BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is still too much injustice in this world-we have to lower it

Yes, we have overcome war trauma, scars from whatever injustice we have faced. However it appears we still have not learned from our mistakes at all. Women may have rights in the US now, but there STILL hasn't been a woman for president! When men are whores, no one makes as big a deal out of it compared to women being whores. A woman can walk around in a bikini and no one cares so you aren't arrested, even though bikini's show over 90% of the body. But when you walk around in your bra and underwear it's considered almost nudity so you have a huge risk of getting arrested. Yes, I know bras and underwear are supposed to symbolize intimacy, but they are covering the EXACT SAME PARTS. You may say, "Some bras and underwear don't cover as well" and I agree. But it doesn't mean they ALL DO. Some are just as fine. But don't judge them as a slut without knowing them. Just because it looks slutty it doesn't mean they are sluts. You have to act like one; it's more than dressing like one. And how even businesses judge before they know! If you don't have a high school diploma or college degree, they automatically assume you're stupid and/or had no dedication to school when they don't even know the reason why you dropped out or what you have learned anyway! Public/private schools and college are NOT the only way to get educated. Steve Jobs was a college dropout by the time , and LOOK AT HIM! I don't care if it's a rarity. We never know who is going to be that rarity until it happens. The majority of people are still sexist, judge by tattoos, judge by piercings, judge by this or that In other words, they have NOT learned from our past and do not use logic the way we should. They only think this way or the way they were taught. I cannot stand it. We need to do what makes sense and what is right, not what everyone will accept or what they consider "normal." Everyone can have their opinions. But we have got to make sure injustice does not spread. Not end it, but stop it from spreading.
Zombie games should stop being made.

REVIEWING THE DEBATE: I. Con's arguments: 1) Scenario Con said here that you can still come up with original scenario's here and still make a good game. His example for originality was "walking dead" (the show!). I have countered that by saying two things: A. pretty much every genre can be made into a good game given a great storyline. It's simply harder to still find zombie games that do have a good storyline. B. Currently, there are no recent zombie games that sell because of their storyline. 2) Creative effort Opponent gave the sole example of tools being made in dead rising 3. I countered that by saying there isn't really a reason to make these things, to which Con agreed. Con said however, it may stimulate people to become inventors. Aren't there better ways to teach children creativity? By letting them play with lego blocks, for example? Too bad Con can't respond to that point anymore. 3) Takes skill Con conceded. 4) they still sell My counter here was that they sell because people do love zombies and have high expectations. They just don't pay off. Nonetheless, I also give pretty much every zombie game a chance but hardly ever get amazed by the game. They are just not as good compared to what other genres are currently pulling off. II. My case: 1. Not as good as they used to be My argument is self-explanatory. Pro countered by showing that RE6 was exceptionally good. He also talked about RE not being about zombies as much. RE4 still started out with regular zombies, but that is the only game of the series I have played. The review of RE6 I posted earlier showed very little zombies like Pro said, so I don't know what to do here anymore. I think my argument still holdswater as I have shown that 2/3 RE fans prefer the older version over the newer. 2. Serves best as extra content This argument was pretty weak and applies only to CoD zombies. However, this is where the two most-played zombie games are enlisted: CoD zombies and DayZ. Con made me doubt if making DayZ a game on its own was such a bad idea though. III. Conclusion? This was a hard topic to debate. A gamer's heart will ofcourse follow pro's initial argument: yes, we do want to see more zombie games. I think I have shown that zombie games are not improving, but instead taking a step back. I've also brought doubt to all of Con's reasons why zombie games should be made. A big thank you to Con for starting this debate! I really enjoyed it!
Zombie games should stop being made.

Alright, closing arguments. Best of luck. My Arguments: Scenario: I was, in fact, talking about the tv show (not a video game). While this has no bearing on a currently released video game, it does prove that interesting stories can still be written with the topic. Video games just have to be a little more hands-on. Creativity: I wasn't insinuating anything. I was just remarking on how games like the ones in the dead rising series teach you to look at commonplace items in new ways (not just as potential weapons). If I'm not mistaken, that's how most inventions were come up with, right? The inventor sees a hole that needs to be filled, looks at what he has, fills the whole in an intriguing way, and then refines and markets the idea. And inventors are known as probably the most creative form of people (who still support society in some helpful way *cough* abstract artists *cough*). They still sell: so your argument boils down to the fact that zombie killing is fun, but needs more depth? More story? If so, you could just reread my scenario argument. Getting better writers may not solve every problem (like annoyed randomly generated missions, but things like that are in every game), but it will certainly be a leap in the right direction. Your Case: Not as good as they used to be: That's fair enough, but didn't resident evil stop being about zombies? I myself have never played the series (which, at this point in the argument, I'm beginning to regret), but you yourself said "initially, they're just regular zombies..". At the fourth game in the series, are they still "just regular zombies"? If they are, I might as well conceed. I don't know of any old zombie games (although maybe thats a reason in and of itself). Serves best as extra content: Well, your argument about multiplayer applies to any multiplayer game. That is, except WoW. Who knows why that is. However, maybe a zombie MMO is a niche that you feel hasn't been filled by DayZ. In that regard, I hope H1Z1 is good, because I agree with you about how dull DayZ is. However, I just don't enjoy it, and there are people out there who do, so we shouldn't cross it off the list yet. Anyway, that was what I had. Thank you for accepting my debate, and it was nice arguing over a topic I enjoy talking about. Over to Pro.
Zombie games should stop being made.

