azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Not responsible

I would like to humbly disagree with the debate motion, which states that violent computer games are responsible for aggression in teenagers. My argument is purely based on the logic that firstly, violent computer games itself cannot be blamed for aggressive behaviour in teenagers. Human curiosity is at its peak when people are at adolescent ages. They feel that they are free to try out whatever computer games that suits them best. They may not have self-discipline and choose to play violent games. These computer games often have ratings on their packaging, indicating the suitable ages of people that can play them. The ratings can be used a reference or guideline to whether the game is appropriate. However if the player chooses NOT to heed the ratings, then the problem lies with them. It is the players who cannot make the right choices, that ultimately ends up in aggression in these teenagers. The game itself is harmless (neutral) and is often used as a scapegoat of causing violence. Also there was a case involving 20-year old Devin Moore being arrested for alleged triple homicide. He shot and killed three policemen, and while being investigated at the police station, he mentioned that “life is a video game. You’ve got to die sometime.” He was making a reference to Grand Theft Auto players’ lives, in which players will inevitably die more than one time in their quest to achieve the game objective. This means that he was already mentally unstable and cannot differentiate between virtual gaming fantasies and the reality, and this fact ultimately led to his committing of the two crimes. Thus I would like to prove my point that it is wrong human choices and possible current mental instabilities of some players, and not the games, that causes aggression. Secondly, there are many other factors leading to aggression in teenagers, some of which Ï will be raising in this argument. The point is about parents’ bad upbringing of the teenagers. As teenagers, they often follow what people older than them do (i.e. treat them as role models). US researchers from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons surveyed 540 students in 2003 and found out that if a child was ever hit by one of his/her parents, he/she is most likely to see violence as an easy way to solve problems. There may also be too-lax disciplinary practices in the home or parents with low education levels who may be already used to having expletives in the way they speak in front of their adolescent children. Thus, I feel that video games should not be the sole party bearing all responsibility for violence caused in teenagers. In conclusion to my argument, I feel that video games CANNOT be blamed for violence in teenagers. This is due to the fact that teenagers can choose to play the games without first seeking their parents’ consent or looking at the ratings. (Careless human choices) Also there are a wide range of other factors inciting aggression in teenagers, such as bad parenting.
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Responsible

I would like to respectfully disagree with what 98DesmondAw has stated. He mentioned about parents' bad upbringing of the teenagers. I agree to this statement as parents' play an important part in their child's behaviour. However,The Office for National Statistics looked at nearly 4,950 people over the age of 16 in Britain to find out what they do all day.The findings make grim reading for working parents who already worry that they spend too much time at work - and too little at home.Parents who work full-time spend just 19 minutes every day "caring for their own children".A further 16 minutes is spent looking after their children as a "secondary activity", but this means that they are doing something else - such as the weekly supermarket shop - at the same time. Hence we can conclude that most parents spent little time with their children and thus not able to set a good example for their children.There are also many violent video games available on the market today and they are relatively popular. friends from school might introduce them to the game and will start to get addicted. Without their parents watching them, they will spend more time on the game more than recommended.he also mentioned that if a child is ever hit by his/her parents, they will most likely see that violence is the easy way out. However, i feel that the child need to understand the reason as of why their parents are hitting them. Is it because of them not changing their ways when their parents already reprimanded/reminded them many times? Most children do not like getting hitted by their parents hence the punishment would be impactful and next time before the child makes the mistake, he/she will remember that time when they had a painful punishment and they not not repeat that mistake again. However, the parent should not hit the child too often as they will get used to it and not learn from their mistakes.I conclude that Violent video games has more impact and aggressive behaviour on teenagers.
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Not responsible

I would like to humbly disagree with what the honoured opponent of the Proposition Team has said. You have mentioned about parents not spending enough time with their children and consequently, not being able to set a good example for the children. However, the point which you have provided simply contributes to the list of factors (besides violent computer games) that may cause aggressive behaviour in teenagers. I am opposing the debate motion (i.e. violent computer games are NOT responsible). So you have just provided another point in opposition of the debate motion(parents not being able to spend enough time with their children and consequently not being able to keep an eye on their teenagers). This again, reinforces my stand on violent computer games not being responsible for violence in teenagers.
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Not responsible

