BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Modern warfare 3 is better than Battlefield 3

.. First off, I pre ordered BF3, and after prestiging 5 times in MW2 and 9 time Black Ops, I was excited for a new experience. In the weeks prior to the release of both games, I was already proclaiming my love for BF3. I put 30 hours into BF3 and sold it, using the money towards MW3. Why don't I like BF3? Many reasons. People say MW3 is unbalanced but BF3 is EXTREMELY unbalanced. Literally every game I play my team is either losing badly or winning badly. I've never played a good match on BF3 where we win or lose by only a small score. Second, there are pretty much only 2 game modes on BF3, Conquest & Rush (Domination & Demolition in COD) plus Team deathmatch. This is BORING. MW3 has the above plus capture the flag, headquarters, sabotage, etc. plus my personal favorite search and destroy, plus hardcore modes that actually feel different (BF3's hardcore mode was just laughable), PLUS 2 really fun new modes Kill Confirmed and Team Defender. These are really, really fun. Next, true, BF3 is very realistic. MW3 is not. But I like that. I love how BF fanboys bitch how COD is filled with campers when BF3 is NOTHING BUT CAMPING. In real life, soldiers camp. Nobody "runs and guns" per say. IMO camping is boring and getting killed by campers is bulls***. I like how COD actually requires good reflexes. This keeps you on your toes constantly and is what makes it fun. I also hated how if you back out of a match in BF3 you lose all your progress from that match. Why? I don't understand that. And matches could last up to 40 minutes. What if you genuinely had to go? You'd lose all your progress. In conclusion, I am also a sucker for COD's prestige system but that's just my personal taste. Ppl either hate it or love it, and I love it. I'm planning on reaching prestige 10 in MW3. Also, MW3 has a lot of co-op options, from spec ops to survival to online splitscreen. BF3? Nothing. Purely single player. Plus I'm having a lot more fun in MW3's campaign than in BF3's.
I challenge L-M, choose your poison.

I loved the emoticons and i have finished the available Liar Game. Thus if i prove i dont have any kind of reason to reread it then I win. As to his first point. I have read the series so it does not matter if i had something better to do with my time. Whats done is done. Also if you think i am lying, I am open to c-x about any of the events in Liar Game (From round 1, through minority rules, the revival round, and then the contraband game). You will have to excuse my misnaming of the characters however because i am not very good with Japanese names although I'm sure a description of the character would be just fine. So go ahead, ask away. Now to number two. He makes separate points and I will address each one of them. The first sites the claim that if you like something, you should do it more than once. I would argue that this is not an ought. I may have had the ought to go see Batman in the first place but just because i liked it, the burden is not on me to go back and see it again. Many times, movies get more boring the more you watch them (the same is true for books) so to preserve how I first envisioned it I think I won't read it again. Also books/mangas like this one are only good for their surprise factor and now that I read it i already know what is going to happen. There is no point. His second is read the whole thing again when the series is complete. This is not something i necessarily ought to do either. There is no reason to go back and read the past ones if i already know what happens in them. I may read the chapter directly before the new one when a new one comes out. Moreover there is no reason to believe that it would increase my enjoyment level. When I went back and read Harry Potter after all the books were out, they were not so great. Also Ill just wait to read the rest until it all comes out if I want to read it all at once. I wont go back and reread it. His third is that I will be experienced in my older age. This is contingent on me gaining more knowledge, living till my older age, and still having the manga to read. In other words there's no definite ought. So the resolution can not be affirmed. Moreover I would argue it still dulls my enjoyment. Finally he never gives a reason why seeing through all the complex layers would warrant me going back and reading it. I would argue that there is nothing connected between enjoyment and getting a meaning. I get the meaning in many of my English stories in class that are quite complex but hate them. Same with the Sound and the Fury. There is no reason to go back and read those. To number 4 - This is a contingent affirmation if i ever saw one. There is no guarantee whatsoever I will have kids. And the way my relationships have been going, it looks like i never will (I have never gone out on a single date and I am a junior all because I am shy). Moreover, with the language i would argue it is not appropriate to read to children and based on my morals i would not read it. Even if the last two are true, since it still dulls my enjoyment i got out of it i ought not do it and instead reread Slaughterhouse 5. I urge a vote for me. Good debate.
I challenge L-M, choose your poison.