Hello, and welcome to opening arguments. Just starting off, I want to apologize for taking what you think is an "easy win" by choosing the con side. I'm new to debating, so I wanted to start with something I believed, instead of playing devil's advocate with my own topic. Sorry about that. Anyway, let's start the arguments. So you have defined a zombie game as a game with the dead returning to life, without side effects. I think I might know what you mean, but please clarify that in your argument. I'm going to take it (based off of your Last of Us reference) to mean that they are just the dead, back to life. Nothing to do with mushrooms, or super powers, or whatever other strange thing you can come up with. So, and correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about Dead Rising zombies? Or, I suppose, Dead Island, or... Well, that's about all I can think of. Maybe DayZ. I think they should not stop creating these sorts of games for the reason that they are an interesting "what if" scenario. Video games are oftentimes seen as time-wasters, but games like dead rising, if not totally realistic, have a lot of creative effort put into them (for instance, most of the weapons are possible to create, if over the edge). Even just playing them takes a lot skill, because you have to remember recipes (if applicable), strategies, and be very good at creative problem solving (okay, maybe DayZ isn't the new Portal, but it does cause you to have to do a lot of planning, along with off the wall reacting). But that's just video games in general. Looking at zombie games, you almost have to be more creative, and have faster reactions, because of the sheer quantity of enemies. Therefor, zombie video games help you be more creative, which is a good trait to have in life, as it can transition over to a business environment (more or less. The trait carries over, if not the exact application. You most likely will not spend many business meetings planning how to set accounting on fire, or steal all of sales' gold). Alright, go ahead.
Zombie games should stop being made.

As a huge zombies fan, I will contradict my own desires and debate you. You have not defined what a "zombie game" would be. That could be DayZ just as much as "stupid zombies" from the app store. I will make a definition that would be defendable for myself: Any game revolving around the dead returning to life without immediate side-effects. That does not include "Last of Us" as these vary from your regular "living dead": it makes the game very original because they have new looks, new behavior and aren't really defined as such throughout the game. Opponent has already said that mods would not be included in this debate. Over to Con, who has to make his case now.
The 'Alvinnn!!! And the Chipmunks' Characters Don't Look Like Chipmunks.

Rebuttals: 'They DON'T look like chipmunks.' The above photos clearly show that Alvinnn!!! and the chipmunks definitely do look like chipmunks. 'Even my little sisters say so.' Pro's little sisters do not classify as a valid or reliable source. For example, Pro is 14 years old according to her profile~~therefore, if her sisters are 'little', one would make the reasonable assumption that they are considerably younger and therefore of a child mentality. How are children a so can they possibly give a dependable and accurate assessment on whether Alvinnn!!! and the chipmunks actually look like chipmunks. 'I watch the show, I forget they're chipmunks and think they're human beings but shorter than everyone else.' Pro is obviously resorting to persona opinion rather than objective evidence. I.E~~I watch a show and say that anyone *and* anything does look the thing it's supposed to be, but that does not mean it's not the thing it's supposed to be. 'However, in the movies listed below, they look exactly like chipmunks.' Pro has finally negated that Alvinnn!!! and the chipmunks look like chipmunks.
The 'Alvinnn!!! And the Chipmunks' Characters Don't Look Like Chipmunks.

They DON'T look like chipmunks. Even my little sisters say so. When I watch the show, I forget they're chipmunks and think they're human beings but shorter than everyone else. However, in the movies listed below, they look exactly like chipmunks. "Alvin and the Chipmunks" "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel" "Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked" "Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Road Chip" If you do not agree, look it up.
The 'Alvinnn!!! And the Chipmunks' Characters Don't Look Like Chipmunks.

