BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video Games is Ruining Society

Thanks you for accepting. First, I would like to define "ruin" using the Merriam-Webster dictionary (not that your definition was fine): Ruin- /verb/ "to reduce to ruins" http://www.merriam-webster.com... I would like to start off my argument with the subject of: TEEN VIOLENCE IN RELATION TO VIDEO GAMES In 2004, 3 teens under the age of 18 murdered a homeless man in a disturbing fashion. The teens told police that killing the man reminded him of playing a video game. http://articles.cnn.com... In 2007, 17 year old Daniel Petric shot both of his parents due to them taking away his video game. He fled the scene with nothing but a copy of "Halo 3." Petric's attorney stated that Daniel was dangerously addicted to Halo 3. There are many more stories like these of under age teens going off killing people under the influence of video games. My next subject: VIDEO GAME ADDICTION Reading the article that you referenced to, I saw that 1 out of 8 gamers develop patterns similar to addiction. Now just think that 97% of teens play video games. http://www.csmonitor.com... I will now define "addict" /noun/ to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively By just reading the definition you will know that this is something that is not healthy. Video game addiction can cause extreme anger and verbal abuse, nausea, physical illness, restless taunting dreams, anxiety, depression, mood swings, fear, irritability or restlessness, sadness, and loneliness. Remember, today's children are tomorrow's future. If we have a society addicted to video games and going off killing people nothing will be accomplished and therefore society will be ruined.
Video Games is Ruining Society

Thanks for the topic!!! I'll negate the Resolved, that Video Games Are Ruining Society. ==Definitions/BOP== Princeton's Wordnet defines "ruin" as "destroy completely; damage irreparably." http://www.definitions.net... My opponent must show that video games have irreparably damaged society or destroyed it completely. This is a higher burden of proof than merely showing that video games, on balance, are bad. ==Intro== I will show positive effects of video games and rebut my opponent's inevitable arguments that they are bad. http://www.msnbc.msn.com... Let's get started!
Hell is not a fiery place of torment

I will object 2 points that were made by Pro and come to my conclusion.1) -Pro states: Acts24:15-""And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. "If there is hell fire, why will God resurrect the unjust ? Answer: God will resurrect the unjust so he they be punished it as simple as that since our soul is immortal. And by using this argument Pro just did concede that the unjust will not be annihilated. Thus, he contradicts himself it seems that he is just using passage of the bible to deny hell as opposed to having a coherent view on the afterlife. -Pro seems to confuse the particuliar judgement that is after the death of every human being and the general judgement at the end of time. -Pro also seems to confuse the temporary place were just/good people were staying before Jesus Christ died on the cross since the gate of heaven were closed before the sacrifice of the christ2) Pro then argues that hell was a manipulation tactic made by catholic church to live in fear: Pro also states that it has bring people to leave church. - What was the interest of the catholic church to afraid people if they didn't honestly believe that hell was true ? - You can see that a lot of catholic saints were genuinely affraid of hell and so they didn't preach on the dangers of going to hell just for power, success obviously- You can see that what made people leave the church is the fact that the catholic church got more liberal and less harsh in his teaching. For proof you can see that after Vatican 2 council mass attendance has dropped significantly. - The fact that there were inner debates in the catholic church before nicaea council with opposition on the idea of eternal hell such as Origene is indeed a proof that catholic church imposed this view with the contradictory principle thus showing that the debate procedure was respected. Conclusion. Pro made a lot of contradiction. Stating bad people are dead in the afterlife yet resurrected for instance. You can see the problem when people want to do their own version of christianity and ignore the roman catholic church teaching. Pro didn't answer my request about for instance the fact that other bible passage of Jesus teaching talks about an eternal punishment without refering to the contested word hell. I will admit that I didn't argue back on pro Old scriptures reference since I find that new scriptures that are direct word of god has overwhelming evidence on the hell subject. I will conclude by saying that even if hell doctrin is sometime hard to admit it is a point of faith that everybody should have. People that believe in hell are sometime criticized by people that say that they live in fear. But it makes me wonder who really lives in fear the one that admit a truth or someone that will make up a lot of excuses just to hide from it ? Hell is a real place and everybody in this earth should do everything to avoid it. Believing in hell prevent you from sinning and that is a good thing. Vote Con. Pro gloria Dei.
Hell is not a fiery place of torment

1) Catholic church believed long before Nicaea council that hell existed.For example it is reported that Polycarp was condemned to be burned by fire. Before his martyrdom here were his words : “You threaten me with fire which burns for an hour, and is then extinguished, but you know nothing of the fire of the coming judgment and eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. Why are you waiting? Bring on whatever you want.”2) About the pagan belief.It is true that pagan like platon did believe in hell and here was the reason. Pagan people were observing the world and noticed that good people were sometime having hard times even they were practicing some kind of justice. And bad people had a good life even tho they were doing wrong actions. So they came to the logic conclusion that bad people since they werent punished in our world had to be punished in the afterlife. 3) About pro still arguing on the hell/sheol word.Lets put aside the word hell and you will still see example in Jesus words that he was talking about an eternal punishment. Matthew 25: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.... Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.So now pro need to come out with a translation trick for the word punishment if he still wants to deny the evidence.
Hell is not a fiery place of torment

