BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The American media (video games and music etc) affect children

Well, this is a bit of an odd topic to argue and debate on, since there is no way to prove that any form of media has any affect on a person. I will, however, do my best. As I said before, because there is no way to prove this, scientifically or otherwise, I will be using every website available to me via good 'ol Google. I also predict that there will be no winner. Let us begin. Personal Experiences and Stories: I have heard of a few convicted murderers, arsonists, and other such criminals (only being in their teenage years) blaming video games for their behavior and actions. I do not think that is the case. They just needed something to blame. They chose to do whatever they did by their own free will, not from the influence of some video game. Whenever I play Call of Duty, I don't just get up, find a gun, and go on a killing spree because virtual killing bores me. I like Call of Duty because it gives my wonderful human mind the pleasure of causing another person harm WITHOUT actually doing it to them. I honestly could never even consider killing a person unless my own life was threatened, as I'm sure many people feel the same. My friend and I even practice knife fighting sometimes, using fake knives of course. We don't even hurt each other, it's just fun for our hairless monkey brains. Research (Google): Let us look at the atom bomb. The atom bomb was an outrageous scientific break through; the splitting of an atom. Now, what did the United States do? We didn't try to harness the energy created, no we didn't. In fact, instead of using this discovery to better human life, we used it to destroy thousands of people almost all at once. (Opinion: I don't think the U.S. even considered using this for good.) Another good example is the Holocaust. Hitler, despite his amazing ability to debate and his skills in politics, he was a bit insane. He killed millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, elderly, black and disabled people for a reason that is still unknown today. All the people that worked for him were just as bad. That's like a thousand little Hitlers running around doing big Hitler's bidding. ProCon: The media. I honestly believe that humans are destructive by nature, some are just lucky enough to be born with some sense, moral values and self control. The media gives the public ideas on how to do these things, maybe things for the human mind to ponder while driving to work or taking a leisurely stroll. The news doesn't tell people to do horrible things, it just reports the horrible things that have happened. Video games don't tell kids or adults to do bad things, they just simulate it for our default human pleasure. I know it's a little short, but these are my arguments. I look forward to seeing what Pro throws at me. Good luck! Sources: http://www.helium.com...
Capitalism (Pro) vs. Socialism (Con)

REBUTTALDefinitionsPro says "Man you must get scammed all the time.You just said that you belive anything that will benifit you."This is false and I never stated that. I said I would accept Pro's particular definition of Capitalism despite it being a little extreme. The claims that I said I would believe anything that would benefit me are clearly false.He offers no adequate rebuttal against my points.Thought ExperimentPro states "A scenario like this is a result of companies not needing more jobs, which is a result of less growth, which competition creates."I'm struggling to parse this as a response as Pro is quite unclear about the overall point he is trying to make and, of course, offers absolutely no evidence. I think the most likely interpretation is he is conceding that the results are bad, but trying to claim the situation is unlikely because competition creates jobs.Pro seems unaware that unemployment is a worldwide and constant phenomenon. Right now there are over 200,000,000 people unemployed [1] and that there being countless millions of people constantly unemployed is a constant effect under Capitalism [2]. If Pro thinks competition magically makes lack of jobs not an issue, he is very much mistaken. As the evidence shows my described situation of there being too many people searching for too few jobs is far more likely because that's the case at the moment and it was the case last year and the year before that and the year before that and so on.Money circulationPro states "More consumer options allows for money to be circulated all around the market. If I want to buy shoes, and the government only offers Company A shoes, then 100% of the shoe market is going to A. But if there are more choices, then I can buy from places other than Company A, which circulates the money."Pros claim does not hold. Circulation refers to the activity of money. [3] If £100 is spent at company A, the same amount of money has been circulated as if £50 had been spent at Company A and Company B. Capitalism is inherently murderousPro makes no cogent argument and instead just states "You're using your own argument against you" with no rationale, logic or evidence.Lack of evidenceA general point. Throughout his entire argument Pro has failed to provide any evidence or support beyond his unsupported opinion.SummaryBased on this I feel Pro has failed to engage with my arguments, not offering rebuttals to many points I made just as my point that drew on the work of a Nobel prize winner in economics to show better outcomes under socialism. What answers Pro did give being vague and unsupported by evidence. Based on this I think that voters should clearly vote for Con. [1] https://goo.gl...[2] https://goo.gl...[3] https://goo.gl...
Capitalism (Pro) vs. Socialism (Con)

