BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video games should be censored

My opponents argument against Nintendo is flawed because I used the company Nintendo to promote my point that the US is not the only video game producing country. While Nintendo does have branches located in the us, the HQ is still located in Japan. That makes Nintendo a Japan based company. I have nothing against Nintendo because they do already promote censoring their video games. In my opinion, the rest of the video game industry should follow in example (as proof of my stance.) As I stated before, we are not debating whither you CAN censor video games, we are debating whither we SHOULD censor video games. because of that reason, my opponents first (and main) argument is irrelevant. Their argument against 'we abuse and overlook ratings' was giving rules and regulations from Sears. Well I don't really need to say any thing, my opponent took the words RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH: 'plenty of parents look over games ratings before buying them, I know mine do'. my opponent is correct, most parents overlook these ratings, that is why we need to censor video games. I would like to propose a new argument, that if a child views violence or 'bad words', then that child could get the idea that the content is okay. It is simple logic, the parent allows the child to buy the video game and when the child is exposed to the language and violence, they start to be repeated. In no way can this be interpreted as being good, and because this is true this is why video games should be censored. my opponent states that I have been 'trying to deter' his case, TRYING really, considering all of my points compared to yours, you have NOTHING left.
Video games should be censored

I will start by addressing the point that video games are protected by the first amendment. First off, I never stated that we are debating whether we CAN censor video games. I stated we SHOULD censor video games. My opponent fails to recognise that the resolution never states the United States as being the only country we are debating about. We are debating about all countries and all nations. Video games are widely popular around the world. take Nintendo for instance, Nintendo is a company based in Japan. While my partner is correct, video games are protected by the first amendment, their argument is rendered useless because of the limited impact the US has on the video game industry. My opponent is correct in his point that video games are rated but, how many of your friends abuse and often overlook these ratings? Maybe even you have before? The point is that even when they have these ratings, there is no restriction to who can buy them. If they have the choice, so be it, but they may get the idea that the content is okay when in reality, it is completely the opposite.
Video games should be censored

Let me start by saying that even if we would like there to be no cuss words in games, guess what? You can't do anything about it either. Why? Because of the first amendment. It, as most people know, "addresses the rights of freedom of religion (prohibiting Congress from establishing a religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition" (form wikipedia). As we do, all companies have these rights and we can do nothing about it. As such all games should be able to have language that might be, lack of a better word, strong. Also, game makers have rating companies (ESRB for example) rate the games on their content. This lets people know what to expect during game play, and if they don't want to be subjected to the language, they have a choice. From the evidence I have presented the only possible answer to this debate is that video games should NOT be censored. It is for these reasons that I strongly stand in the position of Con.
Video games should be censored

ok so I guess you CAN censor them, but it also states that there shall be no amendment/law that impends first amendment rights, so we can censor them, but we can't MAKE any one censor them because that would impend on the right, and because your entire argument is pretty much based off this, it makes your entire argument flawed and when I said that we were getting off topic I was specifically talking about the Nintendo subject, I'm sorry for not making it clear enough. my friend, you state that if the child is subjected to vulgar and profane language and what not for long enough, it becomes mental abuse, and even though this is off topic, I will address it. It can't be counted as mental abuse unless it's detrimental to the child's emotions, and as I again see, you have no proof that it is detrimental in any way. and yes, our definitions of 'okay' are different, but mine are based off of facts that I have proven to be facts and yours is merely your opinion, which you said "don't matter in a debate". We SHOULDN'T censor games .again because it would lead us to fascism, and like I asked earlier, are you really taking a fascist stance? Voters, I too promote a fair voting period and I kindly ask for a pro vote.
Video games should be censored

