BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mortal Kombat is too violent.

Sorry this took so long! I got caught up in something Before I mention Mortal Kombat, I'd like to bring up the other games you brought up.(Virtua Fighter, Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, Tekken, etc) First of all, since this debate is about MORTAL KOMBAT, these games are irrelevant to this debate. So really, the whole point of those games doesn't matter ESPECIALLY in the case of Super Smash Bros. First of all, not all of them are Teen, the first one actually got an E rating. Second of all, we're talking about NINTENDO here! Nintendo is basically the DEFINITION of a family company, with most of their games being E rated. Smash bros, doesn't even come CLOSE to other fighting games. Theirs no blood, no gore, no insides comming out, no heads being popped off, just characters smashing each other off a stage. And honestly, almost every 9 year old boy out there has one of the smash bros games, have all of them tried to kill someone? Ok, now for the actual game. First of all, this will make a huge difference, which Mortal Kombat are you talking about? The series? Just the first one, Armeggedon? It would help lots if you tell me which one, but in this speech, I'll talk about the series in general(tell me which one though) Mortal Kombat was a game that I played when I was about 7. It was rated M, but why could I play it? You could turn the blood off. Mortal Kombat is a game you have the OPTION of seeing blood, and as a kid, my mom would turn the blood off, and not worry at all. What does that leave? Pushing each other to the ground. Thats it. Nothing too bad. A game that IS too violent is Gears of War. Gears of War has guts comming out, blood spattering, everything. And especially with the power of the Xbox 360, Gears is pretty beleiveable. Next, you brought up the idea of boobs hanging out, and everything. First of all, since this debate is about VIOLENCE, it isn't really relevant, but I'll argue it anyway. Mortal Kombat doesn't even COME CLOSE to the sexual content in Dead Or Alive(especially DOA 4) Dead or Alive has girls in bikinis that barely fit, shirts half buttoned, shorts WAY to short, and the whole list. Mortal Kombat has never really had this problem. Mortal Kombat also has a majority of men characters.
Mortal Kombat is too violent.

Yes, I play Mortal Kombat. It is my favorite game. Many people think it is too influential. It is. But I think you would have to be insane or on drugs or something among those lines to do something like beat a 6 year old to death. This and many other murders are alike, because the murderers are teens on drugs and/or are insane who play fighting games too much. Everyone accuses Mortal Kombat. But why? Midway has all theese lawsuits, yet they are not the only ones. Namco, Sega, Nintendo, they have all made fighting games that are violent in thier own way. Nintendo's Super Smash Bros. recently created violent special moves that invole things like changing into a monster to annihalate thier opponent among other things which could have contributed to some of those murders. But perhaps not! The SSB series always manages to achive a T rating, so maybe not as much. Many othe fighting games like Soul Calibur, Tekken, Street Fighter, Virtua Fighter, and many others are very alike. Almost all of them have special moves that are very violent, but probably not as violent as Mortal Kombat. What I am trying say is that Mortal Kombat is not the only violent video game in the world and shouldn't be taking all the heat. Yes, there is the Fatalities which often involve mutilation, decapitation, overall they are unrealistic and fun because the look on your friend's face is priceless once they see what you just did to them. :) Maybe why people hate Mortal Kombat because of all the blood. They also hate it because of the female charecters having almost no clothing and big boobs. This is because Mortal Kombat is targeted towards people 18 and older because of the M rating. No one thought younger people would play Mortal Kombat, despite the M ratings. Sadly, the people who like playing violent games the most are people who shouldn't be. I think I have said enough, but I may have just said the bad things which may result in the inevitable result of me losing this debate. Despite all this, I will still try to win! I will never give up!
cyberbully and bullying is it a god thing or a bad thing

Plainly because bullying is to harden the specific individual and to make them tougher instead of trying to their parents every time someone says something negative. This is especially true in cyberbullying, which in itself is somewhat ridiculous on MOST cases. Another point i would like to introduce is the fact that it introduces them into the world of real life, pushing and forcing them to grow up and deal with it.
God's Not Dead

Pro has used Theory's that can not be proven in every round of this debate. Furthermore, he has not only failed to prove God but to also prove "God's not Dead". "He is simply necessary, like abstract objects are necessary" That is not proof, that is an assumption. I'm not quiet sure why Lady Gaga is in your argument, but it's probably because her song Judas offended you and her fan base has a high LBGT percentage.. LOL "..the universe is fine-tuned to act as an enviornment for intelligent life. So long as this is true, it seems we can infer at lease some of the evidence that confirms a God designed the universe, and therefore, we are justified in inferring a super-intelligent mind engineered the universe at least more probable than not, and therefor, we should believe an intelligent God exists." - LOL WHAT!? By far one of the most rediculious statements my mind has ever had to process. We should believe in an intelligent God based off of 3 assumptions in a row. I've never seen anything like that statement. Pro has failed to prove anything. Pro spent too much time attempting to prove God and could never move on to the true topic of the debate "God's not dead". There is no way an unbiased voter could vote in favor of Pro. Pro has failed to prove his point on every level.
God's Not Dead