"but if anything I believe that helps me so I accept these definitions." Man you must get scammed all the time. You just said that you belive anything that will benifit you."essentially every Capitalist country on Earth is a mixed-market type of Capitalism which assumes control of trade and industry is split between government and state" Well then they aren't pure capitalist countries."The given definition for socialism contains no reference point for government control" is it not in the definition of capitalism "rather than by the state." "owned or regulated by the community as a whole."Let me educate; definition of community: "a social group of any size whose members reside in a specific locality,share government, and often have a common cultural and historicalheritage.""Thought Experiment"A scenario like this is a result of companies not needing more jobs, which is a result of less growth, which competition creates."Incentives""Firstly, he again focuses on governments when most socialists will be focusing on solutions which include the market such as co-operatives" Then they are not completely socialist then.Also people don't have the ability to start their own business if they want to be succesful."Pro states "Socialism also restricts the amount of consumer choices, which creates a deficency of money circulating smoothly." I have no idea what to make of this. Pro hasn't explained himself or (in criticism which applies to the rest of his argument) offered any evidence. It seems to be buzzwords." More consumer options allows for money to be circulated all aurond the market. If i want to buy shoes, and the government only offers Company A shoes, then 100% of the shoe market is going to A. But if there are more choices, then I can buy from places other than Company A, which circulates the money."CAPITALISM IS INHERENTLY MURDEROUS""The issue is that the goods available are not allocated in an optimised way. It's no conspiracy, it's just a result of Capitalist inventives driving people towards anti-societal goals." You're using your own argument against you, "Thirdly, the claim of "the managers of those companies don't have an incentive to make the company perform better because the managers don't get to keep any profits" is completely wrong on two levels. Firstly managers will get reunmeration as part of their salary and agian they can be fired for doing their job poorly, promoted or given raises for doing it well, etc. For the secondld part of why it's wrong, the same criticism, if it were true, would apply to much of Capitalism. Of all the managers in a large Capitalist business (not small run family businesses), how many of them are getting a share of the profits? it will be almost done, only the top level members of the board will recieve a small share of the profits in terms of stock options." those are Capitalistic incentives.
Capitalism (Pro) vs. Socialism (Con)

Let's start by defining Capitalism and Socialism:Capitalism:an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Socialism:a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rather than the government having control over all the production, distribution, and exange, capitalism allows for competitive companies that strive to succed further than their competitors, which naturally creates growth.As far as jobs go, some pro-socialists make the argument that a socialist economy will provide equal job opritunities, and that you can't leave it up to private enterprises to provide good wages and employee benifits.Addressing that argument, say you have 2 companies, company A and company B. Company A needs 100 workers to manufacter their newest smartphone, Company B needs 100 workers to manufacter their newest smartphone, their are a limited amount of workers looking for jobs.Think of this scenario from the point of veiw as a worker, company A is offering $20/hour, while company B is offering $10/hour. The majority of the workers naturally go to company A because they offer a higher wage than company B, that leaves company A with 80 workers while company B has 20 workers, now company B has 80 less workers than they initinally wanted, so now B is offering $25/hour, this drives workers to company B which creates a good wage without government involvement.Another con of socialism is incentive, if the government is the owner of production, distrobution, and exchange, then the workers wouldn't have the incentive to work harder for bonuses and better benifits.Well you might ask, why wouldn't the government give employee bonuses, well the managers of those companies don't have an incentive to make the company perform better because the managers don't get to keep any profits.Socialism also restricts the amount of consumer choices, which creates a deficency of money circulating smoothly.Socialism always fails.
Education problems

i dont know where you are in the USA but common core is leaving where i am and its personally screwing me over I have to leave everything I learned in the last 7 years and throw it away and also schools need to have diversity in classes earlier on like in 6th they should pick there classes because right know all I have learned is math science reading/ELA and social studies but nothing else but I have a question How many mathematicians can there be no wonder no one has any jobs because everybody knows the same things because there's no diversity in schools classes like home ec should be mandatory in all schools a class that teaches you life skills like cooking your own food paying bills balancing checks and things like that because if I would be throw out into the real world I would be screwed I have no knowledge on those things its insane
Education problems