Sorry I had to forfeit round 3 due to tight scheduling. I thank my opponent for forfeiting round 3 with me, I am sorry for any inconveniences it caused him. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- my opponents stated that the first amendment protects us from censoring video games, when in fact it does the exact opposite. The first amendment says that we have the right to produce video games with inappropriate content, not that we CAN'T censor them. We CAN censor video games and just because the first amendment allows 'bad' content, that does not make it the right thing to do. He also states that the more we discuss this topic, we are getting more off topic. I believe that we have been on topic this entire time. I apologize for my miss-read. I took 'looking over' as the same as 'overlooking.' Apparently you have responsible parents, but you must realize that not all parents are like that. some do overlook ratings. Again I apologize for my miss-read My opponents third point, although I give him credits it was a nice try, has a fatal flaw. If I were to be living in a house were the residence was filled with dirty language and cussing, after only a short period of time it would become mentally abusive. I know what you are going to say ' because the parent views the language as acceptable, it is okay.' Well, let me put it this way, WRONG. Thanks for pointing it out for me 'it's not exactly ethical.' You are stating that the government will not intervene unless the child receives any type of abuse, still, cussing and violence are not okay. no matter how you put it. You also stated that is okay as long as the parents don't hurt the child in the process. All of that cussing and violence will hurt the child in the long run, they will be scared for life after hearing and seeing those types of things. And because of these reasons I am still asking myself "what the crap is he talkin' bout'!" I have to say your definition of okay, and mine, are to different things. Finally for some strange reason my opponent has yet to see that all along I have been addressing 'we' as the world, the US, and the entire video game industry. I have no jurisdiction over the video game industry so if I were to say, 'I should censor video games, or you and I should censor video games' not possible. I encourage a fair voting period for this debate, this means please vote on who won the debate, not which side YOU think should win without even reading our debate. Because censoring video games is the right thing to do, VOTE PRO.
Papacy is Unbiblical

ConclusionI don't have much to add, as my opponent has forfeited his last round of the debate. I would just like to again point out that Pro has failed to carry the burden of proof for his original claim that "papacy is unbiblical". I have provided several arguments in favor of my own position. This, along with the forfeiture made by Pro in the last round, is reason enough to vote Con as the winner in this debate. I would like to thank Pro for creating the debate and for an interesting discussion on the topic. It is always enjoyable to hear another's perspective, especially when it pertains to Biblical text. I hope to continue to discuss this topic in the future.
Papacy is Unbiblical

This debate challenge is for Catholics only.My debate challenge is this: PAPACY IS UN-BIBLICALRULESChurch fathers citation can be used but the primary source would be the Bible because we're dealing with first century Christianity. Round 1 Acceptance of the Debate Challenge by ConRound 2 Pro's argument.Round 3 Con's rebuttal and argumentsRound 4 Pro's rebuttal / Con's rebuttalRound 5 Final RemarksNOTEShttp://www.britannica.com...http://www.gotquestions.org...
Video Games Are Too Violent

May I start by pointing out that humans will always have the urge for violence since the dawn of time. I'm a strong believer that video games are providing a peaceful way of letting out this violent intent within all people. In fact, today's murder rates are at an all time low. May I also ask that you provide citation to the quotes you use? You seem to use rather extreme examples in quoting children that wish to express their violence in real life, but I'm not sure where you have gathered such quotes. Also, as far as I'm aware there has been no scientifically PROVEN link between the playing of video games and violence in later life. Lets be honest, the same issue has been raised for a number of cultural developments such as Rock music and mobile phones. Today most people wouldn't consider these as "violence-inducing". I think that video game violence is used as a cover up too often to mask wider issues of mental health care and ingrained mental attitudes towards the glorification of violence. To conclude, every age has its psycopaths and every age has its entertainment... they are NOT the same thing.
Video Games Are Too Violent

In video games such as Call of Duty, Gears of War and Saints Row, the main goal is to kill or be killed. How are these violent video games affecting the minds of children? One gamer was asked if they liked violent video games, his response was " Yes because I have started to feel the urge to practice my sniper skills for real." A child who plays violent video games starts looking at the world as a dangerous place where violence and aggression are an appropriate response, more than a child would who hasn't had that exposure. Young children also try to copy the actions they have observed while playing video games. These actions or gestures are stored in their memories and children do feel the urge to try them out in their real lives on their siblings and in school, thus increasing the bullying tendencies. Non-violent games can prove to be a great teaching tool and they can be used for educational purposes. They also improve the hand-eye co-ordination. So, parents should try to convince their children to play such games and divert their attention from violence.
Lady Thatcher is related to Atilla the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, Hitler and Pol Pot - but not Idi Amin

