BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Super Smash Brothers Melee is a better competitive fighter than Super Smash Brothers 4.

I haven't done a debate in awhile but oh well. Some things to note as well as some rules.1. If you accept this debate and have no intention to finish it, please go somewhere else. I WILL ask people to vote for me if you reply only once or twice, and you WILL forfeit. I do this for fun, not for free ELO, which you give to me if you forfeit. 2. The rules I set here are absolute and will not be changed without prior consent from BOTH parties. If you decide to make your own rules mid-debate and I say that I did no agree, you must show proof that I did, otherwise you will forfeit all points made by using the rule you fabricated. 3. Be sportsmanlike. This isn't a debate the entire website will see, only me, you, and a few others. We're in the gaming section for crying out loud, don't take it so seriously, but do try your best. 4. I would prefer that you have sources. IGN, Gamespot, and other game reviewing websites are fine, because yes, sources do matter, as does their legitimacy. 5. Arguments are to be made in Round 2 and onward, Round 1 is for acceptance ONLY. The only exception is that I will make a story line of the smash brothers series for both games to give a little background to the debate topic. I will not be making any arguments.Now that the rules are out of the way, I'll give a small amount of back story for judges to read and understand the history.Super Smash Bros. Melee (which will also be referred to as Melee) is a game that was released in 2001 by Nintendo containing a wide variety of characters ranging from Mario and Luigi to Fox and Falco to Marth and Roy. All in All, Super Smash Bros. Melee has 24 characters to choose from and 29 stages to play on. Through the years, Melee has had multiple tournaments and player sponsors, examples of this is MLG, EVO, APEX, and few others. Sponsored players are EG|PPMD, C9 Mango, TSM Leffen, Crs Chillindude, and Crs Hungrybox, as well as multiple others. Since this debate is about competitive differences, I will also explain the competitive history of Melee. Since 2001, Melee has also had a competitive scene behind it, and while it was not as big as it was today, it was still something. This is when techniques like SHFFLing, L-Cancelling, wavedashing, and others were discovered. I will divulge more into these as the debate progresses if need be. In terms of Super Smash Bros. 4 (which will also be referred to as Smash 4 or Sm4sh), the game only recently came out in 2014, and has already been to a few major fighting tournaments, namely Apex and EVO. The game features 52 characters as of right now, with potentially more on the way, and has, admittedly, far more stages than melee, with the ability to make your own included in the game, depending on whether or not you are playing Wii U or 3DS.As a reminder, I am the Pro, meaning I am saying that Melee is better competitively than Smash 4. Thank you for reading and possibly accepting.
The Paris attacks were justified

I seriously think you're a troll. The world is fine with a diversity in religion. We can all have different beliefs. The world would be very dull without that ideological diversity. Even if you do want to spread your religion, you can do so peacefully. Attacks like this only turn people against Islam and Muslims, as the many recent hate crimes against Muslims show. The people who were killed did not personally take part in killing ISIS members. They should not suffer for what their governments did. What their governments did was justified, as ISIS is an evil group made up of blood thirsty murderers who throw gays off of buildings, rape women and kill innocent people--like in Paris. ISIS fighters deserve to die. Muslims also died in the Paris attacks.
The Paris attacks were justified

Resolved: on balance, the Paris attacks were justified.Definitions:on balance - with all things consideredParis attacks - a group of terror attacks in the capital of France, Paris, in the evening of 13 November 2015justified - based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fairRules:1. Definitions are not contestable.2. Don't accept if you're TheHitchslapYou argue first round. I have set the voter Elo to 3000 so that the Westerners whose blood was shed in Paris do not frown upon me and attack me through what they consider a useful outlet when in actuality the outlet of their anger, a vote, does not distort the truth! Allah yusallmak!
The Paris attacks were justified

Besides a faulty appeal to emotion my opponent has not offered a single constructive argument, nor have they rebutted any of mine, just saying that I am not to be believed because "[I am] mentally ill" or a "troll". Extend all dropped arguments. My opponent drops the Dajjal. My opponent drops the Roman Army and attacking it brings the Dajjal. They just say it is not moral, but when we look at it, the blood of ISIS is shed.Easily vote aff because you have no reason to vote neg besides being a bloodied Roman armyman.
The Paris attacks were justified

