BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video Games do not Cause Violence

Do video games cause violence? In a simple answer, yes. In the past 15 years, the number of gamers has gone up drastically due to both increased gaming quality and the new notions of multiplayer games, such as MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online) games and simple 'LAN' games which allow you to play with a friend. Allow me to quote a news article. "On April 20, 1999, two seniors walked into their Colorado high school carrying assault rifles, and they opened fire. They shot dozens of people, killing 12 students and one teacher, and the nation was floored. School shootings had happened before, but this was a new scope of carnage, and in the ensuing search for answers it came out the shooters had spent a lot of time playing violent video games." I'm sure everyone is aware that the PG rating on First Person Shooter games, or pretty much any game that contains violence or sex is literally just ink. Do people really think that kids underage pay attention to those ratings? Get with the modern world. Though it may be unfortunate, it's common knowledge that children participate in over 18 activities including not limited to these video games. It was only last year that an 8 year old shot and killed his caretaker (87 years old) after playing a particularly violent video game. It's people like that little boy who are most vulnerable to influence from video games and from adults who encourage that sort of behavior that are often encountered online. The real reason these games cause violence is because they are given to people who are sometimes mentally unhinged, and also to small children who can easily pirate them from the web. The facts state that these games are mentally damaging to many people. But the biggest problem of all lies in the age rating, because it means nothing. In fact, I'd be willing to bet children want to play those games more, to feel like a proper adult. Winning in a game is a childish notion of victory and defeat is the same. Those notions, however, have killed people in the past. That is proof enough that the games cause violence.
are each of the sponge bobs characters a deadly sin

First of all, I only made 1 argument, and you still dropped it. Just because they commit the sin does not automatically make them the sin. It is impossible for a person to be a sin, however they can commit the sin. I will now counter everything you wrote. Sloth: First of all, Patrick actually is quite active. As you can see in various episodes, he runs around with spongebob, and makes squidward very mad. Furthermore, Patrick commits the sin, however patrick himself is not sloth, HE COMMITS THE ACT OF SLOTH. There is a huge difference. Wrath: As mentioned previously, he commits wrath, he himself is not wrath Greed: He is greedy, however he isn't greed itself Envy: he is envious. Him himself is not envy Pride: She is proud, however she herself is not pride. Lust: First of all, your definition of lust is false. The real definition is "Intense or unrestrained sexual craving." [1] Where in spongebob do you ever see him trying to bang a girl? NOWHERE! Thus, he is not lustful, nor lust itself. I have already proved non of these characters are the deadly sins, they only commit the sins. I even proved some of this sins they are accused of being part of is false. Furthermore, my opponent has to explain how ALL of the spongebob characters are a deadly sin. There are over 3,000. He missed so many like the dirty bubble, and barnacle boy, mermaid man etc. Since he didn't do that, and it is already impossible for someone to be a sin, the outcome of this debate is obvious. Source: 1.http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
are each of the sponge bobs characters a deadly sin

I hope you know the seven deadly sins 1. Sloth-Patrick Sloth is the sin of laziness, or unwillingess to act. Obviously this is Patrick. He lays under a rock all the time and doesn't really do anything. In fact in the episode "Big Pink Loser" he got an award for doing nothing the longest. 2. Wrath-Squidward Wrath involves feelings of hatred and anger. Squidward hates his life, usually hates SpongeBob, and is pretty much angry most of the time. 3. Greed-Mr. Krabs Obviously Mr. Krabs is greedy and desires money. How could Greed not be Krabs? He actually sang about the power of greed in "Selling Out". 4. Envy-Plankton Plankton is envious of Mr. Krabs because The Krusty Krab is a success while The Chum Bucket is a failure. His envy drives him to try to steal the Krabby Patty secret formula. 5. Glutony-Gary I actually think this one is pretty funny. Did you ever notice the running gag in Spongebob where they say "don't forget to feed Gary" or Sponge says "I gotta go feed Gary". Gary even ran away that time when SpongeBob forgot to feed him. Glutony usually refers to the overindulgence of food so I'm guessing this one fits him pretty well. 6. Pride-Sandy Sandy takes a lot of pride in who she is and where she comes from. She takes pride in the fact that she is from Texas and likes to let everyone know it. She also takes pride in the fact that she is a mammal and a land creature, like in the episode "Pressure" where she tried to prove land critters were better than sea critters. 7. Lust-SpongeBob Ok, I know what your thinking. It does seem a little weird and curious at first but I have given it a lot of thought. Lust in one definition is "excessive love of others". I think this one works best for Spongebob. He shows his love of others with his overeagerness to do good and help people. If anything is true about SpongeBob its that he loves everyone around him, even if they don't exactly love him back. So this is what I came up with. I don't know what anybody else thinks. Oh by the way try not to analyze cartoons too much, especially SpongeBob. I actually think the people on the show try to be inconsistent on purpose. Just to be funny.
are each of the sponge bobs characters a deadly sin