This shall not be that long. There is only one argument I will go for and that is my alternative that says to read them during the debate. Here is the resolution "After (or assuming) this debate concludes, my opponent ought to read all available English translated issues of the "Liar Game" manga" My plan is that I read the manga during the debate. Remember the resolution says I must read all of them after the debate finishes. If I read 40 instead of all after the debate then I have not read all. Similarly if I ought to read 40 then that's not the same as all. I have already read four in the limited time that i have had. There is no reason to reread those after the debate has finished (I do like them...). I ought to read the REMAINING Liar Game mangas not ALL Liar Game mangas. Its that simple. I should not be required to reread those that I am reading now. He places two attacks on my alternative 1. That I can't read it quickly (I dont need to read it quickly because I only have to read one or two in this timeframe. Second, I dont have better things to do at individual moments, i did all the fun stuff, so now i can afford to do so. Finally, I actually really enjoy them so now I would read them instead of doing those other things. I can still push those off for a tiny bit longer. After all, all my friends went away for spring break.) 2. I have better things to do (This does not matter insofar as I have already read four. Also cross apply my last two arguments about having time to do this now) My alternative stands and I should win the round. I would also like to thank my opponent because he was right in assuming i would like the series. Thank you.
I challenge L-M, choose your poison.

Since I have the time, I'm gonna do what I wanted to do in R2 and further negate that which I had no time to negate. RE: "Moreover to be criticizable there must be some impact." Correct. RE: "In order to ever evaluate an action as good or bad there must be some determination as to what consequence is preferable." Correct. RE: "Obligations don't stem from self desire because there is no reason to be obligated to oneself because of free will and the propensity of individuals to make choices as they see fit." WHoa whoa, slow down there. Lets chew on this one piece at a time. 1)Obligations don't stem from self desire? So then by that logic, couldn't it be said that one isn't obligated to breathe, eat, or do other things which merely concern oneself as well as self desire? 2) What evidence is there that free will even exist? It's been determined that our actions are decided based on our mental behavior and that our mental behavior is determined based on internal (genetics) and external influences (upbringing is a major one). What room is there for free will? Of course, before handling these objections, I would like to see some decisive evidence for free will in this first place. RE:"Moreover, obligations to oneself would be bad as they would not allow for change in certain action one takes based on changing situations becuase the obligation would require an individual to do a certain action." Nah, individuals don't need others in order to change the actions which they take. Take for instance an individual eating chocolate quite regularly. If the individual begins to notice his/her teeth decaying, he/she may be inclined to stop eating chocolate. This is self obligation that involves change without the involvement of other individuals. RE: Thus, since individuals dont have to have obligations to themselves to make sure they take appropriate actions, obligations are only applicable to multiple individuals. This means there has to be an impact on someone else for it to be considered an obligation." Non sequitur. If not, feel free to explain how individuals not having to have obligations to themselves to make sure they take appropriate actions leads us to the conclusion that obligations are ONLY applicable to multiple individuals. Of course, given the fact that this is clearly false (as I've already shown), I doubt any explanation which PRO attempts to provide shall be sufficient. Nevertheless, I'll more than gladly respond. Oh yeah, and extend all arguments droppped via forfeit.
Child Pageants

The rounds in between can range from arguments to rebuttals, etc. I'd appreciate it if no rounds were forfeited, even if you do not need the full 5,000 characters to debate. 5 rounds, 5,000 characters, 12 hours for response. Try to keep it clean and remember to attack my arguments, not me as a person as this is an assignment for class. In this debate, I (Con) will be arguing against the beauty pageants* for children. Pro will argue the opposite. By children, although anyone under the age of eighteen counts as a child, I will be mainly be referring to children under the age of thirteen, though I may mention an account of children in their low-teens. The definition of a beauty contest is as follows - an assemblage of girls or women at which judges select the most beautiful —called also beauty pageant (1)** These beauty pageants consist of several rounds, as does a debate. There can be an "evening wear" section, swimwear round, and a talent segment to these child pageants. Because we are talking about children in this debates and not grown women, we can ignore the latter. I will be taking into account articles online, and things of the like. I may or may not mention anything about Toddlers & Tiaras (a television program on TLC) and will clarify that even though I know there is some editing done for entertainment, I do believe there are truths to the competitions, personalities and judging that occurs on the show. *Beauty contests, beauty pageants and child pageants will be used interchangeably. **Do not forget to cite your sources; it is plagiarism if you don't. I await the challenger. Thank you for your cooperation and good luck. Source (1)Merriam-Webster Dictionary (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Child Pageants