I can not believe I am having this conversation. You are either a troll or mentally ill. All the religious books have stuff that doesn't make sense in them. You can not follow everything in your religious book. The ISIS members to be killed did take part in violence against innocent people or at least supported it. The Paris victims did not take part in or support violence against innocent people. ISIS members support ISIS and their horrible actions. Not all French people support their governments actions. Do you think its ok to kill innocent people?
The Paris attacks were justified

"I seriously think you're a troll."Hurtful."The world is fine with a diversity in religion. We can all have different beliefs. The world would be very dull without that ideological diversity. Even if you do want to spread your religion, you can do so peacefully. Attacks like this only turn people against Islam and Muslims, as the many recent hate crimes against Muslims show."Yes, it will reinforce the Roman Army's attack on Islam and will bring about the Dajjal, something good I claim and something you fail to refute. We need to do this, as I claim, to spread the True law around the world - you do not attack this, saying that the way that we do this is bad. However, the Dajjal is the only way we can do this! Claiming that we need to do it peacefully is impossible."The people who were killed did not personally take part in killing ISIS members."And the ISIS members to die did not kill them. Still, the actions of the group are justified for they die for their actions! Something you claim and I agree to be good."They should not suffer for what their governments did. What their governments did was justified"Without evidence I can claim the contrary and be as correct as you."as ISIS is an evil group made up of blood thirsty murderers who throw gays off of buildings, rape women and kill innocent people--like in Paris. ISIS fighters deserve to die."Non-sequiter. They WILL die for their actions - you agree this to be good, therefore you concede the debate. They kill innocents to bring the Dajjal back - you do not fight this, this means that you concede the Dajjal will come.My opponent fails to attack any of my case with substance besides just what they claim to be 'true'. They made no actual arguments for their own side, just claiming that I am a troll and saying that ISIS is bad and deserve to die (the latter I agree to, and this is actually the crux of my case!)As always, allah yusallmak!
Abortion In Texas should be allowed

Here will be my arguments.1. Laws against abortion kill women.To prohibit abortions does not stop them. When women feel it is absolutely necessary, they will choose to have abortions, even in secret, without medical care, in dangerous circumstances. In the two decades before abortion was legal in the U.S., it's been estimated that nearly a million women per year sought out illegal abortions. Thousands died. Tens of thousands were mutilated. All were forced to behave as if they were criminals. 2. Legal abortions protect women's health.Legal abortion not only protects women's lives, it also protects their health. For tens of thousands of women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or dangerous childbirth. 3. A woman is more than a fetus. Some people argue these days that a fetus is a "person" that is "indistinguishable from the rest of us" and that it deserves rights equal to women's. On this question there is a tremendous spectrum of religious, philosophical, scientific, and medical opinion. It's been argued for centuries. Fortunately, our society has recognized that each woman must be able to make this decision, based on her own conscience. To impose a law defining a fetus as a "person," granting it rights equal to or superior to a woman's " a thinking, feeling, conscious human being " is arrogant and absurd. It only serves to diminish women. 4. Being a mother is just one option for women. Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom.
Legal Abortions

There is no charity walk to raise awareness about the 700 to 800 women that die each year during pregnancy or shortly after giving birth in the U.S. There are no dedicated colored-plastic wristbands. But statistics in recent years have revealed a worrisome trend: the rate of maternal mortality in the U.S. has more than doubled in the past few decades. Whereas 7.2 women died per 100,000 births in 1987, that number swelled to 17.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2009 and 2011. The uptick occurred even as maternal mortality dropped in less-developed settings around the world. Now women giving birth in the U.S. are at a higher risk of dying than those giving birth in China or Saudi Arabia. Although the risk is small, the 17.8 deaths have to come from somewhere and women should be able to decide if they want to take the chance and be one of the misfortunate mothers. After an abortion many women are relieved and when choosing to go through adoption ,any women feel a greater loss after connection with the child while it was being carried and birthing. Fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks and only 3.2% of abortions happen after 18 weeks. 89-92% of abortions happen in the 1st trimester which ends at 13 weeks long before the fetuses can feel pain. I believe if we were to make any laws against abortion it should make ban it after 19 weeks so, the child can't feel pain and the mothers still have time to make their decicion. The cost for a normal, birth with out any problems on average is $1,500 to $4,000 dollars where an abortion costs on average $470. Women that have bad financial situations could also choose abortion over the high cost of birth. Referring to your first argument we should not be making laws based off of religion and studies show 23% of Catholics don't believe abortion is a sin. In the case of rape and the woman becomes pregnant, is it right to make her give birth to a baby that marks possible the worst day/experience in their life. Taking away abortions will be taking away the freedom of a woman. Rape victims and mother of unwanted children will be kept for their Pursuit to Happiness. Not letting women decide to have an abortion is in some cases taking away their right to life. Either way in some cases of abortion can take away the rights of the fetus if it is aborted or the mother if she isn't allowed the option for abortion.
Legal Abortions

