BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Game x Game

Everything you said about the ratings is true, but I don't think the one with the best rating is the best one, I mean, GTA:SA and HL2 are completely different games with completely different engines.1. Presentation: I will say that it depends on how you will review the GTA:SA story; it wasn't supposed to be emotional or anything, it was supposed to be catchy and fun, as it will give the player many different experiences.2. Graphics: Yes, but I think GTA:SA used the colors in a slight better way, as the sun feels different when you are in San Fierro or Las Venturas, just as there are many beautiful locations such as Palomino Creek or Santa Maria beach.3. Sound: Again, it is a difference of public, the story of GTA:SA isn't supposed to have emotional or key parts, it is mostly based on being fun, and by that, the soundtracks fit it as well.4. Gameplay: This is what makes open world games awesome, you have the freedom to do whatever you want, it is more about subjectivity, you don't end up changing the world anytime, and, who said that changing the world is aways good? If the player is satisfied with exploring the world, unlocking new things for his character just as discovering new things, there is nothing wrong with it. On linear games, you will also end up doing the same thing when you get on the same part in another playthrough. But on open world games, you don't have to do certain things when you don't want to. I will that I'm very happy for the fact that there are many games that are subjective and give the player freedom; books, movies and TV shows aren't able to give the same thing. Open world games lets you live in a different world, and they are a lot more than what the Con is saying if you are going to play them for fun. Half Life 3 is actually going to be open world.5. Lasting Appeal: I'm not misunderstanding what lasting appeal is all about, the pro is basically saying that the only lasting games are our favorite one's. Like lasting appeal is the final product from the sum of presentation, graphics, sound and gameplay; then why it even exists? Lasting appeal is the judgement of the amount of modes and things to do in the game and how much time they will last, while gameplay, on the other hand, will judge the quality of these things. If lasting appeal is the way he says it is, then there would be no difference between a game that lasts 6 hours and another that lasts 100 if both are your favorites.Since GTA San Andreas has more things to do than many of today's open world games, I will say that it is extremely lasting, liking it or not it will take a lot of time to feel that you've really completed the game 100%. If it is a classic to someone, that person will also want to replay it just as if HL2 was a classic to them. I would say that it is irrelevant to check the number of games that Rockstar have released over the past 16 years, what matters is GTA San Andreas.
Game x Game

I'm starting to feel like a real nerd in this debate, ha. To continue in the vein of comparing overall scores lets consider a couple other sources, IGN isn't the end-all of game reviews after all. Metacritic gave HL2 (PC) 96/100 and GTA:SA (PC) 93/100. Gamespot gave HL2 9.2/10 and GTA:SA 9.0/10. G4 gave HL2 5/5 and GTA:SA 3/5. Gamesradar gave HL2 4.5/5 and GTA:sa 5/5. CNet gave HL2 4.5/5 and GTA:SA (PC) 4.5/5. While there are several other sources, these give us a general picture of how the review industry responded to the games which shows a slight edge in favor of Half Life 2. When comparing the raw scores Half Life 2 still has the lead. I don't think that Metal Gear Solid 3 had much to do with competing with San Andreas for awards, the only award they were close to competing for was in Use of Sound, which GTA:SA took over MGS3. On the other hand, HL2 as competing with Rome: Total War and Tribes: Vengeance, both of which snatched awards from HL2. 1. Presentation: I'll give you that the city design was impressive, however the weapons design and combat system itself was sub-par at best. Funny story? Yes. Completely predictable however, I found myself saying what the characters were going to do several scenes before they did several times. While HL2 may also be predictable, the development of the story was excellent and had several very emotional moments. 2. Graphics: Actually the use of gray color was mostly related to the Combine dictatorship, when not in their facilities the game is very vibrant. 3. Sound: It's not all about having an epic battle song playing, the use of music during suspenseful and emotional parts of the story is key and an area where the Valve team triumphs. 4. Gameplay: The problem with static open worlds is that there's no personal investment of the gamer, no change that you can see your actions having on the world. Instead, it becomes akin to XP and gold farming in games like WoW. The difference being that whenever a goal is accomplished it should do more than pumping up your character, it should develop the world and the story. This is where many open world games fall into a trap. I mean really, how many times are you going to shoot the hooker you just hired before the other ladies start catching on? Plus I don't really see how breaking into houses repeatedly is much fun. 5. Lasting Appeal: The Pro misunderstands what lasting appeal is; it's not the number of game hours you can play, it is the desire to replay the game and share it with friends family - hell your kids even - because you consider it a classic. In the same way that the Rolling Stones are classic, so should a game that has lasting appeal. If you want to mince fan bases, consider that Rockstar comes out with a new take on open world gang games every year or so. There's 14 games in the series since 1997. Its all about churning out a look-alike because Rockstar knows that they will lose their audience otherwise. Thats not a classic.
Game x Game