Also, supporting my point, the speaker from the Proposition Team also mentioned about parents not keeping an eye on teenagers and they, making use of that fact to their advantage, "will spend more time on the game than what is recommended". This, again, is another matter of human choices. It is teenagers who choose to ignore self-discipline and play as long as they want. The computer games themmsevles are not responsible, it is the irresponsible choices that teenagers make. With that, I would like to conclude my argument.
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Not responsible

Violence is not a new habit or trend in society. It has existed for thousands of years and cannot be entirely responsible for teen violence. Video games may enhance or aggravate this act, but it is not responsible for violence
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Responsible

I may have mislead my argument by using aggressive instead of a supplement but I have mixed thoughts around this subject.m I wrote a paper freshmen year in highschool on the effects films have had on society and one of my stressed points was the violent aspects in films. You may or may no pt have heard of the shooting in coloroda during the new dark knight rises movie, but I agree with what some of what you have to say about the direct link of violent video games and violence in teens. What I do not recognize however, is that is the only Kik that exists between teens and violence
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Not responsible

I would like to respectfully disagree with what phyllis has just said. She claimed that surveys were carried out on the topic. Although there were many results and findings, there was nothing stating who was the survey conducted by. Due to this ambiguity, the sorce may be inaccurate and untrue so i would like to disagree to your point.
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Responsible

I would like to ask the honourable member, nigeltham of the proposition team to review what I have just stated again. I did say who the research and surveys were conducted by. Either a group or a person's name has been stated. Hence, I would still like to stand strong on my points.
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Not responsible

I disagree that violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour. This is because if we want the violent computer games to be responsible for aggressive behaviour, then all teenagers who play this games must be violent,and all other teenagers who do not play this games must not be violent. This is because if there is just one teenager who plays the games and is not violent, it means that violent computer games will not always cause violence. With this probability, it will mean that violent computer games is not responsible. If there is a teenager that does not play computer games but yet is violent, it show that there are other causes of violence. This means violent computer games are not responsible. Thus, this shows that violent computer games are not responsible.
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Not responsible

Although violent video games do relate to violence, due to insufficient substantial evidence correlation does not imply causation. Despite video game players being more aggressive than those who don't, there is no concrete proof that it actually causes the violence.Swedish study concluded that there is a "clear, statistically significant link" between violent videogames and aggressive behavior, but said that a great deal of the research "suffers from serious methodological deficiencies" and fails to establish a causal relationship between gaming and aggression. Furthermore, the few studies that considered other causes of aggression found underlying factors like poor health and family problems that could explain not only the violent behavior but also the great tendency toward playing violent videogames.
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Not responsible

I play videogames. The violent ones are the ones I prefer. I personally can't even kill a cockroach, let alone hurt a person. I've never gotten the urge to kill or hurt anything. Claiming that violent games do is pretty stupid. What about the games that aren't violent? Say Little Big Planet. That sure as hell didn't inspire me to go travel and move shit around.
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Not responsible

I have never met someone who has been prompted to cause violence due to video games. The cases given of teenagers murdering taxi drivers and other horrific crimes are explained by one important and relevant fact: Violent people are violent from the outset. The fact they play games is totally irrelevant. "Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behavior in teenagers""responsible" - so, video games are the sole reason why aggressive behavior exists in modern society? No. The media has fooled people into believing this. The vast majority of gamers are peaceful, calm and rational people. The very very small minority are aggressive. Look at it this way. The media will only report on the murders and robberies, and if it so happens they played video games, it becomes common knowledge. If a person who gives their own time to charity is reported upon, no-one gives two hoots if they play video games. OK, so some games are violent. I play violent games (yes, I am a teenager). I enjoy playing games, violent or not. But I have not had the urge to commit crimes, or aggressive behavior.Perhaps it's the upbringing, dare I say it. Perhaps it's the global society that we, the West, are brought up in. Perhaps it's the way media reports on violence. Look at the rest of the picture, there's no link between them. Games with violent aspects, say Borderlands or Bulletstorm,(both of which sparked complaints) aren't provoking anyone to violence. Those who believe playing a violent game leads to violent acts are not seeing it through our eyes:There is an article, on a gaming website, that looks at this issue. Read the comments. Actually read what they have to say, because half of them say the video shown was powerful enough for them. These are the gamers who signed up to a gaming website - so they must be big fans of games, and almost certainly play violent games. Rational people are safe with guns. Rational people are safe with knives. It's the irrational people you need to worry about, and thankfully these are in the minority.
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Not responsible

