BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ban on sale of violent video games to minors

In fact my response did not provide contradictory evidence and here is why... I stated that these games cause a much stronger response in people who are already violent. This is not contradictory to the point i am trying to make because to prove that the violent video games make kids violent there needs to be a certain level of innocents before the games are played. All i stated was violent people will find violent games more fun and it will look they they are becoming more aggressive then they already are, when in truth they are just venting their aggressive emotions by playing these games creating a correlation between games and violent but simply does not prove in anyway a causation link. Your next argument is somewhat of a straw-man for the fact that there are a number of different things that can cause anti social behavior, as well the topic of the debate is to ban violent videogames. You would not be able to just ban violent ones based on anti social behavior because the games which cause that behavioral change are usually not ones that are violent, they are ones that provide an alternate life where people are social in that life and forget about the real one. Violent videogames such as war games and fighting games do not have nearly the same effect on those behaviors (e.g World of warcraft, everquest) Once again correlation links and not justification for legislation. I appeal to the voters now by once again laying out the claim that I have bested my opponent in every round for these reasons. The burden of proof lied with pro position because of the fact this deals with the taking away of personal liberties. With out good science any claim is just speculation and thus without the proof of science in this matter there is no harm in the status quo The amount of evidence does not make for a sound argument. Proof by verbosity is a commonly used logical fallacy where the amount of evidence presented is held to a higher standard than that of quality information. In making my case I have been accurate to the point and made a precise argument on why restricting personal liberties without a good reason is wrong. My opponent has provided bad science which is full of subjective holes which once again accurately describes his argument structure. My opponent hardly refuted any of my claims of bad science and thus he has conceded to the fact that the studies that make up the data for this debate are poorly constructed and can not be liked as a causal reaction but merely a simple correlation. i have read somewhere that There is a link between shark attacks and ice cream. This is not because sharks start attacking in response to ice cream, but because the two variables exhibit a common response to the warm season. Another example is strong correlation exists between the number of cavities in elementary school children and their vocabulary size. No one advocates eating more candy to increase knowledge though; these variables are both tied with age. This is how my opponents whole argument has been lied out and simply falls apart at minor scrutiny
Ban on sale of violent video games to minors

Thank you for your quick response. "There have been no scientific studies which have been able to prove a link between violent video games and teen violence. Therefore,with the lack of any credible evidence, the government should not prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors." Here is your evidence: http://www.soc.iastate.edu... ----> Please read this carefully. Argument: My opponent failed to provide his case thus going against the rules of the debate. In conclusion, My opponent looses on account of failure to follow the rules. Unless my opponent presents his case in the next round, then he looses. Hope to hear from you soon.
Ban on sale of violent video games to minors

There have been no scientific studies which have been able to prove a link between violent video games and teen violence. Therefore,with the lack of any credible evidence, the government should not prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors. Games which depict war and violence should not be restricted from being sold to teens based on that criteria alone. Once again, with the lack of conclusive science there is no way to prove a connection between these games and violent acts. Thus there is no evidence to support legislation onmthis issue.
Border Fence

Thank you so much for the debate :). It has been good so far, and you may yet persuade me over to your side.There is a good point in that the border fence will have to be very sturdy, and very well made. The fence must be high too, and able to barricade the illegal immigrants. Yes it would cost a lot of money, in truth to maintain. Now we as Americans would not kill them, no. We would not kill illegal immigrants. However, we would need to send them back in peace to their nations. If an explosion did occur, we could potentially to keep out the illegal immigrants, ask for a little more money.I do not want to seem socialist, but I think we need the fence to keep them out.Thanks for the debate my friend :)
Border Fence

While you may be correct in your points, it still seems to me like a second Berlin Wall that like the first will eventually fall. The environment will suffer because of this. Taxpayers would have to bear the great financial burden. Depending on what the fence is made of or how tall it is will be(most want to say 10 feet) The cost will either grow or lessen. The border fence will have to be sturdy so concrete, steel, other metals, seem like the most valid options. Also a fence/wall require maintenance. What happens if there is an explosion close to or at the wall? Whelp there goes another million of taxpayers money. Companies wanting to send products to and from Mexico will not do as good without a fence. Legal immigration from Mexico might slow with a wall to deal with. Mexico used to have Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah. California(until we beat their @$$), and now they see a wall. People tried so hard to get past the Berlin Wall and were at a far higher risk of being killed than Mexicans passing into America. Its going to go like this, tens of thousands of Mexican from Mexico and the US are going to go towards the wall demanding it is taken down with what your typical riot has. What are going to do? If the soldiers there decide to shoot, imagine what we would be considered. A democracy to authoritarian government. If you think even with all this evidence that they were threatened we wouldn't be considered bad, yeah look at several court cases. Even with plenty of evidence free black people had in America proving they are free, they could still possibly be thrown into slavery. Even though the jury ruled that in Ferguson that officer fired in self-defense, that din't quell the angry mobs that followed afterwards. So America would basically look like China, where if the government wants to do something, its gonna happen. Then to look kin of good we will then tear the wall down. Several billion dollars of taxpayers money down the drain. I just don't see how this wall could be any better than just placing border patrols, tanks, trucks, and such instead.
Border Fence