Thanks again too, I hope we have fun as well. I acknowledge that IGN gave more awards to Half Life 2 than to GTA:SA, however, at the same time, GTA:SA received a 9.9/10 from IGN, while HL2 received a 9.7/10. And, there was also another great PS2 game at that year (2004), Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. Ergo, that basis end up being not so fair to decide which game is better; MGS3 wasn't released for PC. 1. Presentation: I believe that what you said is only a small detail near the great design of the cities, vehicles, weapons just as the songs are from the same era. I would say that San Andreas atmosphere is appealing as well and remains catchy, it's story is also very funny and unpredictable. 2. Graphics: I don't have much to say about the graphics, HL2 does have better graphics overally. I don't know if my following argument is 100% legitimate; but when the Half Life 2 world is mostly on the gray color, I would say that San Andreas is better artistically, as it has a bigger and better exploration of colors. 3. Sound: On GTA:SA, shootouts can happen at any time, just as vehicle chases or explosions. So I would say that there is no need for playing an epic battle song when one of these occasions happen, because there are so many that they become common, you can say San Andreas has copied songs, but does it matter? Most of them are very good, and they also strengthen the atmosphere as they are from the 90's. 4. Gameplay: Indeed, there are linear games that are better than open world games, however, open world games gives the player a lot more freedom than linear games. I would say that the open world games will expand the game experience more than detract it. The world of GTA San Andreas is indeed static as you say, but I wouldn't expect it to be changing a lot when it is not a puzzler game nor a linear game. I would say that it is pretty much harder to dislike a game that has a very varied gameplay. And the San Andreas campaign is totally varied on it's missions, they can be from infiltrating on a mansion stealthy and stealing a rhyme book (Madd Dogg's Rhymes), to getting on a motorcycle and rushing to get inside a plane that is taking off (Stowaway). While being varied, all those missions are challenging and rewarding as well. Challenging for not allowing you to win on the first attempt, and rewarding for giving you things such as cash/better stats/new activities. 5. Lasting Appeal: Well, the con states that there will be nothing to do when you complete all of the activities in GTA:SA, literally he is right; but the only difference is that it would take hundreds of hours to complete them all in case we are talking about completing the game "100%", while it would take a lot less time to complete Half Life 2, this is what lasting appeal is all about. I know another game franchise that has a lasting fan base too, it's name is Call of Duty, it's fans buy it every year. However, does it means that Modern Warfare 3, for example, is lasting?
Game x Game

My thanks to the Pro for, well, proprosing this debate. I hope we can have a ton of fun with this topic.Social context would probably be too tangential but I'll reserve that for later if needed.Using IGN's method is a decent one, though I think the general categories are up for interpretation so I'll be trying to clarify what they mean as we go along.But first, it's curious that you choose to use IGN's criteria as they gave Half Life 2 a number of awards and runner-up positions in 2004; Best First Person Shooter, Best Graphics, Best Use of Sound Runner up and Reader's Choice, Best Story Runner Up and Reader's Choice and also PC Game of the Year. (3 Best of awards and 2 Runner up awards)San Andreas, 3 Best of awards and 1 runner up award.On balance, though they didn't compete against eachother directly as GTA:SA was primarially a PS2 game, HL2 recieved more runner up awards. On that basis, HL2 is superior.http://bestof.ign.com...http://bestof.ign.com...To respond to the five aspects:1. Presentation: I'm not sure if the atmosphere is accurate when whatever serious topics are mentioned in the game are made into a joke, such as the treatment of junkies in the game. On the other hand HL2's fictional dystopian future is highly appealing, has a full universe and has thematic presentation that is consistant through the game.2. Graphics: HL2 has a significant edge in this arena; while my opponent says that GTA:SA is a more "beautiful world", which is higly subjective and my opponent doesn't really provide any proof to support such a statement, HL2 uses advanced physics engines, lighting & water algorithyms to create a more immersive & real life experience. For comparison, see the two trailer videos below:3. Sound: Whle I would agree that both tie on sound effects, HL2 has the edge in terms of soundtrack. Not only is the music composed for the game instead of borrowing popular songs but the soundtracks are specific to different envirnments and situations adding to the emotional connection of the game to the player.4. Gameplay: Having an open world doesn't automaticlly make a game better. Sure it gives you the chance to mess around but that detracts from the gaming experience in my opinnion since you're doing activities that don't contribute to the story development. On the other hand, HL2 incorporates puzzle solving into the FPS adventure genre, gives you environmental control with the Gravity Gun and has a large variety of environments to experience that change as you revisit them. The GTA:SA world is static, has only a few environments that you largely cannot interract with.5. Lasting Appeal: The only thing that sets appart GTA:SA from HL2 is the sheer number of activities that you can do. After those are said and done, theres nothing. However, I would argue that the storyline of HL2 is far superior and creates a lasting fan base.
Game x Game

