BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence

First, according to uslegal.com, juvenile courts only cover persons under the age of 18, so we have to go off that age. The American Psychological Association states on June 7, 2010, that the only children who showed aggression after exposure to violent video games already displayed aggressive characteristics beforehand. This evidence indicates that video games do not increase violence, as stated in the resolution, as people who have violent characteristics in the first place are drawn to it. Therefore, per the resolution, we see that video games do not increase violence, nor perpetuate it. Regarding his 60 minutes evidence, this goes along with the above contention, that people with violent characteristics go the video games in the first place. The evidence says, "who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months." That quote alone shows the kind of mental state this person was in beforehand. Once again, this evidence is pointing to the Pro side, that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. Regarding his desensitization of violence argument, Richard Rhodes of Rolling Stone found several flaws methodologically with over 200 studies regarding violent video games, and came to the conclusion that "The research no more supports the consensus on media violence than it supported the conclusions of the eugenics consensus eighty years ago that there are superior and inferior 'races,' with White Northern Europeans at the top." The studies that my opponent has been bringing up always mention some form of correlation between video games and violence, however, correlation does not necessary mean causation. According to british psychologist Guy Cumberbatch, "Finding that people who enjoy violent media may also be aggressive is tantamount to observing that those who play football also enjoy watching it on television. 'The correlational nature of this study means that causal statements are risky at best,' the authors admit. ...All in all, new evidence is exceptionally weak, and in its one-sided approach it has a depressingly familiar ring to it. ...Studies to date have been notably biased towards seeking evidence of harm. This 'blame game' may be fun for some researchers to play, and knee-jerk reactions such as the APA's press release may be media-friendly. But we deserve better." All in all, there is no link between correlation and causation. For the reasons I stated in opening, and the fact that there is no link between correlation and causation, I urge Pro vote.
Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence

First of all, as an observation, Juvenile can be defined as the following, from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: " physiologically immature or undeveloped", :reflecting psychological or intellectual immaturity", and "of, relating to, characteristic of, or suitable for children or young people." Therefore, since no exact age-bar ws given by the Pro, we can assume anyone is a juvenile if they match the description. This means adults who have mental disabilities, and people of all ages who bear these characteristics meeet the criteria of "Juvenile." First - Kids/Juveniles who play violent video games are prone to Violent Videogames, as told by a journal Pediatrics in it's study in 2008. Anne Harding of CNN, who covered the study, reported on three groups in the study: "In every group, children who were exposed to more video game violence did become more aggressive over time than their peers who had less exposure." CBSNews' 60 Minutes even went on about how a violent video game, Grand Theft Auto, led to a rampage by one of the kids who played it: "And now, the game is at the center of a civil lawsuit involving the murders of three men in the small town of Fayette, Ala. They were gunned down by 18-year-old Devin Moore, who had played Grand Theft Auto day and night for months." American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry elaborate on these effects: "Studies of children exposed to violence have shown that they can become: “immune” or numb to the horror of violence, imitate the violence they see, and show more aggressive behavior with greater exposure to violence. Some children accept violence as a way to handle problems. Studies have also shown that the more realistic and repeated the exposure to violence, the greater the impact on children. In addition, children with emotional, behavioral and learning problems may be more influenced by violent images." Therefore, the effects of violent video games are true, and do exist. Therefore, I contend that video Games do increase juvenile violence, as anyone, including children, who are deemed able to be a "juvenile" by definition, can be pushed into doing violence.
Video Games do not increase or perpetuate juvenile violence

As Pro, I am advocating that video games do not increase or perpetuate violence. First Round: Case Presentation Second:Rebuttals Third:Voters 1. Statistics point to the Pro argument According to the FBI in 2009,The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. The FBI statistics show that video game sales have been on the rise, while all juvenile violent crimes have fallen in the same amount of time. Looking at today's debate, you have to see that Pro shows with this evidence that the claim that video games cause violence is not backed up by reasonable statistics. Therefore, the claim is false. 2.There is no correlation between violence and video games. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent books, movies, and writings. The report did not show any link between video games and school based violence. 3. Violent video games can indeed be a healthy outlet. A 2007 study by the Journal of Adolescent Health reported that 45% of boys played video games because "it helps me get my anger out" and 62% played because it "helps me relax." Those statustics show that children go to video games to give them an escape from the pressures of life around them. Also, video games can provide helpful lessons for the future. They allow people to explore situations like war, violence, and death without real consequences. Overall, statistics show that there is no correlation between video games and juvenile violence. In fact, video games help more than they hurt.
All Women Are Beautiful