You have been arguing that the two are not related on the basis of belonging to different "racial groups", or as your source "The Races of Humanity" constantly puts it: "subspecies". This is a flawed way of understanding both human variation and the concept of "Race". I would not claim that the races have not developed some level of difference, as they clearly have in a limited degree, but making the claim that there exist "subspecies" is unnecessary and unsupported by fact. [1] Most mainstream contemporary Anthropologists see the "racial categories" you cite as being cultural constructs due to the level of information from which to draw perceptions and the given socio-political realities.[1] The people in question (Amin, and Thatcher) are both Homo Sapien Sapien, and are not classified as different species by mainstream contemporary scientists. In fact Science points to their sharing a common, Homo Sapien Sapien, ancestor in Scientific Adam.[2][3] Further if you are arguing that they're not related because of racial difference, then I would say it is inconsistent that you would say Thatcher is related to Pol Pot, as the latter would quite obviously be considered belonging to the "subspecies" "Mongoloid", as opposed to Thatcher's "subspecies" of "Caucasoid". Sure you can say that these subspecies share the fact that their from that group that's "Out of Africa" (as your source Richard McCulloch puts it) but that's a rather subjective standard for you to pick, as they're still considered separate "sub-species" according to your source, and given your line of argument. I (and I would hope any voters) however, can see no reason to grant "relational status" between Thatcher and Pol Pot, or indeed Atilla, if they are also held to be of distinct "sub-species" as your source claims. Either way I have negated the resolution. Your sources hold, and you argue based off of, the idea that people can be accurately divided into separate distinct "sub-species" categories, which you hold to be important in the matter of people's level of "relatedness". Given this standard the first half of your contention doesnt hold up for Lady Thatcher, Atilla the Hun, and Pol Pot all belong to different "subspecies". And given the more reasonable understanding of human variation, your contention that Lady Thatcher is not related to Idi Amin is absurd because they are both humans; that isof the species Homo Sapien Sapien; and share a direct line to a common human ancestor in 'Scientific Adam'. Vote con! [1] http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com... [2]https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com... [3]http://www.ibm.com...
Lady Thatcher is related to Atilla the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, Hitler and Pol Pot - but not Idi Amin

----------------------------------------------------------- I accept that given the way in which you use the term "related" Lady Thatcher is indeed related to Atilla the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, Hitler and Pol Pot. I take issue with the your holding that she is not so related to the man you call Idi Amin. Firstly, you have not provided any genealogical information about her line of descendance, and you really don't and can't know if one of her great, great grandpa's was really an African Pirate who kidnapped one of those European lady's in the 1700's [1] Secondly, and more importantly, all people are related. In showing how Margaret Thatcher is related to the esteemable crew you expounded upon, you drew upon the scientific explanation of how all peoples, outside of Africa, are related to this one guy whose family crossed the Black Sea. To show how Margaret Thatcher is related to all people, including the esteemable Idi Amin, I will draw upon the scientific explanation of how all people, Africans too (cough*racist*cough), come from this one guy from back in Africa many years ago called by National Geographic "Scientific Adam". [2] Now unless my opponent can show how his theoretical person deserves to be considered human, and this "scientific adam" guy does not (which is contrary to scientific thought on the matter), I have shown that the Ms. Thatcher, if she was so blessed as to be with us today, could legitimately claim relation to the pillar of humanity that is Mr. Amin. [1] . http://ewatew.blogspot.com... [2] . http://channel.nationalgeographic.com...
Lady Thatcher is related to Atilla the Hun, Vlad the Impaler, Hitler and Pol Pot - but not Idi Amin

That fact that Margaret "The Milk-Snatcher" Thatcher (1) is related to some of the most evil men in history will surprise few of you but why can't she also count the late Ugandan dictator Idi Amin (2) as one of her relatives? After all, he was a ruthless dictator who was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and who the President of Tanzania described as "a murderer, a liar and a savage". Surely a man that evil must be related to Thatcher, even if the relationship is only a distant one? Well, no. You see, anthropological researchers have recently proven that all non-African humans are related to members of a single tribe of around 150 people who crossed the Red Sea from Africa to Arabia around 80,000 years ago and it was this extended family that then went on to colonise the rest of the world. (3) So because Atilla the Hun (4), Vlad the Impaler (5), Adlof Hitler (6), Pol Pot (7) and Margaret Thatcher all hail from Europe or Asia while Idi Amin was from Africa, she cannot possibly be related to him. Thank you. (1) http://www.socialistworker.co.uk... (2) http://www.guardian.co.uk... (3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk... (4) http://www.bbc.co.uk... (5) http://www.ucs.mun.ca... (6) http://www.bbc.co.uk... (7) http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Special needs children should be kept out of schools.

I do agree that, yes, children with special needs can be a disruption, but depending on their disability, behavioral issues usually come with it. No, it should not be excused, but the staff on hand that deal with these children need to be trained well enough to handle behavioral issues. My brother, who is 17, is on the lower part of the autism spectrum and he is also a high school student. His special needs class does learn things; like math, science, and history, just like any other high school student would learn things. I have been in these types of classrooms and yes they are sort of like a daycare, but you can not expect children and teens with developmental disabilities to withstand a college setting classroom. Various things are in place for their attention to be kept so that they can perform their best in a school environment. These children and young adults are human beings and have the right to an education. You also have to look at it from the family's point of view. Costs for healthcare can be incredibly high for people with certain disabilities, which means that one or both parents will need to be working constantly to keep up with bills. If these children have single parents, there may not be any other place for these kids to go when their parents are working, and these parents could lose their job. There are respite care centers in my area that do specialize in taking care of peoples with disability, but only for a certain amount of hours per year. These hours are distributed based on the individual's needs, but the maximum amount of hours is not many. To conclude, yes, these children may be a disruption at times, but they can not control it, and the circumstances that are available play better in part for the individual and their family as a whole rather than someone who is just annoyed by it.
Special needs children should be kept out of schools.