Due to the fact my opponent insulted me, I will now create a more serious argument. Insulting is rude, and uncalled for, especially since I granted you a happy birthday!REFUTATIONS "sponge bob is a piece of writing. this should be enough proof to down size all your points. you keep insisting that things can not be a sin but in writing you can do what ever you want if you want a bird that represents the earths core you can make it, if you want a character (who is a piece of writing) who represents a deadly sin you can have him be a deadly sin. "Before I even point out his horrible grammar, and explain how this sentance makes no sense whatsoever, I will refute. Spongebob is a fictional character, not a piece of writing. You claim that he is a sin because he can be anything. However, you never proved he is a sin, you only explained how it is a possibility. So, you proved nothing.Spongebob is a sea sponge. "SpongeBob SquarePants is an energetic and optimistic sea sponge" [1] See, a sea sponge, not a sin. You cannot be 2 different things. That is like saying I am a cow, and human. This is not possible. So spongebob is a sea sponge, not a sin! Also, he commited no sin in the first place! Yet, my opponent still barely reads my argument, and drops it. So spogebob didn't even commit the sin of lust, and furthermore he is a sponge. So, it is impossible for him to be a sin. As I said various times before,REPRESENTING OR COMMITING A SIN IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING A SIN! I have no idea how many times I am going to need to repeat this for it to edge into my opponent's brain.". sponge bob is a piece of writing. the only thing you have been doing is playing the word game. how about you play the debate game instead." Hey, What makes you think you are playing the debate game? You are only assuming things, you have no proof, and you drop all my arguments. You also drop your BoP, you are a huge hypocrite. I am sticking to my part, and proving you wrong, this is debating. You are making false assumptions backed up by no proof, and accusing me of not debating. This is not debating, this is being a whiny typer who can't admit he is wrong.I would like to point out all the points dropped by my opponent. Spongebob commited no sin Being a sin is different from representing one you need to prove all of the characters are sins, you still are missing over 3000 Understanding what lust is And so, my opponent dropped almost all my points, had no proof, and insulted me after I wished them a happy birthday. I proved it is impossible for them to be the sin, whereas he made faulty assumptions backed up by no proof whatsoever.Source:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
are each of the sponge bobs characters a deadly sin

ha you forget one big thing. sponge bob is a piece of writing. this should be enough proof to down size all your points. you keep insisting that things can not be a sin but in writing you can do what ever you want if you want a bird that represents the earths core you can make it, if you want a character (who is a piece of writing) who represents a deadly sin you can have him be a deadly sin. sponge bob is a piece of writing. the only thing you have been doing is playing the word game. how about you play the debate game instead.
are each of the sponge bobs characters a deadly sin

To start off, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!First of all, these "sexual" things you accuse spongebob of doing are false. It is only an odd fanbase making things up by taking clips out of context. Spongebob has no original intention of these things occuring, considering it is a show for children. Also, lust is INTENSE sexual actions, meaning frequent. Even if these few moments were legit, he doesn't constantly every episode commit lust. And regardless of that, YOU STILL HAVEN'T PROVEN SPONGEBOB IS LUST! COMMITING A SIN AND BEING A SIN ARE 2 DIFFERENT THINGS!You still fail to prove ANY of the characters are the sin. You still have not met your BoP. Also, the debate is "are each of the spongebob characters a deadly sin". Saying this, you are implying ALL the characters are a deadly sin. Not only have you not proven that the 7 main characters are sins, but you also neglect thousands of characters! You have proven nothing, and I already explained how they themselves are not a deadly sin.
are each of the sponge bobs characters a deadly sin

has sponge bob committed no sin? of course he has sorry about not replying earlier it was my birthday, sponge bob repeatedly says and does sexual stuff. in one sponge bob episode he tells Gary not to drop the soap. there are many more www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha_Wk7T6Tvs go to this url and you will see him make quite a few
are each of the sponge bobs characters a deadly sin

Can you prove they are the sins? You are the instagator, and you have not met your BoP. I proved they aren't and you also dropped my points. Spongebob commited no sin. Also, being the sin and being based off are 2 different things. IN the show they are sea creatures. Also, you need to prove ALL characters are the sins, and you still fail to do so.
We should enslave "colored" people