You state that there are many children in the U.S. foster system. How many children were from families not having enough money. How many children were from families not having qualified homes and lifestyle. They can't all be from not aborting. We basically know nothing from your argument. You then state that adopting is affordable which contradicts you argument of having abortions. Also, even though there is emotional toll on the mother, I'm pretty sure that aborting a baby has more of an emotional toll on the mother. You then state that the decision is up to the parents, but in my previous argument I answered your argument. You say that woman shouldn't be put at rick because of a child yet there are 255 babies born each minute. http://shaidee.com...
Legal Abortions

OK, I'm new to this website but I have been looking around at other debates as examples. They mostly all had some rules at their first round of debate but I just jumped right in debating. Now, I specialize in PF (Public Forum) debate and we are supposed to have a rebuttal. So basically I say my case, you say yours, then in round 2, I have a rebuttal on your case and you have a rebuttal on my case. We then have a summary on the whole debate and we are done. So I don't think just slapping arguments on here without really addressing the past argument is formal or fun. Could we maybe devote this round to explaining how we are going to do this. Thanks!
Legal Abortions

There are 423,773 children in the U.S. foster care system; 114,556 of these children are available for adoption. Their birth parent"s legal rights have been permanently terminated and children are left without a family. More children become available for adoption each year than are adopted. In 2009, 69,947 children had parental rights terminated by the courts, yet only 57,466 were adopted. Children often wait three years or more to be adopted, move three or more times in foster care and often are separated from siblings. The average age of waiting children is 8 years old. Last year, 29,471 children turned 18 and left the foster care system without an adoptive family. Adopting from foster care is affordable. Most child welfare agencies cover the costs of home studies and court fees, and provide post-adoption subsidies. Thousands of employers offer financial reimbursement and paid leave for employees who adopt and Federal and/or state adoption tax credits are available to most families. There are plenty of children in foster care and many do not find homes before they turn 18. Giving up a child for adoption could mean the child goes out a family its entire life and giving a child up for adoption has much more of a emotion toll on the mother that an abortion. No one asked the to-be child if it was okay with being conceived, it was the decision of the parents, as is the option to terminate the pregnancy, there is no possible way to ask the child so it leaves the choice up to the parents. No woman should ever be put in the situation where their life could be at risk because of having a child. It is also the mothers job to decide what is right for the baby, whether the situation is she could not provide for the child and didn't want to put the emotional toll on her self and the child by giving up for adoption or if the mother found out the child will have severe health problems that will make the life of the child painful and miserable.
Vegetarianism is good

I fear that it is you, dear cloud, that is the one misreading arguments. You claim that I, "Went over the risk of heart disease and cancer too lightly (whilst not mentioning my point of the benefits of meat I hasten to add). I did not go over it lightly, but merely claimed that meat (like other foods) have positive and negative aspects to them and it is stupid to say that vegetarianism should be introduced because of the negative health effects of meat. If you eat too much sugar it has, 'negative health effects.' Banning meat on the basis that it is unhealthy is an invalid point because like lots of other substances there are positive and negative effects of consuming it. Just I'm case he missed it, there is a link in my previous argument which contains a list of positive health effects of eating meat. I advise he reads it as he appears not to have done so. Regarding my point about the impracticality of asking less well off (not Dickensian) it's not just the price but also what you are asking these families to do. The thing about these kinds of food is that they require lots of preparation and other ingredients to make a nice meal. I am thinking about lentils specifically here. When you are struggling financially and need to feed 2, 3, 4 or even 5 children, the cheaper and probably more unhealthy option is going to appear more attractive. A) It requires little effort on their part. B) The children are more likely to eat it. C) It will be substantially cheaper. When parents are stretched for cash, making sure that their children are having a balanced diet is not on the top of their list of priorities. Making sur that their children receive 3 square meals a day probably is. In order to have any structurall upheaval of how people eat, it needs to be sorted out that what you're banning can replaced from another source. In this case it will not work as the alternatives are more expensive, harder to prepare and less likely to be well received by the children. When Cloud says " Simple changes," I think he underestimates the significance of what he proposes. It is not realistic to assume that families who are financially unstable are going to accept that they can't take their children to McDonalds and are going to have to feed them lentils instead. No one will go along with that as meat (especially cheap meat) is such a main part of the modern western child's diet. And now I would like to address the morality of the debate. A key point for Pro in this debate has been about the suffering of the animal; how it's immoral due to the pain we are causing to the animal. Well there are guidelines in place which means that the animal has to be sedated before being killed. This means that the animal receives the absolute minimum of pain. All of the biggest meat providers in the U.S.A conform with these standard, meaning this 'pain,' which Cloud talks about is just non-existent. So as you can see, every point 'Cloud' has made in this debate is flawed in some way. I wil be concluding my case in the next round and sincerely urge you to VOTE CON…
Vegetarianism is good

