origin of life "from primordial soup". That is not what evolution is. That is abiogenesis, which we are not debating about.My opponent failed to prove creationism and instead talked about spinning planets and abiogenesis. It's a shame this debate was wasted on topics not for this debate.
creationism verses evolution

hello i am starting a creation evolution online debate with you i believe (and am pro) for creationism con will be against creationists to start off the debate i will have a question why does evolution defy physics it defy' s the second law of thermodynamics if some high school football players spin some little kids clockwise on a merry-go-round here is what will happen step #1: the kids will say "faster faster" step #2: at about 30 miles an hour their hanging on for their life step #3: at 60 miles an hour their yelling but their yelling something different "STOP STOP SLOW DOWN" at step 4: they still go faster at step 5: the child will fall off but will spin off clockwise. until he hits resistance like a tree or a pole. notice how the kids spin clockwise well if the big bang is true why do we have planets spinning backwards?
May/June Beginners Debate Tournament: Voting should be mandatory

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent Nuevo for participating in this debate/tournament. This is not our first debate with one another and I look forward to discussing this new topic with you. I would also like to thank any readers and judges for taking the time to participate in this debate. In this debate I will be accepting the role of Con. I will be arguing that voting should not be mandatory. I accept the rules and format offered by Nuevo. Seeing as Pro has not done so, I will be providing a couple definitions. (1) Definitions: Voting- to choose, endorse, decide the disposition of, defeat, or authorize by vote (Merriam Webster) Mandatory- required by a law or rule (Merriam Webster) I give my best wishes to my opponent and look forward to an interesting debate. 1) https://www.merriam-webster.com...
May/June Beginners Debate Tournament: Voting should be mandatory

Greetings to one and all! Finally, it's time for the May Beginners Debate Tournament Finals Match-Up. I am Nuevo and I will be arguing for the resolution. We are all aware of the fact that It is kind of an upset to see that this is the first and last debate of the tourney due to continuing failure in communication, but I assure you that this will be a great debate between me and Deonatus. And, this will not be the last you'll hear our names. With that being all said, let me advance the rules. Round 1 is for greetings and acceptance. Round 2 is for the introductory arguments, no rebuttals. Round 3 is for rebuttals and, if you wish, new arguments. Round 4 is for final rebuttals and conclusions and/or summaries. I wish Deonatus luck. And, may the odds favor the one who compels the best.
Friedrich Nietzsche was not a nihilist.

Debate status: Debate is open and is able to be accepted by any challenger. Goal: The goal of this debate is to have two people debate whether Friedrich Nietzsche, a German philosopher of the 1800s whom has had a profound impact on modern Western philosophy, was a nihilist. Hopefully, both debaters and the audience will be able to learn more about the German philosopher, and decide for themselves whether Nietzsche was a nihilist or not. Format: R1 - Acceptance, and queries about rules or conduct. R2 - Arguments are presented by both sides. R3 - Arguments and rebuttals. R4 - Rebuttals. R5 - Rebuttal rebuttals and conclusion. R6 (COMMENTS) - Debaters compile any rule violation made during the rounds. Noting rule violation during R1-5 is still allowed. Rules: 1) Maintain proper conduct for a debate setting. Any breaking of this rule should constitute the forfeiting of the following two voting options on the post-debate voting card: - Who had better conduct? - Who had better spelling and grammar? 2) Profanity is disallowed, unless it is used for emphasis. Nonetheless, usage of profanity should go against conduct for point voting. 3) Any deviations from the debate format should constitute the forfeiting of the following three voting options on the post-debate voting card: - Who had better conduct? - Who did you agree with after the debate? - Who made more convincing arguments? Any other points can be awarded, but the following three must be disqualified by the voters, else the results should be considered null. 4) The comments are recommended for use by both debaters to point out any rule breaking by their opponent. They are to be used to highlight specific rules that are broken during the match. Any abuse of this power, i.e false accusations that are discredited by the accused, are to constitute a 7-point forfeit by the false accuser.
Cigarettes should be banned

Hospitals ban smoking on their premises but they do not ban their employees from going off premises and smoking then coming back. The hospital is the number one place of contraction for staff and MRSA infections and employee sanitization is a primary cause. Not quite sure is cigarette smoke is a cause but it surely can't help. I agree that a law put into effect at the federal level leaves room for abuse so then I suppose that hiking up the tax on cigarettes would be a feasible option. People smoking tend to have severe health issues and if they cannot afford health insurance they end up causing the tax payers money. Something has to be done about the cigarette one way or another. I don't believe I can win this debate without trampling over my own beliefs of freedom but at the same time protect others from the effects of smoking.
Cigarettes should be banned