You will never insult me as I am very respectful of other views my friend :). I am naturally a quick debater :).My arguments are these We Need the Fence Policing borders has been integral to the preservation of nations around the globe for centuries. The construction of a fence to safeguard American citizens from illegal activities is in the best interest of the nation. Illegal immigration is estimated to cost the United States millions of dollars in lost income tax revenue. It also drains government spending by overburdening social welfare, health and education programs. The use of physical barriers and high-tech surveillance equipment increases the probability of apprehension. The fences that are currently in place have shown success. Arizona has been the epicenter for crossings by illegal immigrants for several years. Last year, authorities apprehended 8,600 people trying to enter the U.S. illegally in the Barry M. Goldwater Range. The number of people caught crossing San Diego's border illegally has also dropped dramatically. In the early '90s, about 600,000 people attempted to cross the border illegally. After the construction of a fence and increasedborder patrols, that number dropped to just 153,000 in 2007. Source: http://immigration.about.com...
Border Fence

That was.......quick. I expected to wait an hour of playing Mario and then come back to wait another minute. Nevertheless lets continue! You are pro environmental protection am I right? Well apologies if I insult you or anything. If I do I did not intend it, but that is hypocritical since the border fence would hurt the environment based on my previous reasons and source. The cost would take millions even billions of taxpayers money to do. Also as I said it may hurt businesses. I say a few thousand soldiers, AFVS, and tanks give a clear message that says "Don't come unless you want to be legal". I just don't see why we should bear the financial burden of this and nature to bear the environmental burden. No matter what we do we can't deny that illegals will keep coming. However we can at least try to slow the flow with soldiers. Plus if the corrupt Mexican government ever decides to do a stupid move like attack America the US soldiers there could hold them off until support arrives while if the fence is destroyed by the Mexican army, there goes another few billion dollars of taxpayers money. I wish my friend good luck.
Border Fence

I thank Kylar for accepting this. Let us see if we can change each others viewpoints on the border fence or just have a good debate. Now lets begin! Do you really think a fence will stop people from coming to America from Mexico? I can think of 5 ways to get around 10 foot fence which is what many think is how tall it should be. 1. Give a person/people a leg up for him/her to get to the top to pull you up. 2. Get a boat to secretly enter Texas by reaching the closest port to Mexico. 3. Use a ladder or rope. 4. Knock part of it down. 5. Make a tunnel under it. I could say more, but those are right of the bat. A fence isn't going to stop people from going to America. In fact it will likely only slow them down by a few minutes. Plus do you realize the cost to build a 700 mile fence that will barely slow anyone down? A huge waste of taxpayers money! This is going to be the son of the Berlin Wall! Less effective and people from one side will take risks attempting to reach the other side. A fence should not be put up because it simply won't work. Plus this won't be good in other reasons. What if a company(s) wants to sell some of its merchandise in Mexico because in Mexico there is high demand, but low supply and by land would seem cheapest assuming they don't take the fence into account? Well this is a fence and I doubt there will be very many if there are any gates to pass through. So the company(s) may end up spending more money causing them to have to raise prices to already poor Mexicans. It doesn't get much better after that. For those pro environmental protection listen to this, IT HARMS THE ENVIRONMENT! Most animals can't easily cross a 10 foot fence unless they can fly. The fence would basically cut up habitats which is not good for endangered species. Also If it goes through rivers, mainly the Rio Grande that basically makes a dam which means part of that river is blocked also not good for animals or water suplies. So unless you want a few endangered species to die, cause a reduction in water supplies, and to change the name of the Rio Grande to the Rio Pequeno, a border fence won't be good. Now onto my solution. Have guards patrol with vehicles the border let's say around 2,000-3,000 meaning less than to 1 guard per 1/4-1/3 mile. Your solution could only work factoring in the guards and would merely just cost more and be bad for the environment http://www.csmonitor.com... Your turn, if you dare!
Border Fence