Education is fine as it is. With Common Core coming out, a centralized way of learning is perfect for our society. US is ranked 25th in the world for math. COmmon COre will help us. Our Education right now is horrible. We aren't even in the top 10 for math or science. We call ourselves "the melting pot" because we have many smart immigrants. But is everyone learning that well, even smart kids. Thats why our education right now is bad and needs to be changed
Education problems

Schools what the f*** seriously Too many problems with school im in 8th grade im 14 and noticed something really f***ed up censorship is extreme in schools this link is just an example schools are banning books like how to kill a mockingjay the catcher in the rye why so it says f*** or ni**** there is way worse things out there in my school i got detention for writing the word jerk i personally think that is extreme and a direct violation of the first amendment freedom of speech religion press etc there banning books like that but still i here my teachers curse all the time there's books in our library with curse words in it and porn scenes they are not banned but books kids have been reading for years have been banned god back then they probably knew less curse words the we do I think as long as not not directed at someone cursing should be aloud in schools if said to another teachers/student etc then discipline should be enforced otherwise I say let them curse again a direct violation of the first amendment. Another problem is schools digging into students business off school grounds http://www.cnn.com... If you clicked on the link you can probably agree way to extreme a god damn former FBI agent isnt that too far I get you want to keep your students safe but if they don't do anything at the school or school related then why punish them if its happening after school report it to the police its there job not yours and in the first place teachers or principals should not be searching up your name and looking at things like instagram facebook and twitter thats your personal business im done for now my fingers hurt lol argue it up.
the bible does not teach that non-christians will necessarily be condemned

My interpretation is a strict, word-for-word quote of the text. Its cool that you have your own interpretation of what it 'essentially' says, but if you read the passage for the words that are really there, instead of putting your own spin on it, you'll find my message holds. So, lets go to the text. You provide some valid examples. The John passage does indicate that the evil reject the light, but your proverbial man on an island isn't evil, he is indifferent. You are polarizing the circumstance. You don't have to be either good or evil, you can just be. The man on the island has not heard the gospel and therefore, hasn't accepted or rejected it. The question becomes whether or not this abstinence is damnable. The Mark passage states "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". Clearly the man on the island does neither. So, he is damned. The John 3 passage states "whoever does not believe stands condemned already". Again, the man on the island does not believe. I admit he hasn't rejected, but that is his downfall. Being saved requires the action of acceptance. Not believing is either rejection (the evil you mention) or abstinence (island man). Both are damnable. If we look at the first John, John 8, the first part of the sentence presupposes we have heard the gospel by using "I told you". But, our island man has not been told, so he doesn't fit with that passage. I am not a christian and usually don't support the Bible. But, this is just a language problem. Each of the passages you provide state clearly that those who do not believe are damned. Our island man does not believe. True, he has not rejected Christ, but that isn't a necessary step for damnation. Regardless of whether or not he has heard the scriptures, the man on the island is a non-believer and therefore damned by the texts you provided.
the bible does not teach that non-christians will necessarily be condemned

--The multiple passages you cite all say "those who do not believe will be condemned". --In order for you to be correct, there would have to be a precondition in the text referring to knowledge of the gospels followed by my rejection. There obviously is not. actually, they essentially say "those who reject what they heard will be condemned" they don't say what you say. please read them again... "i told you... if you don't believe" "preach the gosple (which implies the hearing)... those who don't believe will be condemned." "they rejected the light they saw" notice, in every passage they heard, and then rejected. so your belief that not believing will get you condemned is not supported by the passages, or any other bible passages that i know of. your belief is at best, probably just the traditions of man that you're trying to force into the bible where it doesn't exist.
the bible does not teach that non-christians will necessarily be condemned