My opponent has objected to the cosmological argument by saying it is unclear what the grounds of God existing are, in a way. Well this is an age old dispute, but it's generally bleived that God is self-caused and therefore is immune to asking what is before him. he is simply necessary, like abstract objects are necessary. As to why I assume God is the cause of the universe, he is the only abstract object wiht causal powers, numbers and other mathematical objects are unable to cause things, therefore we posit an unembodied mind as the metaphysical construct which neccesarily created all contingent reality. In my second argument I wasn't saying having morals alone proves God. In none of my arguments am I attempting to prove God, but show his existence is much more plausible than it would be without certain facts. It is a fact that we abhor certain actions and find certain actions to be just. On a godless world view we should simply view certain acts like rape as being nothing more than a flouting of herd morality, kind of the moral equivalent of fashion on lady Gaga. But that isn't how we view morality. We all think moral progress has happened since slave times and we all condemn certain types of actions and thoughts. Look into your hearts and you will see you have an objective sense of morality not explained by what is arbitrarily disadvantageous on an evolutionary scale or arbitrarily socially condemned, even if you do not believe in God or gods, you must admit you have a sense of objective morals existing. We can no more doubt our moral sense of that than we can our physical senses. Objective morality is a properly basic belief and absent a sound defeater of that belief we are justified in holding objective moral values really exist and therefore that a morally perfect God exists. In rebuttal three, my opponent basically assumes that we as humans cannot infer anything about the tuned nature of the universe because we are dependent on a certain level of intelligence that is apparently inadequate to sense whether my telegological argument from fine-tuning is correct. He is not very specific about this, but I have given links to people who have shown the universe is fine-tuned to act as an environment for intelligent life. So long as that is true, it seems we can infer at least some of the evidence that confirms a God designed the universe, and therefore, we are justified in inferring a super-intelligent mind engineered the universe as at least more probable than not, and therefore, we should believe an intelligent God exists.
God's Not Dead

Rebuttal I: "As we go back through a chain of dependencies, we must look for a necessary thing that caused the first dependency to exist." Your argument of proof revolves around what "we" as humans think we know. As humans, we have made countless advances in the last 1,000 years and will continue to do so for the rest of our existence. How do we truly know that a "thing" caused this universe to Exist. I can refute this thinking by asking you two questions: "What was before God?" & "What was before the Big Bang?". You can not PROVE either answers. It lacks logic to assume it was "God" just because we do not yet truly know everything about the universe. I do not see how you PROVED God with this aspect of your argument. Rebuttal II: Just because we have "Morals" doesn't mean God exist. Everything that is Immoral hinders humanity in one way or another.. I argue that "Morals" are displayed in humanity to increase our odds of survival as a species. It would not make any sense for a species with our intelligence to knowingly commit actions that degrade the chance for its own survival as an overall species. Example: It is Immoral to kill a new born. That doesn't PROVE God, Every K-Selective species looks after its young to boost its rate of survival. I do not see how you PROVED God with this aspect of your argument. Rebuttal III: "Just like a building plan proves a designer of it exists, so a planned universe for intelligence proves a powerful and intelligent thing exists that created it." This is not true. The universe and a drawing on a human created piece of paper are two entirely different things that do not PROVE the existence of one another. That line of thinking is within the scope of our human reasoning and comprehension. Any species comprehension of the universe is dependent on its level of intelligence. There are things we do not understand because we simply do not have the mental capacity. Your Blue Print example is based off your human understanding of things. I do not see how you PROVED God with this aspect of your argument. As of this point, you are yet to PROVE the existence of God. To say "God is not Dead" you need to first prove God exist. I can not prove he exist or doesn't exist, but that is not my responsibility in this debate. I respect your thoughts, but fail to see how they "Prove" God. Eagerly awaiting the final round of this debate. - Have a good day.
God's Not Dead