People suggest putting up a border fence to stop illegal immigration from Mexico where it mainly is such as my opponent I have challenged, Kylar. Am I against illegal immigration, mainly yes, but a fence won't do. I would say more, but I will wait for my opponent to accept Rules: 1. No plagiarism. 2. Maintain appropriate conduct. 3. Pro must prove a border fence should be put up at the US-Mexican border. 4.
The defense system in both Canada and the U.S. is far to lenient

Thanks, Pro, for responding. Pro's first argument was that the parole checks done on Mr. Garrido were not thorough, and I would tend to agree with him. However, that doesn't mean that the incompetence of those few speak for the ability of parole officers as a whole. Also, the case of Philip Garrido does not represent the entire judicial system. Further, Pro's only other contention in the 2nd round called for the implementation of the death penalty. What Pro fails to acknowledge is that the majority of states in the U.S. actually have legalized the death penalty; 35 states to be exact [1]. With that said, I'd like to extend my arguments from the first round (many of which Pro admittedly agrees with). My point was that our system is often too harsh on citizens, thereby negating the resolution that it's not only lenient but far too lenient. Also, I explained why some policies that seem lenient are actually beneficial as a whole. I concluded by pointing out that we have just as many harsh policies as lenient policies, and that just because certain offenders do horrific things doesn't mean that our system as a whole is ineffective or unjust. With that said, I'll send this debate back over to Pro... [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
The defense system in both Canada and the U.S. is far to lenient

I would like to say that my opponent brings up some very good points, but I would like to bring something up. Yes, Phillip Gorrido did have monitoring devices, and was visited regularly, but the truth is, these were half-baked done jobs. A neighbour stated that they saw and heard children playing in the backyard of Garrido's yard, which was a violation of his parole. When the police arrived to investigate, that did not check the back yard, or even go into his house for that matter. In fact, many of the visits were literally going to the door to check up on him, then leaving. I agree with some statements my opponent brings up, such as that some laws are to harsh. If the system were to spend it's time convicting actually serious crimes, and putting those who truly deserve to go to jail IN jail, and those who don't, in parole (such a minor drug felonies) then I believe that the system could work much better. However, (and I am bringing up a controversial topic here) perhaps more states, and the whole of Canada, should use the death penalty for cases such as Philip Garido, and as well as Casey Anthony, also known as Tot Mom, a woman who supposedly killed her young daughter. Not only would it stop jails from becoming over-crowded, but also, it would the rid earth of some truly disgusting people. I don't, of course, say that the death penalty should be used for all, but many, murders that occur. The death penalty is indeed a harsh judgment, but it is a necessary one if we want to punish those who need to be punished without corners being cut, and our prisons becoming over crowded. I wait for my opponents rebuttle.
The defense system in both Canada and the U.S. is far to lenient

I have chosen to agree with the above statement. The reason why is simple. There are numerous cases where criminals that should of been in prison had been let out early due to "good behaviour" or "parol" and struck again. A huge example would be the case of Jaycee Dugard. Her kidnapper, Phillip Garrido should of been in prision at the time she was kidnapped. He was not. Instead, he had been let ot early due to "good behaviour. " If the system had been tougher, then Jaycee would not of had to endure the 18 year tragedy that she did. source: . http://www.nydailynews.com...
Ban big game hunting

To begin this argument, my first point on why these Creatures should not be hunted for pleasure begins here. Most things that our race has cost money, and If we have enough of this money, we can legally hunt any african animal, including the Addax, a peaceful herbivore treasured for its horns whose numbers are a little over 200 today, and the ethiopian wolf, as there are only about 400 of these animals still are alive. Judge, think about this as a tapestry, you pull one or two threads and what happens? The whole tapestry unravels. The same can happen with an ecosystem which brings me to my second point on why Us, The Humans, should stop hunting big game. With many animals critically endangered, if we continue legally hunting them, they can become extinct. For any hunters out there, what makes you think you have the right to kill a sentient being that thinks, hurts, and dies, just like us? These creatures have rights to live, just like us. Don"t you agree judge? When these hunters go and hunt big game, they could cause irreversible effects as the entire ecosystem falls apart. Last but not least, Most hunters are only allowed to hunt if some of the money goes to the government for wildlife conservation. Most Big game hunters only pay the government about 5%, then spend the rest on airfare and paying the landowners so they can come back and kill more big game. Is that right Judge? NO! Before I end this debate, I would like to restate my three points. One, If you have enough money, you can hunt any african animal, including the addax, which there are only about 200 left in the world. Second, big game hunters can collapse the whole ecosystem by wiping out just one or two species. And three, the government that funds them is only paid about 5%, and the rest is spent on airfare and Is used to pay the landowners for allowing them to hunt on their land. My name is brandon badrick, and that is why we should try to conserve these majestic beasts from whatever may stand in their way trying to kill them. Goodbye.
That "God Exists" should be added to the "Big Issues" on DDO