I'll continue. I say all women beautiful because there are so many beautiful actresses but no two look exactly the same. Examples: Halle Berry and Charlize Theron. Both women are talented actresses and both women are beautiful in their own right. Halle Berry has beautiful, chocolate skin with black hair while Charlize has creamy skin with luscious blonde hair. there is no denying both these women are beautiful in their own right. But it's not just looks. There are many other women who are beautiful because of their confidence. An example would be Rebel Wilson. While she is heavyset, she she extremely talented and is not afraid to make jokes about herself. A sense of confidence is beautiful because in the end, beauty doesn't always last. A sense of confidence that lasts throughout the years will remain something to admire and love.
All Women Are Beautiful

To be honest, ok you can say that All Women Are Beautiful. But, this is not the case. You can't just say that a person is beautiful just because of their gender, I am disagreeing with you because this seems a little bit misandristic. Surely the argument because everyone has different taste that all women are beautiful would mean that all men, too are beautiful. You're saying that someone is beautiful if one person finds them attractive. I believe this to be false, due tot he fact that, beauty, of course is in the eye of the beholder but to say ALL women are beautiful is silly and extremely cliche. Everyone is beautiful, maybe. But beauty is subjective, so you're just arguing an ideology.
Death Penalty

My opponent says that we should look at the big picture, saying that the death of one innocent will save more lives. If I were to tell you (I"m addressing my opponent and anyone who is reading this) that I found evidence that you were guilty of murder, and I was going to kill you... but it's all ok because your death would prevent 74 others. Now how does that sound?? My opponent tries to stay that the money is worth it because It deters. I have already proven why the Death Penalty doesn't deter, and because it doesn't deter, it is a complete waste of money, and that is why it could be better spent for other services that could fund other programs. Honestly though, most of the people that actually commit crimes are intoxicated or aren't thinking in their right mind when they commit a murder. Most of the time when people commit a murder they are not thinking of the consequences, and I have once again already proven why the Death Penalty doesn't deter. **I"m sorry that this argument was very very poor, but I have been busy lately. I enjoyed this debate very much.**
Unorganized prostitution should be legal worldwide

I am happy to accept argue for the 'CON' in this debate. There are 3 main points that you make that I would like to contest in this round. 'Let us discuss its effects on the general satisfaction of a human and the decline of rapes such an act will cause. A person will now be able to relieve his sexual frustrations in a positive manner. This way both parties get what they want and everyone is happy. 'This statement is an argument based on presentation of zero evidence. It is wrong to assert this. 'It is high time that we set behind our old moral rigidity and move forward to a domain of logical freedom and a new set of morals that are not only ethical but promoting general peace and welfare for all. ' Completely agree with this statement on its own. 'This will help in decreasing pseudo-relationships or relationships which are only created for name-sake, i. e. , created by many just for the purpose of tricking the other into a relationship just to have sex with no further motive of emotional bonding or togetherness. Such people will not require to partake in such immoral methods, thus leading to a general honest society where all can engage in true loving relationships. This will also decrease pseudo-marriages and suicides that take place because of such fake bonding. 'Again, wrong to assert something like this. I would like to also note that I don't think this would be a very good argument. It is a completely different area of sociology. To assert that someone that wants a relationship for sexual relations would AUTOMATICALLY be morally capable of rape is a disgusting comment. I am certain that there are people in the world that have gone for a certain partner purely for sexual relations with that person. It is not an immoral thing to do in most cases. I will settle my frsit round there. Thank you, the next round will be fun.
should the parents districk to children

First off, "Districk" is not a word, the closest word to your misspelling is "District" which means "an area of a country or city, especially one regarded as a distinct unit because of a particular characteristic." [1] Did you mean that Parents should stay with Children at all times, even if they have to go to work, I would agree with you if you meant that because Parents are either away from their Children or they slaughter, kill, and eat their own Children for not believing in Christmas like they don't do anymore today after proving "The Roast Game." [1] https://www.google.com...
This House Believes that religion is more dangerous than science