Well, okay. I shall start with a cosmological argument for God being real. We observe in this universe two categories of things- objects which are dependent on outside causes, and objects which exist by their own natures. Now we know dependent things must depend upon other things, which are dependent in turn on other dependent things. As we go back through a chain of dependencies, we must look for a necessary thing that caused the first dependency to exist. If that thing does not bear within itself sufficient explanation for its existence, we must go back further. But we cannot go back forever in this fashion, because infinite numbers of things would lead to metaphysical paradoxes (such as Xeno's paradox). We must arrive at something necessary by its own nature. This thing should rightly be given the title of prime mover of the universe. Secondly, I present a moral argument from the existence of objective moral values and duties. If there is no God, moral values and duties are merely spin-offs of the bio-evolutionary process and socio-cultural programming and that is all. And yet, we behave in a way that considers certain acts as evil and certain acts as just. We think people can behave more morally. All our moral senses suggest morality is objective. But if morals are objective and not relativistic, then there must be a moral standard which has formed these. This is represented in God. Thirdly, I present a teleological argument from the fine-tuned nature of the universe. In this universe, there exist and have many arbitrary constants and quantities, for example, the low entropy condition of the early universe[1]. It's not just the quantities and constants either, but their ratios to one another that are tuned. These could all have been different. They are total flukes of nature (from a naturalistic viewpoint). And yet with just one them being changed by a hairs-breadth, intelligent, self-reflective life-forms who ask questions of the universe like ourselves could not exist. Just like a building plan proves a designer of it exists, so a planned universe for intelligence proves a powerful and intelligent thing exists that created it. Sources [1] Roger Penrose, "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity," in Quantum Gravity 2 (ed. C. J. Isham, R. Penrose, and D. W. Sciama; Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 249.
Humans are selfish by nature, and always do what is in their own best intrest.

I will choose not to take offense to the fact that you felt no need to bring specific examples to disprove me. But I encourage you to broaden your mind, because although difficult, I do not see this as "an impossible stance". Your assertion that sacrifice and charity "can not be in someone's best interest" is false. This shows a short sided and narrow view on "best interest". Yes, we do give to charity for our own best interest. I'll reference Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which is a psychological hierarchy that displays the motives of human beings, usually manifested in a pyramid. At the lower levels there is food, shelter, sex, employment, etc. I believe this is what you think of when you say "best interest". However I am alluding to the higher levels of the pyramid, where we see more evolved needs like morality. From this, we know that humans, once basic living functions are secured, have a need to satisfy themselves morally. Hence, we don't give to charity for the benefit of others, we do it because it makes us feel good about ourselves. First off, " People die to protect each other all the time" is a huge exaggeration. There are roughly seven billion people on Earth, and they are not dying for each other all the time. It happens, but it is rare. As for when it does happen, I propose that these sacrifices are made with themselves in mind. Take a soldier who would jump in front of a bullet for his comrade, very noble, extremely admirable, but not entirely selfless. That soldier has been conditioned to believe that if he dies saving somebody else, he will be remembered as a hero. This follows Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the person willing to sacrifice their life is not just doing so to save the person, they are doing it to secure their legacy as a hero, to fulfill their need to be respected, so they do the respectable thing. Why do people donate money they don't have and travel to volunteer and risk their lives to save others and all those other seemingly selfless sacrifices? Because they are following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, because they are fulfilling their need to do the right thing, because they are fulfilling their need to secure a legacy, to be respected by their peers, to be admired by society. These reasons are also endless, but to simplify, we do it to make us feel good. I'm glad you acknowledge that evolutionarily we are selfish, but this is obvious. I encourage you to rethink our true motives though, you can see it every day. See a jerk of a guy help pick up a "nerd's" books when he dropped them, seems selfless? No, because he knew his crush was watching. This is an example where a seemingly selfless act is actually selfish. Now just imagine that same illusion but on a much grander, evolutionary, species-wide scale. My point is that our selfish nature runs so much deeper than tangible items like money. Our nature is so much deeper that we have developed higher needs, needs that are more complex than others so they are often misunderstood. Misunderstood as selfless values, when in reality they are just as selfish as any others.
Humans are selfish by nature, and always do what is in their own best intrest.

My adversary has taken an impossible stance. The first part of the resolution entails that "Humans are selfish by nature" That much we can all agree one, even in regards to evolution and adaption this is true. It is survival of the fittest and generally we are motivated to do what benefits us. The flaw with resolution is what follows this. "and always do what is in their own best interest" This is where Pros resolution falls apart. If there has even been or could be a situation in where someone does something that is not in their own best interest then the resolution is false. Needless to say there has been and always will be situations where people will do things that are not in their own best interest. People die to protect each other all the time, people give money when they don't have it to charities, people give up their lives to go over seas to do charity work. Any of these situations can not be in someones best interest. Anytime someone gives money they do not have to help another person, this is a direct negation of the resolution. For now I do not feel the need to bring up specific examples because there is countless examples to support this. The point is pros resolution can not hold true. People can and will do things that are not in their best interest, which conflicts with his resolution.
Humans are selfish by nature, and always do what is in their own best intrest.