I appreciate your concerns about the fact that the children should have someone to listen to, to keep them from running wild, but I believe rules should not constitute the fact that they are being judged and told how to look. Nor shall they be learning to skip their childhood and go straight into adulthood. In this next round, I will mention activities other than pageants to put your child into. First, the most important thing in your growing child's life should be his or her education, so there should be arrangements for extra help and tutoring if necessary. After the education part of the child's life is sorted out, be open-minded when it comes to exploring new extra-curricular activities. As a suggestion, I will list a few categories of activities I believe are better suited for children than pageantry. Sports, for example, are a way to correct the lack of sportsmanship created from being in pageants. Learning to work as a group to reach a common goal and exercising the energy that children have are positive ways to keep your children active. Another activity to put your children in besides pageants would be musical instruments or choir. Children have a voice, and need to execute that, and whether it is through song or beats, they need to let the world see that. All in all, pageants and the negative image it gives to children in the United States, and other countries around the world should be the last thing on a child's mind, especially when there are positive options out there for them.
Child Pageants

To rebut my opponents claims this round I must say that these adults have every right to tell the children what to do and how to look like because in society these are the kinds of things that really go on. Who do you see on television but beautiful models and handsome actors? Even on the reality channels where there is no script the people still fit a certain quota because they still have flawless skin and in place hair and their fashion sense meets the style you will see on fashion week. Also without guidance the children will run wild and there will be no order on stage at all almost like animals in a safari.
Child Pageants

I would like to start out my first rebuttal by recognizing that Con failed to mention the definition of the first two skills probably because they knew they could not fight that pageants positive side with that. They were gross motor and fine motor: Gross motor skills use muscles to do certain things like stand still and walk both needed in the pageant world; these children learn how to stay still for a certain amount of time and walk forward when they need to do so. Fine motor skills allow the students to use their hands to do many activities needed in the talent round like baton twirling and magic tricks and things like that so these skills are just as important as the other three and Cons argument is invalid for failing to include all five skills.
Resolution: The US should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

Reasons to keep supplying Pakistan with US aid money:Nuclear State Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons. [1] One of the main reasons we supply money to Pakistan is to keep them on relatively good terms with the United States because of their nukes. We do not want the country to degrade into a terrorist state or become an anti-US nation like Iran is. While Pakistan may be corrupt it is a well known fact that you do not bite the hand that feeds you. Giving the Pakistani government money keeps them warm towards the US which is something we must maintain in order to keep security in the region and in the world in balance. AlliesWe do indeed need something from Pakistan and that is friendship and cooperation. Pakistan may be seen as an enemy to the general public or at least not an ally but Pakistan has been a fairly good ally to the United States in the past. Pakistan allows the US to truck supplies shipped into Pakistan into Afghanistan for our troops. They have cooperated in allowing US drones to strike their tribal regions on the Afghan border. They have been a great help to our operations in the Middle East and we need to maintain this friendly demeanor between our countries because they are a nuclear state and have a potentially unstable government. Money keeps them friendly and strong. [2]MilitaryWe fund their military because their military protects their nuclear stockpiles. Can you imagine if a terrorist group managed to attack a nuclear site and succeed? The affects would be devastating. A strong Pakistani military is a huge step towards making sure this nightmare never happens. While their people may not like the United States we must make sure that their government always will. Balance of PowerIndia and Pakistan are both nuclear nations with a bloody and bitter history. By the US giving money to Pakistan and maintaining friendly relations with India they make sure the two countries leave each other alone by providing them with a common ally. If the US pulled its aid out of Pakistan it might feel isolated or cornered by India and the United States and act rashly. It is better to maintain this power balance. This is why we need to continue to fund Pakistani aid. Thank you. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://www.foreignaffairs.com...
Resolution: The US should suspend all assistance to Pakistan.

I am pro suspending US assistance to pakistan. I don't have much, but ill say what I got. If we suspend assistance, we will be getting rid of wasteful expenses. We don't need to be spending millions helping out a corrupted place. The Pakistan government is so corrupted the money we are spending to help feed their people might just be used to build a nuclear power plant or to hide people, like Pakistan hid osama bin laden. We don't need anything from Pakistan, so why bother assisting them. We are trying to do the humanitarian thing and help their people but with their history of corruption, we probably aren't even helping their people. We spend way to much money on places that don't benefit us, like Pakistan. We don't need anything from them, nothing at all. 90% of the $10 billion spent to help Pakistan has been spent on their military. We might just hand them our army. We are helping them build a stronger army, for what? Do they can come and attack us?most Pakistan people are anti American and don't even like us. So why don't we just suspend our assistance, it will greatly benefit us. This is why we should suspend assistance in Pakistan.
God(s) existence