Whilst it is true that the Ku Klux Klan was formed of mainly protestant Christians, you have not given me any reason to suggest that the Ku Klux Klan was motivated by religion. It is not vacuous to suggest that the Ku Klux Klan or some variant thereof would have arisen in a secular society. Evidence to support this is that there have been many racist organisations that were not religious, such as Nazism and the EDL. I also don't agree that science is universally enclosed and controlled, why then would North Korea have the ability to develop nuclear weapons? To conclude the debate, in terms of my original definition of 'dangerous', that which is capable/likely to cause harm, science is both more capable and likely to cause harm because scientifically-developed technology can make harming people very easy to do. Religion, on the other hand, in its extreme form can cause people to wish to cause harm, but this harm would be very limited if science was not there to provide the tools to cause it. You talk about emotional damage but you haven't really provided widespread evidence of religion causing emotional damage. Sure, some extremists may have cause isolated cases of emotional damage but this pales in comparison to the harm that has caused by science.
This House Believes that religion is more dangerous than science

I agree that religion is a personal matter to people, but so are many other worldviews such as feminism or patriotism. The fact that it is religious does not accentuate a worldview's tendency to invoke violence. On the contrary, surely an religion that threatens eternal punishment for killing is going to be more likely to discourage violence? Also, I would suggest that Islamic terrorists would be violent anyway; they are just using religion as justification. It seems like it is more culturally motivated against Western globalisation. The reason I suggest this is that these terrorists only really seem to be attacking the USA and its allies and not other non-Islamic countries. Surely if their terrorism was religiously motivated they would be against all non-Islamic countries equally? Yet we do not see Islamic terrorists bombing China or Brazil, despite them both being non-Islamic. To summarise, it does not seem to be the case that the motivation for ISIS and Al Qaeda is exclusively religious. Even if ISIS was exclusively motivated by religion then that would not mean that religion is more dangerous than science, which is what this debate is about. I do not doubt that religion has caused harm in the past, all I am arguing is that science has caused more.
This House Believes that religion is more dangerous than science

Yes, science can cause controlled harm. Agreed. Accidents, weapons, etc. But religion is a much more personal matter to many people. People who have personal problems with other people, especially terrorists / extremists, tend to be much more violent. As you know, ISIS fighters (as well as other terrorist groups) fight "in the name of God". If they weren't "fighting for God", what would they be fighting for? And would it still be so intense (referring to the conflicts). If terrorists didn't have such a fierce calling (supposedly by God) would they buy thousands of weapons to fight the United States? Would they buy heavy explosives, missiles, and rockets? Would they consider that maybe their cause wasn't worth the billions they were spending? I am not saying that religion is exclusively violence-induced, and agreed there is more than just religion, but for the purposes of this debate, we are discussing religion and religion only.
This House Believes that religion is more dangerous than science

I will be arguing that science is NOT more dangerous than religion. My arguments will therefore seek to either prove that science is more dangerous than religion , or at least prove that religion is no more dangerous than science. To see what we mean by dangerous, I will show you this definition of dangerous: 'Able or likely to cause harm or injury' (1) So we can now see that we are debating whether religion is more able or likely to cause harm or injury than science. In regards to being more able to cause harm, I would argue that science is far more able to cause harm simply because it is a very competent epistemological framework when geared towards developing harmful weapons. In contrast, religion is simply a mental worldview. No matter how vile a particular religious belief is, it cannot actually harm people without technology that has been developed through science. I find there is a common atheist imagining of a secular utopia where the world will be at peace due to a lack of religion. However, this is misguided. The simple fact of the matter is that people will commit acts of violence in the name of any worldview, religious or not. Be it feminism, socialism, atheism or animal-rights activism. To suggest that religion is exclusively violence-inducing is naive. Science, whilst being essentially amoral, can be used as a tool to increase the efficiency of those intent on causing harm. So whilst science is not inherently bad, it is dangerous by virtue of the fact that it is such a deadly tool in the wrong hands. Religion, on the other hand, admittedly can be used to justify abhorrent acts. But this is as far as it goes. Without science the damage of religious extremism is limited. To conclude, both science and religion are fundamentally good in both intention and net-utility. However, in terms of danger, science is the worse of the two. (1) . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Resolution (Pro) vs Framerate/Stability of a Game (Con) (Please read my post on the first round)

Im sorry for a bad debate. I thought this would be a more simple debate but you put a lot of work into it. However, I think the graphics play a lot to a game's success. I understand this is an assumption but at leat the websites I've looked at people won't buy a game if it doesn't have good graphics. Framerate and stability help but buyers when they look at the trailer mostly see the graphics thus compelling them to buy the game.
Resolution (Pro) vs Framerate/Stability of a Game (Con) (Please read my post on the first round)