Smoking is banned in hospitals and may buildings. I agree with this. But there is a difference between a private or federal building instituting such a policy for obvious reasons, and legislations passed which have potential for abuse and will have no other effect than increasing the amount of tickets officers are able to write. The butterfly effect kicks in, now you have a bunch of agitated smokers walking around, and money being taken from consumers that does not reenter the economy. For instance, a Ruby Tuesday definitely SHOULD ban smoking. A bar definitely SHOULD NOT, unless by some odd chance the owners, employees, and majority of patrons are non-smokers. These are both private entities. Let it be their choice. Also, it would be easy to build ventilated "waiting rooms" in buildings such as universities and restaurants, so people can smoke when it is raining outside or when they want to eat out, and nobody else is affected.
Cigarettes should be banned

True alcohol and fast food do pose a threat to those that ingest them and in the case of alcohol it does threaten others should the consumer choose to drive or if they have aggressive tendencies. Cigarettes are the only one of the three that affect someone other than the consumer regardless of intentions. Take a nurse or a surgeon for example, the smoke gets on their clothes and they are going around sick patients. As far as enforcing this your right that would be rather tricky but it would not be anymore complicated than enforcing alcohol laws. I suppose a fine would suffice.
Cigarettes should be banned

When you used the term "banned" instead of outlawed, I suspected this was what you meant. Now that this is clarified, it turns out I agree, but I will continue playing devils advocate. Smoking in public should not be banned because alcohol and fast food are also bad for you, and people have the right to eat themselves 40lb's overweight and then fork over their hospital bills to medicare/medicaid. People drink at bars in restaurants and then go home the same way they got there...by driving. A good compromise might be for buildings to have "smoking rooms" which are partitioned off from the rest of the building. How would this ban be enforced? In NY, there have been cases of people getting fined for smoking on their own front steps, because the sidewalk is still considered "public". This would certainly increase the caseload of law enforcement who are already stretched thin by a war on drugs.
Cigarettes should be banned

Well said! I actually made that same argument for legalizing marijuana. Absolutely true that prohibition creates an underground market and nothing but problems. I suppose I should have said they should be banned from use in the general public. For example you cannot drink beer while walking on a public road but you can in a bar or a stadium etc. Cigarette smokers should have the same restrictions in public places and in most cases they do but it is not right that you can be walking down the sidewalk and have to stroll right through a cloud of smoke containing chemicals that are proven to have harmful affects on ones health. Say all drugs were to be legalized, they should all have the same rules as alcohol.
Cigarettes should be banned

Hello! I will keep the intro short, and present my main points. I will expand upon them as the debate evolves. I have two major points, but I consider them to be big ones against any form of prohibition. 1. Prohibition never works. It didn't work for alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution, or dogfighting. All prohibition does is create a black market run by criminals, which increases related violence and often worsens the economic situation of those involved in these activities, further continuing the cycle. 2. It would be much, much more effective to tax the hell out of cigarettes like they do in NY and Chicago; it raises revenues and encourage people to quit smoking, without creating a violent criminal underground. market.
Cigarettes should be banned

"Hospitals ban smoking on their premises but they do not ban their employees from going off premises and smoking then coming back." --I hadn't thought of this. I will concede this is poor policy for a hospital, but as I stated above this is a private facility and the purpose of banning cigarette smoke or smoking while on shift) is obvious. I could agree with a law that forbids medical staff from smoking on shift, but it would be much easier to just petition the hospitals to pass the policy themselves. "People smoking tend to have severe health issues and if they cannot afford health insurance they end up causing the tax payers money. Something has to be done about the cigarette one way or another." --This is somewhat true, however: there are many smokers who live to their 80's, and many non-smokers who experience health issues early in life having never used drugs or smoked. Caffeine, processed foods and gmo's, alcohol, and a host of corporate behaviors regarding dumping and drilling would all need to be taxed higher also, if we follow the same line of reasoning. "I don't believe I can win this debate without trampling over my own beliefs of freedom but at the same time protect others from the effects of smoking." We have to acknowledge other people's beliefs, but we don't always have to honor their choices. Smoking is bad-- if you recall Philip Morris originally lied about the addictive and harmful properties of cigarettes. If anyone should have to pay a hefty fine towards healthcare, it should be them. (We put drug dealers in prison, don't we?). I know this last statement seems to contradict the rest of my argument, but truthfully I just think that prohibition is ineffective and in most cases there are better alternatives. Why not make stores hide their cigarette displays like they do adult magazines? Why not sit your kid down and explain to them the realities of smoking, and show them images of people with cancer in their throat or lungs? I think these would be much more effective ways to reduce the amount of smokers. Smoking cessation should also be covered under preventative care, for reasons you have already stated. One round left! Rebuttals and recap I am assuming. I await your reply!