Thanks for accepting!Well, I think it's up to you if you want to compare them in a social context as well. But in my opinion, social contexts aren't totally relevant for the decision of which game is the best. But just as I said, if you want to judge them in a social context too, feel free to add it on your reply.Though I wouldn't mind comparing my game to a recent game, Half Life 2 vs GTA San Andrea seems great.Very well, for the main aspects, I will use the same used in the IGN method to choose a game score, which I find it very good: Presentation, Graphics, Sound, Gameplay and Lasting Appeal, if there are any aspects you want to add or change if you think it's better, feel free to do so in your reply.(1) Presentation: GTA:SA atmosphere is very accurate on showing how it was like in the 1990s.(2) Graphics: On textures, Half Life 2 is better; but that's not the only aspect to take into account, I would say that GTA:SA has a more beautiful world.(3) Sound: I think it's quite a tie on SFX, HL2 has better sounds but we cannot forget the fact that GTA:SA has a bigger number of sounds and they work as well. On soundtracks, I would say that GTA:SA wins, it has many enjoyable songs from the 90s-era, and some remarkable ones such as "It Was a Good Day" from Ice Cube.(4) Gameplay: San Andreas is open world, and it's gameplay is very challenging, specially on the campaing. The campaing also gets rewarding many times since the campaing is the key to unlocking activities and minigames.(5) Lasting appeal: GTA:SA is not only open world, but it also has a huge number of things to do: racing, vehicle side missions, collectables, upgrading skills, dating, many air/water/ground vehicles, getting pursued by the police (never gets old), and other less important things such as burglarizing. Not to mention the campaing is already pretty long.
It's not wrong to say the N word.

Recently, I was at my close friend's place for a small gathering. He had a few female friends invited, With whom i am acquainted. Things were all going well, Everyone was happy, Until i happened to refer to my close friend using 'the N word'. My friend was fine, But his female friends had their jaws on floor. A minute's silence later they were accusing me of being a racist for using the word. I was appalled by the accusation and defended my position until all of us agreed to disagree. The mood was killed, I went home. So here we are, I say it is ridiculous to claim that 'it is wrong to use the N word'. How does using the word cause any harm to anyone other than the people looking to be offended by it. Not only that, The connotation by which that word is used these days is mostly endearing. I don't say the word out as it is to avoid having scraps with yet another snowflake. I'd like to have a rational discourse on this topic.
bullfighting should be banned

Again my opponent is talking of lesser evils. "You talk about it as an evil sport, but what is the greater evil? Starving people or giving a bull a victorious death, that has already had a privileged life?" It's a false dichotomy. Torturing nils isn't necessary to feed the people of Spain. The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. If it was torturing a human in a show would my opponent still, go through hoops to prove it's ethical? " Bullfighting provides the Spanish with more than 40,000 jobs and not to mention the 2.5 billion euros. " My opponent provides no source for this claim and my source shows that the industry only provides 400 real jobs is heavily subsidized and isn't worth the price. http://www.bullfightingfreeeurope.org... My opponent actually confesses that bullfighting is the lesser of 2 evils. Which still makes it evil. The only justification he gave was incited arguments on economics, while my arguments were cited. Please vote for me :)
bullfighting should be banned

As humans, we are naturally selfish. It is in our nature to think of ourselves first. Bullfighting provides the Spanish with more than 40,000 jobs and not to mention the 2.5 billion euros. When bullfighting was banned in in Catalonia the amount of money lost was as much as 400 million euros, in one city alone. Parliament noted that it was enough to build 6 hospitals, 100 schools or fight against unemployment. Spain has a poverty rate of about 20%. If you walked past a starving child in the streets, would you deny her food? Money? Although the money bullfighting generates may not solve these problems, can you imagine what would happen without it? Are we really in a position to deny people food and money? You talk about it as an evil sport, but what is the greater evil? Starving people or giving a bull a victorious death, that has already had a privileged life?
bullfighting should be banned