My *GOD*, he was fast! *Bah-tum-tsk!*Anyhow, let's see what my opponent has to say.Hmmm....My opponent tries talking about the ambiguity. I already stated previously that we can come to one conclusion that most people will agree to be true: "An omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being who grounds the universe." Regardless of your religion, your God will be pretty close to the God which I described before. "In other words, God may exist either objectively, as in he is the same for all of us, or subjectively, as a concept within our minds where we all have different conceptions of what he--or she--may in fact be. If God only exists subjectively, and may I remind PRO and our audience that we have no way of verifying whether God does, then this question becomes utterly meaningless. " See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. People can even debate about whether God's Existence even matters or not, in the core of the debate. Not truth value: the question of God can infact invole appeals to what gay marriage can appeal to. There is the problem of evil in society, and God's omnibenevolence in addition to omnipotence can violate and contradict that. There is also the contradiction of free-will and God's omniscience, which is also very logical. These logical facts are objective and, if used effectively in a debate, can turn this tri-omni-being into, indeed, the empirical question my opponent suggests it cannot be. " Not only, then, would including this as a big issue would discriminatory to these people and disparaging towards a valid point of point, but wholly inefficient and short-sighted, which would necessarily erode DDO's credibility. " I see. Now I understand why God's Existence isn't included within the Big Issues. I think I should have made this a forum thread. -.-Unfortunately the position seems too strong in favor of con's position.I CONCEDE. I hope to meet con once again in a debate I truly know about.
That "God Exists" should be added to the "Big Issues" on DDO

Hello, new debater! I'll be light on you this round to test your skills out. :DAll of the "Big Issues" on DDO are pretty big and controvercial. From the Death Penalty to Animal Rights, they are discussed quite often and have a big part in society.God's existence is a incredibly controvercial and discussed topic. Just the topic "God Exists" has been repeatedly debated 107 times to this date. [1] "Does God Exist" adds another 143 massive debates to the list. [2] "God does not exist" adds yet another small, but notable 39 debates. [3] Just the mere word "God" has spurred out 24 debates. [4]What am I trying to get at here? That God is a big topic. As cited from Wikipedia [5], "Arguments for and against the existence of God have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, scientists, and others for thousands of years." Although I agree with Wikipedia about the philosophical arguments, it must be noted that scientific arguments, such as Occam's Razor, or the Cosmological Argument, are all heavily used to debate about God. A page reserved for the "Big Issue" God would be quite easy. There are loads of good arguments for both sides, and loads of data and information availible, and most times "God" comes to the common definition "Omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient", so it's easy to come down to one single term definining "God". Sure, there will be alternatives to the definition sometime, but it is agreeable.Overall there is no reason why such a controvercial, easily accessible debate with many arguments shouldn't be considered a "Big Issue" or added to DDO's page reserved for "Big Issues". It would be easy for the moderators to just look up on some google articles for big board arguments against God's omni- -science, -potence, or -benevolency. "God's existence" is a very controvercial topic thought out by many. It is time that it be added to the "Big Issues".Onto you, Jolly.[1] http://www.debate.org...(The number at the end indicates which debate this is as of the same name) [2] http://www.debate.org...(number at end once again) [3] http://www.debate.org...[4] http://www.debate.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Contacts (pro) Vs. Glasses (con)

I believe that glasses are better than contacts for these reasons: you do not have to replace them as often, they are really low maintenance, don't have to work about them sticking to your eyes if you happen to fall asleep with them on at night and you can get frames that will compliment whatever style suites you. When you lose a contact it is harder to find than if you were to lose your glasses. If you can"t find it they you are wasting money to put in a new contact. Glasses in the long run are cheaper than contacts. You have to get new contacts every 6 months or so, whereas glasses you can keep for as long as your prescription for your eyes is the same. For most people that will not change so you will have the same pair of glasses for a really long time. Glasses are also less likely to cause an infection because they are not actually touching you eyeball like contacts do.