1) Pro states that the passage about hell shouldn't be interpretated litteraly, pro argues that Jesus was talking parabols in some occasion.A parabole is a story with some fictional characters thus the passage of the bible that i cited (Matthew 8 and Mark 9 aren't paraboles), only the Lazarus story is one. Lets analyze again my passages: Mark 9 : to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.Matthew 8: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teethPro thinks that these passage are only images or metaphors. But even with a metaphoric kind of interpretation it still conveys the idea that the place depicted as hell is a horrible place with some kind of conscious suffering. Pro still didn't explain how a 'sheol', 'grave', 'annhilitation' or other meet these 2 criterias as it is: a punitive place, conscious suffering.2) It is unclear of pro position about people that die in their sin I dont understand if he thinks that they will be annihilated or ressurected. Pro needs to be clear and answer what will happen in his views for people that are damned.3) Pro then tries to explain that hell would be impossible by saying that god mercy wouldn't permit that, he then states that god condemns child burning sacrifice and so god would be an 'hypocrite' the debate wasn't about legitimacy but reality of hell so i wont extend myself on this subject.-Pro argument doesn't take into consideration that god has several infinite attributes: love, mercy of course but also justice. When Jesus saved Mary Magdalene he could condemn her for her sin with his justice it would be legitimate but he decided to give her mercy.-There is no hypocrisy of god there he has all the rights to condemn people for bad actions. When god was condemning people from burning their children they were not doing it as a punishment in order to give justice they were doing a sacrifice to false god, they werent judges and childrens are innocent. Not at all the same situation than hell.
Hell is not a fiery place of torment

1) My opponent is arguing that the catholic church was preventing people from reading the bible.Answer: I will admit this point but I will give a number of reason to explain that.- The interdiction of reading the bible in vernacular was a temporary disciplinary measure in a specific context that was the cathar heresy it was limited in a specifipart of france. As soon as cathar heresy stopped they authorized the reading again. It was like a police measure to avoid the spreading of heresy that's all.- The 'cherry picking' of the bible lead people to interpret it on their own and if they are not guided they can be mistaken. That's why the catholic church was very careful with that because reading without a good comprehension and the lights needed can cause people to have an heretic point of view. We can see that in protestantism for instance, the lack of unity has caused different interpretation with a lot of contradictory vision of the bible, whereas the catholic church always kept his dogmas.2) My opponent contest the fire and say it shouldn't be taken litteraly.In Matthew passage when JC affirm that it is better to cut your arm than to go in hell, he isn't of course saying to really do it but the entire point of the passage is to warn us that hell is so bad that it would still be better to be mutilated than to go in hell. It is like saying that it is better that you sell your car, than having a deadly accident with it. The image part was the mutilation to express a reality fact the hell.Why would Jesus Christ warn us about hell if it is only a grave and so it is the same thing than dying. Since every human is going to die then it would mean that the only difference between good people and bad people is that one would be ressurected and the other wouldn't. So using this logic Jesus would had only said that bad people wont go to heaven and it would be enough. Since he warned us about the danger of hell it is that obviously it is a severe punishment.There are other passages in the scriptures about hell. Matthew 8: But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teethOnce again if you are not conscious why JC says that they will be cry in hell ? If you are dead you are not aware of what is happening and you can't express your feelings. We also have Lazarus story in Luke. 3) Denying hell and saying it will only be annihilation is even absurd when you think about human justice. If we applied your reasoning it means like i said that the only distinction between good and evil person is that once get a reward, the other dont get the reward. It would mean that we should give a reward like money to good people for not killing someone and that we should just not give the check to a killer... Its completely unreasonable.
Hell is not a fiery place of torment

1) Roman catholic church teachingThe Roman catholic councils have always affirmed that hell is a real place wish eternal torment as punishment. I can provide sources if you dont concede this point.2) Word of jesus Mark 9 scriptures : to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.If hell is only a grave why is Jesus talking about eternal fire in this place? 3) Logic of the bible Hell is a place of punishment as the justice of jesus. A grave would be basicly annihilation, so it means that sinners would just cease to exist without any punishment since they wouldnt be conscious if they are annihilated. It means that sinners would have some kind of a victory in sinning and nothing would stop a sinner to sin if that would be the only issue of sin.
Hell is not a fiery place of torment