Debate accepted. Shalom! -->>Full Resolution: The 'Alvinnn!!! And the Chipmunks' Characters Don't Look Like Chipmunks. -->>Position: CON. Now, I will simply begin my argument by clarifying that as the instigator of this topic~~the BoP (burden of proof), is on PRO. In order to win this debate, she will have to explain exactly why The 'Alvinnn!!! And the Chipmunks' Characters, do not actually look like chipmunks. To start my case, I will outline a photo of a real life chipmunk: And now, Alvinnn!!! and his chipmunk friends: As can be seen, there is a remarkable resemblance and 'The 'Alvinnn!!! And the Chipmunks' Characters' do in fact look like real chipmunks. Resolution is thus (far) negated.
Human cloning should be legalized

In this debate, for I am not a professional nor do I know much of these "rules," I would like to keep it simple; let us see who reigns supreme with words and not rules. Human Cloning (hypothetically speaking) should be legalized because: Human cloning technology is expected to result in several miraculous medical breakthroughs. We may be able to cure cancer if cloning leads to a better understanding of cell differentiation. Theories exist about how cloning may lead to a cure for heart attacks, a revolution in cosmetic surgery, organs for organ transplantation, and predictions abound about how cloning technology will save thousands of lives. People whose lives have been destroyed or have not been able to reproduce in this lifetime due to tragedy could arrange to have their DNA continued and fund research at the same time. For example: A boy graduates from high school at age 18. He goes to a pool party to celebrate. He confuses the deep end and shallow end and dives head first into the pool, breaking his neck and becoming a quadriplegic. At age 19 he has his first urinary tract infection because of an indwelling urinary catheter and continues to suffer from them the rest of his life. At age 20 he comes down with herpes zoster of the trigeminal nerve. He suffers chronic unbearable pain. At age 21 he inherits a 10 million dollar trust fund. He never marries or has children. At age 40 after hearing about Dolly being a clone, he changes his will and has his DNA stored for future human cloning. His future mother will be awarded one million dollars to have him and raise him. His DNA clone will inherit a trust fund. He leaves five million to spinal cord research. He dies feeling that although he was robbed of normal life, his twin/clone will lead a better life. With human cloning you could give a couple in the future both a child from your DNA and the financial assets from your lifetime to start out financially secure instead of struggling as most couples do now. Through the research leading up to human cloning we will perfect the technology to clone animals, and thus we could forever preserve endangered species, including human beings.
My opponent's win percentage will not increase as a result of this debate.

Your position is that my (Pro) win percentage will go up as a result of this debate. Either Con can win, we can tie, or Pro can win. Assuming there is a 33% chance of each of those, that leaves a 66% chance that Pro's win percentage will not go up. Con has the BOP, right? Con hasn't fulfilled his BOP that my win percentage will go up.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

I’ll keep my comments to brief clarifications since you do not have the chance for a rebuttal: Canon law is the official law of the Catholic Church enforced by the Church's hierarchical authorities. A letter from a pope condoning Slavery in Ethiopia was clearly a moral teaching and had a large impact on all of those enslaved in Ethiopia. The Catholic Church has taught that it is morally correct to abstain from meat on Friday and then contradicted itself. The Church forbid anyone from teaching the heliocentric view, they taught that it was wrong to support the view and then changed their mind. It would certainly have been considered immoral to read the banned books at the time. Papal Bulls are in themselves moral teachings. It is wrong to violate a Papal Bull and you risk being tried as a heretic when violating them and there have been several contradictions. Civil Law enforces a minimal morality on the people, don’t murder etc. Also they condemned the teaching of civil law as wrong. The banning of Jews and dictating that Christians cannot can accept another Faith are clearly moral issues and contradictions. The contradictions I have brought up are clear and there are many more.
the catholic church has never contradicted itself, from an official capacity

canon law isn't necessarily papal teaching. i dont see where the pope taught anything there. the instruction where he said slavery was okay was merely an instruction, a letter, to a local religious person. not a teaching to the church. eating pork or not on friday is more like a practice than a doctrine, more like whether the mass is said in latin, than something like Jesus is the Son of God, doctrine. /// the knights templar is also just a practice in the church, nothing related to doctrine. the forbidden book index is not offial teaching. what is included in it comes and goes, doesn't mean there's contraiction in doctrine. i dont see where youve cited that the pope taught heliocentric views. they condemned galileo, put those types of books as forbidden, wrote letters to certain people with wrong views, but as far as i see never taught it as doctrine. law schools open or closed is a practice, something more political than a matter of faith and morals. the banning of jews in certain areas is debateably faith and or morals, but it seems like like a political move, more like a practice, than a teaching to the church. how the popes reign politically dont necessarily have to do with doctrine. i still dont see that youve 'pinned' them down. but there's some close calls, and debateable calls, i will grant you that.
Ronald Reagan was a better President than Barack Obama

In this debate, I will argue that President Ronald Reagan was a better than President Barack Obama in terms of policy. No trolling or semantics. Structure: Round 1: Acceptance only Round 2: Opening arguments Round 3: Rebuttals/refutations Round 4: Defend arguments Round 5: Final rebuttals/defenses + conclusion Failure to follow structure will result in automatic DQ. First user to forfeit gets a DQ. If one user cannot debate the other, then this must be discussed between the two for an agreement and both must confirm in debate rounds to end in a tie.
Foreign Interventionism is preferable to non-interventonism