Black people are disgusting and we should have kept them as slaves. a. They commit crimes, they steal and they act like we owe them something. b. they smell a. http://www.dailymail.co.uk... According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009 (841,000 black males and 64,800 black females out of a total of 2,096,300 males and 201,200 females). b. no proof needed just walk past a black person
Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good

I Agreed 100%, a big pet peeve of mine is when i talk with someone with headphones in one ear( i find that rude and annoying) and agreeing with you with you with not being able to "stand someone that can't go 5 minutes without checking their phones". I always ask myself if cell phones divide us more rather then unite us, even with social media. And i feel that it does, people of today seem way more divided. I remember trying to get a girls number once and she said "just contact me on Facebook" which i feel is pointless, i would rather get a personal experience and get to know you more through talking face to face(what i like more) rather then being on my phone for a extensive period of time. And you are dead on point with phones leading to depression, many can look like social outcast do to the fact that they never get off their phones and meet new people, many might find it easier to make friends without the effort of using their voice, but i prefer to get to know someone by voice not by text. If i wanted to know someone by text, i would read a biography or autobiography book.
Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good

I have also experienced that myself don't own a cell phone which I'm glad I don't anymore. I realized how much time I was spending on my device, I started staying in my room all of the time I wouldn't eat food, I wouldn't really talk to anybody and this became a habit every day I got home I got straight on my cell phone, and it became an issue I always made sure I had my charger, a backup charger, my ear buds etc. I was isolating myself from others, which does lead to depression. I get you on when you said that they can be used for emergency purposes which is a really good point, I think that out of all of the technology and people around you sure enough they will have a cell phone on them, simply ask for their help, no big deal right? "The presence of a cell phone while two or more people are talking face-to-face can generate negative feelings toward the person who has his or her device visible". From personal experience I find that very true, I cannot stand when I'm try to have a conversation with someone and they can go 5 minutes without checking their phone.
Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good

As a person that was heavily attached to cell phones and social media and music while my sophomore years, and i have to say that it does way more harm than good. You were dead on with the "makes people anxious. It's being away from them. This can cause to depression and other issues. Which is very harmful for a person". The effects are unbelievable, and i am blessed from breaking away from this technology addiction. But it's sad to say that, because i am only one person. Many people of today aren't even close to aware of the addiction that some have to their phones. Having headphones in, checking and posting pics to places like facebook and snapchat and etc, only makes people even less aware. Many have to lose the source of addiction before they are able to be cured.
Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good

Cell Phones are destroying society now a days. When i walk around out in public all i see is kids, adults, etc. with their eyes glued to their phones, today you can't even hold a civil conversation with someone anymore which is dangerous to your health actually Cell Phones can affect your brain activity, for example talking on the phone with another person simply holding a phone to your ear for a extended amount of time increases activity in regions of the brain closest to the antenna. Researchers have found that Glucose metabolism in the orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole increased significantly when the phone was turned on and muted, compared with when it was off (P=0.004). This may be a acute affect but it contributes to reasons of why they are harmful. Social life, i enjoy being able to talk to someone face to face for others it may be different but studies show that social media is causing anxiety Forty-five percent of responders said they feel "worried or uncomfortable" when email and Facebook are inaccessible, while 60 percent of respondents stated "they felt the need to switch off" their phones and computers to secure a full-fledged break from technology. In other words, it's not being on social networks that makes people anxious. It's being away from them. This can cause to depression and other issues. Which is very harmful for a person.
Cell Phones Does More Harm Than Good

Throughout history, phones have become so advance that it became a daily part and need in many people lives. But i feel that technology has become so advance that many people feel too attached to them. You can have someone constantly checking their social media page every two minutes, or you can see someone having headphones in, even if someone is currently having a conversation. Many could argue that "phones are important for emergency purposes, but throughout history, many have been able not survive without phones. With the first portable cellphone not being invented until the year 1973, so you have to ask how people survived without them. And many people are said to not even have a cellphone such as myself. Cited: www.theatlantic.com
Your debates have been "disappeared".

Your rule was completely unfair. Why should I automatically concede just so you can win a debate? There is no good reason for me to do so. If you're going to set up a trap debate, you get blamed for doing so and you get the shaft. I never whined, just explained that you had the BoP. Also, you should have explained this in the 2nd round. The 3rd round doesn't define the debate. You only said to "accept", but I had no idea what you meant my "accept", so the voters may disregard your claim. I don't have to make an argument because a) You have the BoP b) You haven't made an argument. I only need to negate the resolution. And for you to unleash ad hominem attacks on me by calling me stupid is shameful. I would think that my opponent would know better than to resort to that. You are the one who must make an argument here. If it doesn't matter to you, then you may as well have ran into a loss.
All People should know how to fight.