Webster"s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, under "Hell" says: "fr[om] . . . helan to conceal." The word "hell" initially indicated no element of fire or suffering but simply of a "covered over or concealed place." In the old English dialect the expression "helling potatoes" meant, to place the potatoes in the ground or in a cellar.It never referred to roasting the potatoes in fire. The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol. XIV, p. 81) said: "Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception." Therefore most bible translators replaced the words "Sheol","Hades","Gehenna" as "Hell". The Hebrew word " Sheol" means grave. Sheol is mentioned in the hebrew scriptures of the bible. The greek words-Hades and Gehenna as found in the greek scriptures of the bible refer to the grave. In conclusion, in the original bible manuscripts the word hell was non-existent. Words such as sheol, gehenna and hades were used liberally in both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures of the holy Bible. There is no fiery place of torment. But there is the common grave of mankind.
Every grandmother should have an I-phone

Thanks for your "arguments" Con. First K: I'm not sure where my opponent fabricates these delusions from. I clearly showed how my plan has infallible logic, and is therefore undoubtably true. Regarding my second K: Not yet. I prefer playing heroin hero instead: . http://keithlam.com... Regarding my third K: Again, plagiarism. Voters should consider giving me spelling and grammar points because of this. Furthermore, by being DudeStop, only I have the right to tell a dude to stop. So dude, stop. Regarding my fourth K: She doesn't deny that she isn't a witch, meaning she undoubtably is one. She even turned me into a newt! Nuclear War: "my opanentt hads no idea wutt he's tooking about raally" Apparently my opponent can't spell anymore. Voters should consider giving me the source points because of this. Also, that's "he" with a capital H btw. .. "They neeeed i phoones os thate thye donut get steeled" Hard to read with my opponents lack of even using her 2nd grade Language Arts skills, you should consider giving me arguments for that. But who says they'll get stolen? Studies show that 113.5% of all adults who claim to have candy in their white vans with no windows on the side actually do have candy. Same goes for puppies! !! We should encourage our children to go into vans! My opponent is trying to dissuade us in being moral in this argument. "Besides, we can't just take away all of their iPhones" We need to take the I phones that belong to the annoying kids. They can have the Firefly instead: . http://www.robmansfield.net... Much color. So hip. Wow. I win because my opponent has no arguments remaining, Morgan Freeman agreed with me, (Which isn't an appeal to authority because ? ?? so yeah) and finally, because I have better hair.
Every grandmother should have an I-phone

Thank you for the response, now allow me to squash your rebuttal if you don't mind.My opponent has made a very weak attack on my point of contention. He also fails that grandmas are everywhere and most people have a grandma, making his rebuttal irrelevant.Regarding my first K:This is even further reason not to trust my opponent. He doesn't even remember that he entirely left out a step in his plan for how the cookies are going to happen. Are any of his ideas going to be good? Nay I say. This is ridiculous. With that we can agree that he's not always right so this whole "sharing is caring" thing can't be taken seriously.Regarding my second K: I'm not so sure what exactly the heck this attack was. I think my opponent tried and failed to post a picture and then forged a conversation between himself and Morgan Freeman. Fanath, have you been smoking the magic weed again?Regarding my third K:Wait a second what is this? These allegations are ridiculous. Anyone who's been on this site as long as me knows that DudeStop is Fanath's former name. I'm just accusing him of hypocrisy.Regarding my fourth K:My opponent is accusing me of witchcraft just as a cover up for the fact that I'm not even upset by his rebuttals because I can rip them apart without anything to rip them with other than my mind. Oh please. Plus he conceded this point.On nucler war:My opponent has no idea what he's talking about really. 14 year olds need iphones in general. For example, if they get lost in an airport, they need to be able to ring up their parents so they don't get abducted by a pedophile. Besides, we can't just take away all of their iPhones. Do you know what that would cause? That would cause enough drama for a total collapse of time and space. Do we want to guarantee the destruction of literally everything? Or should we take our chances?Thank you for reading.
Every grandmother should have an I-phone