In this debate we will be arguing God's existence. I am going to try to prove the possibility of God's existence, and you (the con) will try to prove that it is simply not possible for God to exist. Round 1: acceptance only Round 2: opening argument(s) Round 3: more argument(s) Round 4: more argument(s) Round 5: closing (NO more arguments, keep this one under 250 words please) *Note: let's try to keep our arguments somewhat short and sweet, it makes it way easier for the voters at the very end. I still allowed 8,000 character arguments, this is only optional.
God(s) existence

FINAL REPLY SPEECHThe opp. has told you that the sheer amount of miracles in the world prove the existence of the Deity discussed in this debate. However, the opp. has disregarded the fact that Hindus and other Polytheists experience miracles too. The opp. has never refuted this point, and is henceforth left strong. Opp. has used the Bible as proof for God-the Bible's God. But the Bible gives no arguments, rational ones, for the existence of the "Lord Almighty", and if this God really existed, then humanity is in trouble. The opp. says that original sin is to be blamed, but this may be dismissed: we are talking about God (philosophy), not original sin (theology). The opp. has presented the arg. from physics in a manner so unpersuasive and lacking of essence that it contained no definitive/argumentative conclusion, and is merely nothing than the opposition's own opinion. The opp. has started by using science, but the grave misunderstanding of Cell Theory, Evolution, and the usage of argumentum ad ignoratum has rendered opp's deeds null. The argument from imperfection remains de facto unrefuted. Attempts at making this debate indiscussable have been dismissed. Ad hominems on me are discarded. The argument from God of Gaps are relatively lacking substance. Now look at what Con. has asserted. BoP lies entirely on the opp. I have asserted that God's perfection is limited by this imperfect world. I have asserted that the Christian God's existence is not proven by arguing from First Cause, or any fallacious arguments. This is the underlying logic throughout the opp. 's case: we don't know. "But this book, this Bible tells us that God created it. It must be God. It cannot be anyone else". This logic is flawed. Lastly, I would like to ask the opp. a question if the universe couldn't have come from nothing: "what caused cause?
God(s) existence

Final Argument: Wrap Up "There is a simple attack needed on this: who did it? Why were the Pagan philosophers of Athens, who believed in idols, given miracles which allowed them to be seen at two places at the same time? How about the Hindus, whose paganistic prayers were believed to have given them good grades? Even a simple Buddhist like me experiences this-why is it that I, an unbeliever, experience so many miracles in my life? Who did it? " According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a desire and longing for God, and having faith can be enough to preform miracles. Because these people have faith, they are pleasing in God's eyes. Your argument has been negated. "The Bible represents a pessimistic view of human life. If God truly intended the Bible as a "love letter", then why would He say ""Cursed is the ground because of you: through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food, until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." I wanted to argue with this one too (even though this is my 3rd time explaining it in this debate). God gave us everything, and we turned away from Him (that is the Christian belief). Because we turned away from Him and broke our connection to Him, God decided to make us actually work to get to Heaven. All in all, I think this was a great debate. I had a lot of fun debating with you. If you ever want to debate again please message me. I want to end my arguments with a quote. "The Universe couldn't have come from nothing, you can't get something, from nothing."
Evolution as Opposed to Creation - The Dared Challenge

Hello it is good to have you back! I like how you say you would like your debate done in the beginning. You said you would like the debate to be full of references with sources to back claims. However there is not one source from you in this whole debate! Funny. Anyways now to your unsupported arguments that should fail pretty easily. First you claim that average height of humans back in time where quite small. Although you have no references I will still approach this as some fact. Now to disprove this evolution claims we should actually be growing shorter, ...what would evolution predict? The average population should have become shorter because the shorter individuals in the population were, from an evolutionary fitness perspective, more successful in passing on their genes. But this did not happen. Instead, all segments of the population--rich and poor, from small and large families--increased in height. Thus, natural selection, the process whereby differences in reproductive success account for changes in the traits of a population, does not explain why we are taller." http://www.scientificamerican.com... My claim on why are apes still around is that according to evolution we evolved from apes yet this should take time with small changes there should be ample evidence of thousands of common ancestors. We have none! My sources were in the last argument you did not rebut this therefore it still stands. Intelligent design. Yes did narrow it to a "God". This is because it is the only known force in the universe to be smarter than man. the rest of that paragraph makes no sense whatsoever therefore I dismiss this since you have no reference. I am giving you what we have that is what this debate is about. One side evolution the other side creation or something else. Perhaps we made ourselves you say. Impossible. You cannot make something out of nothing. it is a well known theory. For all these flaws in my opponents arguments I believe it is obvious who to vote for. I look forward to my opponents response.