Special needs children, by which I mean those with autism, down syndrome, and other such mental impairments, should be kept at home. These students are disruptive, and nothing but a drain of taxpayer dollars and school resources. At my high school, the special needs class was more like a daycare than a high school class. There was at least 4 adult guardians in there at all times, and they would not be teaching the children, they would simply be playing with them, keeping them entertained until the day was over. These children, at no fault of their own, would scream and disrupt during classes. Why should other children have to be disrupted due to these children? They should not. These children should be the parent's responsibility. We had cases of some autistic children attacking other students in my High School, and that is a serious problem. We cannot excuse them because of their disablility, especially when they can be kept at home with the parent rather than disrupting class and draining resources.
lack of manners in Israel

Debate accepted.Firstly, as the instigator Pro has the BoP in affirming the resolution: which is that Israel has a lack of manners. So far, Pro hasn't included any evidence in support. I'd note that every country in the world has their own unique approach to manners; but politeness *is* something that is upheld within Israel, particularly in a religious setting with certain codes to follow--children and young people who are brought up in this kind of environment are specifically taught good manners.
Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Intelligence is a greater good for the progress of humanity than the gratification of libido. Research have shown that those who abstain themselves from sexual activity, whether it be an inability to find a sexual partner or due to non-interest, tend to be more intelligent - University of North Carolina of Chapel HIll conducted a study that those who had an IQ above 110 with the average being 100, were likely to be virgins. Moreover, people with the sexual orientation of asexuality have an average IQ of 115. Correlation does not imply causation - This argument can be used for the case above, but it is not an absolute argument, therefore the case that people who do not engage in sexual activity as much tend to be more intelligent as it is seemingly so, is still viable. Now, if it were the absolute case that intelligence is linked with sexuality, then the promotion and the extension of sexual gratification would then harm society, therefore be immoral. I also have a problem with C1 "(C.1) B.1 means I will not entertain the notion that even if bestiality/zoophilia is moral it is somehow detrimental to society and that constitutes a legal basis for banning it." If something is detrimental to society, is it not then immoral? Then, wouldn't it be wise to entertain such thoughts to ban it? From a perspective that acknowledges health, It would be absurd to hear that one with great mental health cannot gratify his sexual needs within the bounds of the human race. Moreover, if it were the case that Bestiality and Zoophilia were legal, then the human race would be vulnerable to an significant increase of sexual transmitted diseases and zoonosis, thus, bestiality and zoophilia is to be considered immoral as it brings more harm than sexual gratification which I would not understand why it cannot be satisfied within the bounds of the human race.
Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

"You're right, desire for a certain action does not mean that action is moral." Excellent... then I guess this is pretty much a wrap. "and so I just pulled arguments out of my butt to see if I can make it work." Ohh.. well I guess that's better than pulling arguments out of your butt and not admitting it (cough cough wrichcirw) "I'm taking your word for it" Don't have much else when it comes to the minds of others anyway. "Also, the consent argument is utter horsesiht . My dog wants to fcuk me all the time." Yea, I ask people sometimes if they honestly think dogs only do things like that because they know you have your clothes on and nothing can happen. BTW I won't mind if you just say "end" or some closing comment in the last round.
Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

You're right, desire for a certain action does not mean that action is moral. Prior to this debate, It wasn't that I found bestiality inherently immoral(I couldn't reason even to myself why it would be wrong), I was just uncomfortable with the how seemingly unnatural it is, and so I just pulled arguments out of my butt to see if I can make it work. My attraction towards women is something that I believe I was born with and if it is the case that you are attracted to animals in the same manner (I'm taking your word for it), then I'm sympathetic towards your case, just as I am towards marriage equality. I find no absolute harm in your case and I am not one to limit someone's happiness just because I see it with unease. As for pedophilia, I believe such cases are also debatable. However, when it comes to serial killers, i'm sure you and I can agree that harm is present. Also, the consent argument is utter horsesiht . My dog wants to fcuk me all the time.