"Because grandmothers with iPhones are hilarious, but it wouldn't be if they all had one"Just because every grandma has an I phone doesn't mean that there's one at every place you go to like it is with songs. "Make sure to read this part if you're already skimming"Okie dokie.First K:Here my opponent claims that I'm somehow leaving one of the steps out my plan. Everything I say is true, we know this because I said that it's true and everything I say is true, therefore it's true. My opponent then goes on to say that I'm stealing her trolling badge. Let me make one point clear to you:Sharing is caringWe should all know by now that sharing is caring. Jonbonbon is going to share her trolling badge with me. Besides, even if it was stealing the new shipment from China is coming soon so she'll have plenty. Second K:Morgan Freeman actually agree's with me. To show proof of this Fanath : Should every grandma have an i phone? Tuesday, June 10, 2014 @ 11:01:26 PM Posted by: Morgan Freeman : Yes. Jonbonbon said she was my prophet.. WTF THIS GUY IS CRAZY Tuesday, June 10, 2014 @ 11:03:00 PM Posted by: Fanath : Ikr Tuesday, June 10, 2014 @ 11:04:39 PM Posted by: Fanath : So.. wanna hang out sometime? Tuesday, June 10, 2014 @ 11:07:03 PM Posted by: Morgan Freeman : Dude stop. I win. Third K: Dude, stop.This is plagiarism. Fourth K: I ain't even mad."As you can tell, I'm entirely unphased by my opponent's case"We all can draw an obvious conclusion from this... Jonbonbon is a witch. She is using her dark magic to control her emotions .The only solution is to burn her at the steaks. I mean stakes. same thing. "And if my opponent brings up that he's not mad either, don't trust him. He's lying"Conceded.Nulclear WarWe would just take the I phones of the 14 year olds. They don't need it anyway, and it only goes to increase the "Drama" in our world. This would lead to a nueret in the brain reacting to the dark matter in space and evuntually lead to a drama bomb, destroying every star in existence. Is that what you want? I'm sure it is.
Every grandmother should have an I-phone

...This will be so brutal!!!In this debate, I'll be defending a completely infallible plan. Because it's infallible it automatically guarantees my win, so Con shouldn't even try:STEP ONE: Give Grandmothers I-phones.STEP TWO: ???STEP THREE: Cookies!Cookies are goodCookies are God's gift to the world. Invented by God himself, cookies make us feel amazing. Have a problem? Eat a cookie instead of facing it! Hell, eat as many as you want, we're in America so no one cares if you're fat. Cookies are like drugs that are safe for everyone to use. I used to spend days pondering what the meaning of life was, then I ate a cookie. Some other points about cookies:A: Girls like cookies http://www.debate.org... Self explanatory point. B: Kids like cookies How could something that such a cute kid likes be bad? You have to worship satan (Which isn't necessarily wrong, just pointing it out) in order to dispute this. http://www.debate.org...C: Cookies ward off evil gingers.This is a fact. Gingers are repelled by the sweetness in the cookies that comes from the sugar that comes from the nectar of God. So they basically are hurt by the pure happiness that radiates off from cookies! It's kinda like the super repel in Pokemon that repels all of the annoying little weird ones from trying to battle you. Do I need to explain more? I think I’ve proved my case that Gingers suck and we need them to go away. http://www.debate.org... D: Cookie Monster is cute http://www.debate.org... This is in support of step 2. E: Germans hate cookiesEVERYONE hates Germany. Even the Germans recognize that it’s a sh!tty place to live. I mean, we must have told them 6 million times. Anne Frankly I don’t think that's enough. I’m burnt out now, So I’ll end this case here. http://www.debate.org... I win.
Property dualism is the best theory of mind.

Since Con hasn't started arguing yet, I won't make any arguments yet either. I just want to try to clarify this question as much as possible as debates tend to be better when both sides know exactly what they are debating.I'd like Pro to try to further define Property Dualism. "There are two kinds of properties: physical and mental" is a good place to start, but I want to break it down more.Firstly, do you accept philosophical zombies (http://en.wikipedia.org...) as something that must be at least theoretically possible in a world where Property Dualism is true? That is, can I fulful my burden of proof by showing that Philosophical Zombies can't even theoretically exist in our world?Second, do you consider emergentism to be outside the definition of property dualism? Here emergentism is defined by the belief that conscious "emerges" simply if matter is configured corrently. Just as physical systems in the right configurations will behave in predictible ways, it is argued that conscious experience occurs simply if matter behaves in a way consistent with certain laws. Under this conception, matter is generally only considered to have one property.
The War on Terror is a failed war

We did not invade Afghanistan because of WMD's, you're thinking of Iraq again. You brought up the topic of The War on Terror, which mainly refers to Afghanistan-yet you are referring to Iraq and Pakistan. As I said, I do not condone the Drone strikes one bit, so I do not know why you keep referring to the drone strikes-yes they are bad, but it's war, what do you expect? A friend of mine was deployed to Iraq, and he told me that when he was there, the looks on the faces of the people that walked the streets were the most desperate and scared faces he had ever seen-not because of the Troops that were there, they thanked the troops whenever they had the chance-but because they knew that if a gunfight broke out they could get caught in the crossfire. My friend, who we'll call Jeff, put himself between two women and 6 children, and insurgents-he made himself a human shield for them. To say that the War on Terror is failed is ridiculous. It does not matter WHY the troops are sent to Afghanistan or WHY they were in Iraq; what matters is WHAT they're doing there. If they were sent there for oil and resources, it doesn't matter because that's not what they're actually doing there. If troops were sent to Afghanistan to kill everyone there and to take the resources, but instead they protect the people from threats and give them what they desperately need, it's a Victory in my book.