As it says in the title, please read this to gain an understanding of the context of the debate. Well, you should read it anyway because you're supposed to, but for some reason, some people still miss to read this part to get some context and they end up misunderstanding the point. Anyway, I don't want any of you to get the wrong idea before you sign in to debate with me because it's really hard to summarize the context of this debate as a simple title. So please read to understand what I'm debating on and the rationale of the debating topic. Thank you. :)____________________________________________________________OverviewI haven't debated in a while, so my debating skills may be a little rusty, but that's okay. My position on this debate is to attack the #PS4NoParity hastag and the Resolution movement that's been going on lately in the gaming crowd. I will argue that developers shouldn't sacrifice the stability and functionality of a game, just to say that the game runs at 1080p. My opponent will defend this opposition. My opponent will argue that developers shouldn't aim for parity between both consoles and/or any other sort of argument that makes this position valid and understandable, but counters my position. The rationale of this debate is that I feel that there is a huge problem that's both affecting gaming (the games themselves) and the gaming community with it. So, I am here to address it. Also, I'm very curious to see the perspective of my opponent.____________________________________________________________Round Organization Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Argument PresentationRound 3: Presenting More Arguments/Rebutting ArgumentsRound 4: Presenting More Arguments/Rebutting Arguments (Cont.) ____________________________________________________________Additional Rules1. Profanity will not be tolerated2. Belittling one's opinion or point of view will also not be tolerated, as this is a site that's designed to have people share their ideas and opinions with one another. I'm an advocate of positive online ettiquette. We will not berate people's opinions here. Any act of aggression or hostility will result in an automatic deduction in conduct.Ex: "You're stupid/retarded for having X opinion" ____________________________________________________________
Killing animals for their flesh and secretions is unethical.

I don't see why this is relevant as it's obvious what I mean by killing. Killing = Cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing). I'm reposting this debate as the previous CON executed a complete strawman and dodged the debate by saying that "meat" can be referred to fruits and nuts. Well I'm stating it now that by meat I intend the flesh of animals. Let's not play semantic games as it is an important issue to discuss. Not only it is unethical but it also damages our environment, our bodies and the future of humanity. This argument has been formulated by vegan youtuber Ask Yourself, in this video he tackles point by point the most common arguments used by non-vegans. It is a long video but to be fair non-vegans have a lot of retarded arguments. If the video is too long I'll try an summarize it here, but before debating this topic I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the counter arguments. Let's cast aside the 4 N's http://rvgn.org... Eating meat is "Natural" - Appeal to Nature fallacy. Saying that something is natural doesn't mean it's ethical. Rape is Natural, is it ethical? Eating meat is "Normal" - Another fallacy. Similar argument to the one above. Slavery was normal few hundred years ago, is it ethical? Rape is normal still today in some cultures, is it ethical? Eating meat is "Necessary" - No it isn't. The American Dietetic Association states that a vegan diet can be adequate for all stages of life, including pregnancy and infancy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Also these reputable doctors have done plenty of research and published peer reviewed scientific papers showing that a plant based diet is healthier than a diet which includes meat: Dr. Michael Greger from nutritionfacts.org and author of "How Not To Die" a New York Times best seller. Dr. Neal Barnard from pcrm.org Dr. John McDougall author of The Starch Solution There are many other doctors, nutritionists and scientists which have evidence supporting this argument, eating animal flesh and their secretions (dairy, eggs, honey) isn't necessary in our modern society. Eating meat is "Nice" - Insane position I think everyone agrees that "I love meat" isn't a proper argument. You wouldn't agree someone trying to eat you because you taste good. What is the justification then?
Pay discrepancy between CEO's and regular workers is to high

The pay discrepancy between CEO's and average workers is outrageous. How does this make any sense? This is the one of the biggest reasons why our economy is failing. The middle class pay is shrinking at an alarming rate. The way I see it, the more money being pumped into the economy the better. If middle class citizens are getting paid more, they will pump more money back into the economy. How does that not make sense? And if they are pumping more money into the economy then businesses will have a higher revenue. I am not saying we should consider communism. CEO's will still be making more than enough. However, no CEO on this planet is worth 400 times more than a hard working middle class human being.
Historical Debate

The premise of this debate is that my opponent will select the topic to be debated. I do have some stipulations: First of all, I wish that whatever the topic may be, it is relatively clean. Secondly, I would appreciate it if this debate were on a controversial or debateable topic; it cannot be particularly pitched or one-sided. Thirdly, it must be historical (dating before the 1980s). Fourthly, it cannot be about morality or justification of one side over another in the American Civil War; I already debated this and want a different thread. We will have 72 hours to debate and 8,000 characters per post. Thanks and let us have a stellar debate!