Thank you again, 'newspapers_are_cool', for your rebuttal labelled as arguments, and your actual arguments. This round as you kindly reminded us, is a round of rebuttal. Your first point was very passionate, but I feel you had ignored my points, and went over the risk of life threatening heart disease and cancer too lightly. I will not repeat myself, but I will say that meat needs replacing with minerals and proteins. You said that such a 'sacrifice' was too much to ask from the Dickensian families you described, who endure "crippling cuts and are struggling day in and day out to make ends meet". I totally disagree with this, as simple changes are easy to make, and very cheap. Proteins can be found in affordable eggs, milk and cottage cheese, and iron found in baked beans, lentils and oatmeal. Lentils are not, by the way, expensive, sold at about ï¿½1.50 per 100g. In fact, just a cup of lentils has more iron in it than a reasonable serving (3oz) of lean beef. Such changes are hardly a sacrifice, as they are morally good, healthy, and environmentally friendly. And if you are still worried about the human immune system, local pharmacists sell bottles of zinc tablets here in the UK at about ï¿½3 ($4.50 US) or cheaper. One might not want to promote a pill-dependent society, but frankly they have already become ingrained into the modern way of life, from aspirin to contraceptives. Sadly, your point didn't hold water. Admittedly, some will not be able to become vegetarians, due to defects or illness, but this does not mean that vegetarianism is not preferable, just not practical in some scenarios. As this was your only point I cannot rebut any more, but I look forward to your tackling of the morality issue, as well as my other two and my rebuttal in your next round. Thank you again.
Vegetarianism is good

I will be arguing that Vegetarianism is not always the right option and that we should not be enforcing Vegetarianism upon them. My first point is that in order to have a balanced diet one will require meat. Now I agree with 'Cloud's' statement that you can probably balance it out by eating other foods that are high in iron and protein. He uses the examples of 'nuts, seeds, and apricots. ' However, the things that he lists are all quite expensive. This point is more important than it first looks. When you are a family that is enduring crippling cuts and are struggling day in and day out to make ends meet, you have to prioritise what foodstuffs you buy. They have to be cheap and bring added nutrition for the right price. You have to eat a lot of nuts/seeds to replicate the benefit of a piece of meat. It is simply unrealistic to assume that these families will make great sacrifices to make sure that they get the right protein and iron intake. And meat is not only bad for your health. There are many benefits that can be drawn from eating meat. It is good for your muscle build up in a way which vegetarian foods can only do at a slower rate. One study found children who consumed two spoonfuls of meat daily in addition to their regular diet had an 80-percent increase in upper-arm muscle compared to other children in the two-year study, according to an article on BioEd Online, the website of the Baylor College of Medicine. [1] His point that meat is the cause of cancer and heart disease is irrelevant as meat is also a preventer of diseases. It is a high source of zinc and so can therefore help build up the immune system. I have proved that meat is not always a liability to a person's health and that 'Cloud' has not considered that those in our society are not very well of will not always be able to afford a stable diet if they are forced to spend a lot of money on other sources of iron and protein. This poses a serious health risk and needs to be examined in greater detail before we can claim that vegetarianism is the best option for every person. In the next round I will be tackling the morality of the issue and be examining the ethics of this debate. [1] Read more: . http://www.livestrong.com...