Bullfighting is cruel and barbaric. Bulls are aubjected to a slow and torturous death. http://www.runningofthenudes.com... " the life of an Iberian fighting bull, a thoroughbred animal which lives to a minimum age of four, roaming wild, feasting on Spain's finest pasture" I agree. The bull after being used to a life of comfort is then subjected to the following: "In a typical bullfight, the bull enters the arena and is approached by picadors " men on blindfolded horses who drive lances into the bull"s back and neck muscles. This impairs the bull"s ability to lift his head. They twist and gouge the lances to ensure a significant amount of blood loss. Then banderilleros enter on foot and proceed to distract the bull and dart around him while plunging banderillas " bright sticks with harpoon points on their ends " into his back. When the bull has become weakened from blood loss, the banderilleros run the bull in more circles until he is dizzy and stops chasing. Finally, the matador appears and, after provoking a few exhausted charges from the dying animal, tries to kill the bull with his sword.7 If he misses, succeeding only in further mutilating the animal, an executioner is called in to stab the exhausted and submissive animal to death. The dagger is supposed to cut the animal"s spinal cord, but even this can be blundered, leaving the bull conscious but paralysed as he is chained by his horns and dragged out of the arena." http://www.runningofthenudes.com... Sources used by the quote's author 6Bill Lyon, "A Slaughter That Is Really a Slaughter", The Philadelphia Inquirer 27 Jul 1992: C1. 7Tony Hendra, "Man and Bull", Harper"s Magazine Nov 1996: 69. 8Lyon. We all know intuitively that animal cruelty is wrong. It's why my opponent is trying to minimize the animal cruelty aspect of this debate. He pretty much admits cruelty is wrong. He just calls bullfighting the lesser of 2 evils. The lesser of 2 evils is still Evil.
bullfighting should be banned

It"s the thrill of the kill, the epic feat between man and beast. And it has been around since 700 A.D. There is happiness in bullfighting, not cruelty. The happiness of the millions that celebrate the popular sport and happiness of the bulls that for the first part of their life live better than most humans. In 2010 Robert elms argued this "to my mind the life of an Iberian fighting bull, a thoroughbred animal which lives to a minimum age of four, roaming wild, feasting on Spain's finest pasture, never even seeing a man on foot, is far superior to that of the many thousands of British bulls whose far shorter lives are spent entirely in factory conditions and killed in grim abattoirs so that we can eat beef burgers." It strikes me that people don"t actually have a problem with eating beef burgers but if the animal is killed by a man, that has been trained to turn a usually morbid occasion into an art form, it becomes wrong and cruel. We certainly do not have any right to protest a form of art and against someone"s job that brings millions into the Spanish economy. It is obvious that bullfighting should not be banned.
"assault weapons" should NOT be prohibited

dude, are you actually kidding me? How many times can I say this? IT'S THE OTHER DEBATE. Now you have to waste your time revising your argument so it counters my actually argument on the other one I told you THREE TIMES ALREADY. You cannot me more serious with this? DO NOT vote on this debate anyone. The actual debate is here. http://www.debate.org... This was done because I made this debate with too few rounds. Again, DO NOT vote here. The actual debate is in the link I sent.
"assault weapons" should NOT be prohibited

Hunting rifles aren't in this equation. Their purpose is to take down big animals like elk, moose, and bear. Hunting rifles should stay in the hunting area and shouldn't be used in a public area like a store. In response to the burglar, it all depends on where you shoot. If you shoot at the knees, the would make it very hard and painful to run. If you shot him in the arms, stomach, or thighs, he still could run away. That is why when purchasing a self defense weapon, it is important to train with the weapon. Then the victim would know where to shoot for the desired affect. If the burglar is shot in the chest, even if he does get manage to get away, those injuries can affect his heart and lungs. An example of an assault weapon is the AR-15. Why would a citizen need an Ar-15? All it does is put too much fire power into a persons hands. That is a gun that could serve a military purpose. Here is a link defining an assault weapon: http://www.assaultweapon.info... It is a gun that fires 1 bullet per trigger strike. Weapons like an AR-15 is dangerous as well as a shotgun or a semiautomatic pistols, if they aren't removed, they should replace bullet ammunition with rubber pellets. If they shouldn't be banned, they should at least replace the current types of ammunition with rubber pellets like they would use in riots or prison chaos. That way an owner can shoot more bullets at the criminal's face, stomach, groin, and other body as a deterrent or to teach them a painful lesson. "Often I get "well just because they are criminals, they don't deserve to die. " Well, do gun owners deserve to lose their gun rights because gang bangers and street thugs don't know how to properly behave?" Actually it is self defense and if they die, they did it to themselves. A death of a criminal is justified since it was an act of self defense. Owners don't lose there gun, they should keep pistols as self defense. For larger calibers like shotguns and assault weapons, rubber bullets should be used. This is mainly my opinion based on shootings like the Colorado movie theater shooting, the indecent where the cop shot a person texting in a movie theater, as well as school shootings. If these weapons were downgraded in performance, or at least have rubber bullets, deaths would be low in none at all, and injuries would be less significant.