==Definitions== 1. Interventionism: a state's intervention in the affairs of another nation as part of its foreign policy 2. Preferable: the benefits outweigh the harms 3. Non-interventionism: one state cannot interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. ==Rules== 1. No semantics 2. Drops are concessions 3. Forfeit will result in a loss of all 7 pts *This round will be acceptance only. Argumentation will start Rd. 2*
Riddle

Should have been a Polo Mallet on R1Mallet HeadMalaca Caneyou can only hook if there is another mallet (another player next to you)A polo player with no mallet is 90+ % uselessCandy Cane is sweet, and the head, if there is one, doesn't go down.Your riddle doesn't seem much like a riddle and more like a brain teaser or puzzler. Either way, there are two ways to look at this.The bridge only holds 14k lbs? That is the exact weight of the truck? Then it collapses. There is no way for you to know that the bridge only holds 14k lbs unless the truck, which you said currently weighs 14k lbs collapsed when the bird added it's weight & landing force.The alternative, and more likely what you wanted me to answer, is that the truck DID WEIGH 14k lbs, when it started accross the 1 mile bridge. The truck, weighing about 7 tons probably burned a considerable amount of fuel in half a mile, presumably enough to cancel out the weight of the bird and then some. In this scenario, even if the bridge is rated for approx 14k lbs, the bird's weight is negiligible unless it's some Pre-historic bird from New Zealand or something that weighs more than a few gallons of fuel.
Riddle

Have seen a few of these around.I'd prefer if you made your own up but i'm not big into riddles so i guess i won't know if you borrowed a riddle.My first shot at this so I'm not sure if there should be many rules, I'll post a riddle below, you answer AND Post your riddle, I'll attempt to answer yours. Voters will decided based on whose riddle was better (probably more original) and who did a better job answering the opponent.My hard head goes toward the groundI'm not sweet, but i'm mostly caneI can hook, but only if another is around.If you play without me, you're all but lame. What am I?
Stereotyping

2) P1) the worst part about that is that an innocent person may be searched or possibly even arrested based only on how try look, not an actual description or any actual evidence the person may have done it. .. If 90% of the criminals look similar there is still the other 10% involved in crimes. If cops profile on who thu think committed the crimes they could be searching for the wrong people while the true criminals can evade capture. As for the rest of this argument, The Pro admits that the gang members have done nothing wrong, yet he is still comfortable letting the police arrest them for crimes they did not commit based solely on their appearance.
Stereotyping

I see you are arguing scenario 2. Actually scenario 2 makes perfect sense. He has arrested 9 people with a similar description. So he can conclude that 90% people with that same look within that area have a high chance of being involved with drugs. He's just using past experience to identify a potential crime. Even if its a person he has never seen before, if that person has that look...then most likely he is up to no good. The worst that can happen is that the person is searched and the police find no incriminating evidence. And the person will be sent on his way. There is nothing wrong with precaution. From your past experience and media you can pretty much identify a gang member if you see one based off his clothing. If you saw 6 men dressed in causal clothing (slacks, button up shirt, tie and dress shoes) in front of your house you would probably not feel threatened at all and proceed into your house. Now if you seen 6 men dressed with long white shirts, baggy jeans, red bandannas wrapped around their heads, with lots of tattoos...I guarantee that you will feel slightly threatened and will assume they are up to no good. Not because they have done anything wrong, but because they fit a general description of gang members that you have heard about in the past. Also you probably have heard that gang members commit crimes. California actually has a "Gang Enhancement Law" that prohibits the association of gang members. So imagine a police officer seeing these exact two scenes. What group would you search and question based off their looks? Obviously the one who like crime makers. There is nothing wrong with this because everyone uses stereotyping everyday whether they know it or not. So if you can do this, then why is it not ok for a cop to do it to protect us of our saftey?
Stereotyping

.......... Scenario 1) that's not racial profiling at all... An example of racial profiling would be a cop getting reports of a gas station robbery and decides to look for a black teenager with baggy pants as the suspect, based only on the cops perception of who they think would rob a gas station... In your scenario a description of the suspect was reported, and cops now look for that person based in known evidence of what the suspect looks like, not based in who te cop thinks is behind the crime with no evidence to suspect people except based on his warped stereotypes.... Scenario 2) this just flat out doesn't make sense. All the arrested suspects ALREADY have ties to drugs so that already shows how the cop is using evidence, not profiling, to make an arrest. As for te car of the car fits a DESCRIPTION of the car the criminal used then again that's not profiling. If a cop heard about drug activity and then only began to look for owners of cars from 1970, THAT is profiling and should be illegal because if my dad likes to collect old cars from the 1970's then he would be viewed as a suspect of a drug related crime ONLY because the cop doesn't like how his car looks....