I would first like to apologize in advance to any readers or opponents for any faults I make regarding conduct in this debate as this is my very first, and I am not well educated in the customs of debate. I thought this might be an interesting topic, just how selfish are people? I would argue that virtually every action we take as humans is primarily for self advancement. I propose that without fail, humans do what is in our own best interest.
Gun Control

I am pro gun control. First off gun control is not the same as a gun ban so prohibition doesn't count as an analogy. Also, places with very strict gun control like Europe have much lower murder rates and much lower murder rates from guns so this argument that gun control won't stop criminals from using guns is false. When you make (enforced) laws restricting something, that thing will be harder to get, and won't be mainstream, so it will be more expensive and harder to get. This will reduce criminals' access to guns. Gun control bans ex-cons from getting guns making it harder for them to get them. It also restricts the power of these guns. We certainly wouldn't want mentally deranged lunatics with machine guns mowing people down. If there are only slower shooting guns in circulation fewer people will be killed. Gun control allows police forces to be more effective because they don't have to face criminals with machine guns quite so often.
Gun Control

I believe that you should not control guns, but control the lunatics and the criminals. If you take guns away from law following people then they can't protect themselves from bad people. When someone's house is getting robbed first thing there gonna do is call someone with a gun. Criminals will always find away to get guns. Ban guns and then it would be mayhem. Remember prohibition? When alcohol was banned a whole new industry dedicated to smuggling and murder was born. Ban guns and it will be the same.
Affirmative action is racist against minorities.

It tells them that they need help, that they are nothing but their races, and that the country feels sorry for them. At least that's how I see it. I recognize that it does have benefits, but this is about whether it's racist. I'll be honest: I just want to reach my three debates as quickly as possible so I can vote; I wouldn't feel the need to start a debate about this otherwise - but I still intend to take this seriously.
The Biblical God is more credible than the other religions' gods.

I saw you didn't figure out how to challenge me so i'm challenging you. In this debate you hold the position that your God is more credible than the other religions' gods making your beliefs justifiable by reason and i must rebut your arguments while showing why i don't think the bible and Christianity is more credible than the other religions. You hold the BoP. First round is for arguments,second is for arguments and rebuttals,and the rest is for rebuttals only.Pro will need to write "No round" in the last round to make it fair. This will be a fun debate,good luck welcome to the site!Definitions: Faith: Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Credible:Able to be believed; convincing More: A greater or additional amount or degree.
Xbox 360 is better than Play Station 3

The xbox is better i think becasue when i had a PS3 it ook me a longer time to connect to the internet to play with people. I also feel that the conterole feels more comfy in my hand for the xbox. it has a bit of weight and is perfectley curved for every type of hand to fit into it. the PS3 has shorter holing ares making bigger hands (like mine) to keep on slipping.
Xbox 360 is better than Play Station 3

PS3 is much better than the XBOX 360 First off the PS3's CPU is much stronger, while they have similar processors the PS3 has 7 single threaded cores compared the the 360's 3 dual threaded cores. The PS3 runs at 230 GFlops compared to 77 GFlops for the XBOX 360 which is almost 3 times faster. The PS3 also has much better RAM, it runs faster (3.2 GHz compared to 700 MHz) and has 3.2 more Gbps bandwidth. The PS3's hard drive is larger (320 GB compared to 250 GB) The PS3 also doubles as a Blu-Ray DVD player while the 360 doesn't Now going to your arguments, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR ONLINE what's the difference between the 360 online and the PS3 online you both end up playing other people the only difference is that the PS3's service is free. Also the whole hacking argument really annoys me because here is the thing the 360 could have been hacked too why wasn't it? Because the hackers didn't attempt to do it. Plus after the hack Sony did a good job of paying their product owners back for a service they don't pay for (They gave two free full games per each account, and gave them free access for a month for the payed service playstation offers.) Overall the PS3 is a much better system
Xbox 360 is better than Play Station 3

I think that Xbox is best system to be made yet. First round is acceptance AND argument against. I think that the Xbox has much better quality than the PS3. You might have to pay to go online, but it hasnt gone down to hackers yet because it is secure. Also online game play is better and easier to get around. it is more labled than PS3 and explains alot more. Also your credit details are safe and dont get lost.