I believe learning to fight is not necessary. PRO's main reason for learning to fight is that it provides protection from potential physical dangers.. in some cases, your life. However, I feel our lives are insignificant. There are billions of people in this tiny world. We take up less than a tiny fraction of the universe.. our lives.. our short lives, is nothing compared to the eternity of time. Math: (x / infinity) = 0. This means that living 20 years is no different to living 1000 years. Why should we care whether we die or not? Objectively, it doesn't matter. All things will die. A renowned man may leave his spot in history for a few thousand years (Jesus Christ, for example), but 10,000 years? 20,000 years? 100,000, a million, a trillion, infinity.. the lifespan of Earth isn't even that long. We're alive, so what? What reason do we have for humanity to stay alive?My opponent proposed fighting for self sustenance. I reject it by claiming there is no reason for self sustenance, for life, for anything. Only our animal instincts toward survival and reproduction keeps us going.
All People should know how to fight.

Very interesting figurative language, but the issue remains un-addressed. My opponent proposed a viable goal toward which one could work toward in life. What is the purpose of life in the first place? If life had no purpose, then any goals within are pointless. Why must we pursue happiness?? Let's say we pursue happiness, what then, what now? Is it to give us something to do? Why must we do anything? Why is it paramount that humanity does something.. why must humanity exist? There is no reason for us to learn to sustain our lives simply because our lives are unimportant. Who cares if we've lived life to the fullest? In the end, we'll be gone, the earth will be gone, the universe may be gone and time continues.. forever. There is no reason for anything. A person can be chiseled and refined to perfection, but this perfection doesn't last. It's transient nature calls into question everything humanity strives for. For now, humanity lives on, but why must humanity live on? Why live life at all? There is no reason to fight. You could beat me to a pulp for your survival or for sport. There is no reason for survival, there's no reason for sport.
All People should know how to fight.

Okay so first... Concessions to you. Yes I am only a grain of sand on a beach. We are only a moment in time. The beach is only a portion of the world. The world is a grain of sand in the beach of the universe. So on and so forth. And I know that you could most likely research and find me people who whole hartedly take this position in life. But I would be very willing to believe that all those people you find who have voiced their opinion in such a way... Really would have had to quite often "defend" their position against the masses. I shall even go far out on a limb here and say that those people of such a viewpoint are about as rare as a single grain of sand on a beach perhaps? And then. Sine I am proposing that they are such rarities. Would also then such people perhaps feel quite often un-agentic to the worlds more common goals. Being of worthlessness would perhaps tax that person past their very own capacity to go on? Past the very instinct to better yourself? Past the instinct survive as you closed with? We (you and me) are both on here to better our capacity as individuals. Jousting with our minds... Fighting to win this debate? No? Protection from physical dangers was most defiantly insinuated by me. And I apologize only half for being vague with my initial statement. I was throwing only a literary "jab" to test my range. Fighting even by dictionary standards will come up with a physical reference prior to reference metaphorically. But metaphorically explained definitions do indeed come up. Learn to defend your mind, your soul and your body and you will be indomitable. Capable of making yourself the very best and beautiful piece of sand in the quantum of a moment that you partake in. Joust with me Good Debater!
Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized in the U.S.

Pro says that homosexuals are born that way, despite giving no evidence to support the claim. 1. People aren't born homosexual The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence denies the existence of a "gay gene." This is illustrated through the following report by the daily caller. "Journalists trumpet every biological study that even hints that gayness and straightness might be hard-wired, but they show little interest in the abundant social-science research showing that sexual orientation cannot be innate. The scholars I interviewed for this essay were variously dismayed or appalled by this trend. For example, historian Dr. Martin Duberman, founder of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, said "no good scientific work establishes that people are born gay or straight." And cultural anthropologist Dr. Esther Newton (University of Michigan) called one study linking sexual orientation to biological traits ludicrous: "Any anthropologist who has looked cross-culturally (knows) it"s impossible that that"s true, because sexuality is structured in such different ways in different cultures." While biology certainly plays a role in sexual behavior, no "gay gene" has been found" [1] 2. Even if people are born with homosexual urges, they shouldn't act out on them. My opponent didn't address the point I made in my last speech, showing that some people are born with tendency to become angry more easily. However, just because a feeling exists does not mean you should act on it. Pro asks how I know homosexual behavior is destructive. I will refer my opponent back up to my conceded first contention, where i demonstrated that homosexuality increases STD's, suicide rates, and damages the immune system. Furthermore, it is gateway toward the legalization of beastiality and polygamy. Sources 1. http://dailycaller.com...