I disagree. I play a lot of violent video games (for PS3 not really computer games, but..)... a lot (GTA Vice City, Resistance 2, Mortal Kombat, Tekken 6, etc) and I am not that violent. In fact, I despise violence. The games are just for fun..
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Not responsible

No they dont movies do.You watch Steven Seagal and his bad acting now that influences teenagers.
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Not responsible

the only thing it affects is rage quit. which really doesnt do much if you are not actively doing a rage quit inducing things
Debate: Violent computer games are responsible for aggressive behaviour in teenagers
Side: Not responsible

I think most teenagers realize that the violence in video games is just fantasy and on one is to emulate such violence.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

This falls into the category of "how many suspicious things must be revealed before the mounting questions tip the balance away from the official story?" By the official story I mean the explanation profferred by a government or other overarching body, and it always holds much more sway with the general public. But when presented with an "official story" about anything, I would encourage everyone to investigate the possible motives that the establishment would have for pushing this particular version of events. In the case of 9-11, the official story serves so many purposes for the establishment that it starts to look very much like the event was a benefit to them and their associates. Just look at the Reichstag fire in 1933. It was blamed on communists and helped Nazi Germany consolidate power under Hitler. Once you start to accumulate enough advantages from a so called negative event, is it that much of a leap to actually think that the ones standing to gain were involved? Isn't it strange that the interests of radical Islam parallel the interests of the Bush administration so closely? Global unrest has allowed the Bush administration to impose so many of their policies, is it so hard to imagine him and his business partners pumping their fists in the corridor of the White House?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

The Gov't lied to the US to get them into WWI, WWII, Vietnam as well as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. With Iraq/Afghanistan being the most recent, how did the US get its people to agree to such a thing? 9/11...that's how. For those who haven't seen the movie Zeitgeist, watch these clips to see how the gov't lied and put everything in place.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

It was an inside job for no other reason other than 20 floors of a building cannot destroy and pulverize 80 floors. Just think about that for one moment. If you turn the building on its side and smashed 20 floors against 80, which side would win?? Well i hate to be the bearer of bad news, but gravity ain't that strong...and you can't say it was a pancake collapse because that wouldn't take no 10 seconds as reported by the 9/11 omission report. In Addition, imagine for a moment that halfway through the "collapse" you were to draw lines up the edges, you would see that 75% of the material is outside the building, so what was pushing on the remaining so much that it could destroy all the way down to the ground? I don't subscribe to anything but science. I don't let things like "the government could never do that" or "it would be impossible for them to keep it a secret". That has nothing to do with what we see. People (and especially politicians) LIE , Science doesn't!! So please ask yourself, do I believe what a government of Men tells me, or do I believe what unbiased science tells me?? Think for yourself. How could investigating be bad?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Your 'science' argument fails to factor in the difference between live and dead loads, and inertia.20 floors may not be able to collapse 80, but they didn't need to. All they needed to collapse was the floor beneath them. Then those 21 floors, now with some inertia building up, smash the next one. And so on, and so on.As for the drawing lines down the collapse, how can you determine how much debris was there with any accuracy, considering all the dust in the air?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

I think the greatest scientific argument that can be made is that jet fuel cannot burn anywhere near the temperatures needed to compromise a steel structure of such integrity. That is why oxyacetylene and oxyacetylyne torches are used to weld steel. They burn at much higher temperatures. Furthermore, if we take the arguement that the steel lattice distorted before failing, one would witness some horizontal force twisting when, and during the building's decline, spreading the debris over a much larger area. To your proposition of inertia, this implies that there is momentum, however, if I recall correctly, the buildings actually stood for a few decades before hand, and for half an hour after the plane(s) hit, whence cometh the inertia?
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