Your problem lies not with the scripture, but with the language. The multiple passages you cite all say "those who do not believe will be condemned". To believe is an action, not to believe is static or inaction. In order to be saved I must perform the action of belief in Christ. Not to believe is simply the failure to perform that action. If I fail to believe, regardless of my knowledge of the gospels or Christ, I am therefore condemned. Seems simple enough. In order for you to be correct, there would have to be a precondition in the text referring to knowledge of the gospels followed by my rejection. There obviously is not. Again, my failure to believe is enough to get me damned. The proverbial man on the island, in all of his ignorance, does not believe. He is damned. Thanks.
the bible does not teach that non-christians will necessarily be condemned

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM HE you will die in your sins" (John 8:24). John 3:16 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God." Mark 16..... 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. the only passages that might indicate the necessity of believing in Jesus are the preceeding. they all say that only if you "reject" what you've been told would you be condemned. so, the hypothetical man on the island is not necessarily condemned. i'd argue that simply hearing a man shout out damnations at people isn't hearing the gosple, or a crude understanding isn't hearing.. such that you'd have rejected, or even a misunderstood/appreciated doesn't count. but, all i have to do to p[rove my point for this thread is show that hypothetical man, who never had a chance to reject. i'd also point out that the passage from mark is disputed by scholars are to whether it's legit, given that it wasn't in hte earliest texts. http://www.bible-researcher.com... but this argument is just icing on the cake, and i don't really need this argument to make my point.
the bible does not teach that non-christians will necessarily be condemned

--The Mark passage states "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". Clearly the man on the island does neither. So, he is damned. clearly i agree the man on the island does neither. but he doesn't reject the Gospel, for the text clearly says those who "reject" will be condmened. clearly he didn't reject it. the literal reading of the very quote you quoted says whoever believes will be saved.... so, if you believe you're saved. it doesn't say what happens if you dn't believe, but haven't rejected. -The John 3 passage states "whoever does not believe stands condemned already". Being saved requires the action of acceptance. Not believing is either rejection (the evil you mention) or abstinence (island man). Both are damnable. you haven't show a passage that says not believing while not rejecting, ie just being, is damanable. it's not in the text... you're simply forcing it where it's not. in fact, you've committed the common error regarding the very text you quoted.. cause the passage goes on to define what it means to be condemned... the passage says it means you rejected the light. the man on the island hasn't rejected the light. he hasn't accepted the gosple, but no where does it say he has to. -If we look at the first John, John 8, the first part of the sentence presupposes we have heard the gospel by using "I told you". But, our island man has not been told, so he doesn't fit with that passage. i'd argue the same thing you just said here, word for word. you haven't made your conclusion though. in fact, since he doesn't fit it cause he hasn't heard, he can't be said to be culpable. those in that passage here, and were culpable. thank you for being yet another who is verifying that it does not say in the bible that nonchristians will necessarily be condemned. the passage we debated clearly do not show it,as i've clearly shown. it is you who's forcing the doctrine of man, a very terrible doctrine, into the bible where it does not exist.please reread the passages more carefully. your knee jerk response is common until one reads closer.
I wont win this debate

nonnonononoonononononononoononononononoonononononononononoonononononononononoonnoonoononnononoonononnononoonnoonnoonnoonlloololooololooloololololololololololololololololololloolololololloloolollolollolololololololololololollolololololl iiiii aaaammmmmmm aaawwwwwssssoooooooooommmmmmmeeeeeeeee beccccccccccccccaaaaaaaaauuuuuuuuussssssssssseeeeeee iiiiiiimmmmmmm ggggggggooooooooooooodddddddd
I wont win this debate

My opponet thinks i beat him well i tell you i couldnt beat a sloth on a race to the ocean.Ha i will give the reader of this a head ache so they will hate me.if nothing was everything what would something be? Would it be part of nothing, well could it be,is it possible for it to be, nothing to be anything even if it is everything. I will give you anouther reason to hate me its because you cant stop thinking about that anoying pink elephant STOP THINKING ABOUT IT STOP IT STOP IT PINK ELEPHANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!