KKitching's argument is pseudoscientific rubbish.All three collapses progressed at very close to free fall speed. That means there was no gathering pile-driver and no smashing into floors- that would cause the block of floors above to slow well beneath free fall speed.And it is VERY clear, visibly clear in the video of the collapse even DURING the collapse that almost the entire building is pulverised before it gets chance to impart energy on the building below it. The excessive dust covering a huge portion of mahattan island is NOT explained by gravitational collapse and fires. Something has to impart huge amounts of explosive energy in order to force the concrete apart in that manner.I refer you to Macqueen's speech and video at 911blogger.comThe free fall speeds prove anticipatory removal of structural resistance BEFORE the building mass hits its. Any resistance left stops it being free fall.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Both chairs of the 9/11 commission have stated publicly that the Kean Commission was inadequate and even interfered with.The evidence is legion. Scientist from across the spectrum are coming together on this and Dr. Stephen Jones has now proven that a derivative a thermite was found in debris and dust from the incident. There are witnesses, and video evidence for secondary explosions and molten metal that were excluded from the report. Quite frankly we couldn't possible get to all the question and evidence that need to be brought forth. Obvious foreknowledge, dubious wargames, pentagon cameras, the shankville crash... we could go on and on. I'll end with an utterly useless fact : 90-100 million dollars spent to investigate Bill Clinton's blowjob --- 11-16 million used to investigate 9/11.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

Where to begin? A lot of people I have spoken to have trouble getting past the sheer madness of it. They never get to examining the actual facts of that day because, how could our government do that to it's own people? And what would they have to gain?Is government complicity in 9/11 a crazy notion? Yes. But no crazier than some of the other crap they have cooked up. Case in point: Operation Northwoods.Now declassified, the Northwoods documents detail a covert psychological operation intended to rally foreign and domestic support for military intervention against Cuba. (Starting to sound familiar yet?)The operation included, among other things, this little gem: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba...casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

You mention Operation Northwoods. What has a declassified Cold War-era document, with no planned fatalities, have to do with a peacetime plan to evoke a war with casualties ranging from 2,000-30,000 at peak WTC hours?Why is it so hard for people to see things the way they are now? A man with a $15 air rifle in a book depository or sixteen Saudis with box cutters can change the course of history? Everything is a conspiracy to give power to Israel or an international banking syndicate these days. If Bush wanted to go to Iraq, he wouldn't have fought Afghanistan in the first place. In fact, why even publicize the conflict? Why not just fight a covert war like the Contra scandal or funding the Mujahadeen?If Bush wanted to go to war in the Middle East, it's not like he'd need a big precedent. This is the THIRD Persian Gulf War in less than two decades. I fail to see why this conflict would need a "false-flag" event that could only be completed by bribing or 'brainwashing' thousands of government employees who stand to gain NOTHING from this. Why would the members of the FAA or NSA want to see their friends in the Army go to Iraq and get killed? What's the point of this coverup? You say this is "no crazier" than Operation Northwoods. That was a false-flag event that would see NO loss of life, and even that was rejected for being to far fetched. Why do you think it's a declassified report? Because the Government never put any amount of thought into it!
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Wrong, I trust my government.

Right conclusion for the wrong reasons. A very bad place to begin.9/11 was an inside job because the manner of the collapses forensically prove it to be so using only basic newtonian physics.
Debate: 9/11 was an inside job.
Side: Obviously...Wake up, America!

It doesn't prove it. There could be perfectly reasonable, scientific explanations why the buildings fell - I just don't think there's enough evidence either way to prove the causes beyond a doubt. I think considering the events without adequate evidence will bear no fruit. Instead, we should focus on the concrete facts and aspects which can be proven beyond a doubt. E.g. Why hasn't the Pentagon released the video showing the plane? Clearly, they have it. Why has the flight recorder data not been turned over to air crash investigators and scientists? Why was WTC7 collapse not mentioned in the official account when it's destruction was linked with the tower collapses? Why did Bush and Condoleeza's advisers instruct them to lie when they said they hadn't envisaged terrorists using planes to attack American civilian targets?