BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
MGS3 is "Da Bomb"

As listed by con, my 5 contentions remain. I will now list the reasons why. 1. Snake Eater was indeed a bomb: I'm sure that if you made a bomb and taped the game to it, it would be a bomb. Considering that it is your bomb, you can honestly say, with valid reference, that it is "da" bomb. 2. MGS3 and GOW2 are unfit for comparison: GOW is mythology; MGS is war. GOW is 3D moving; MGS is overhead. GOW is close-combat sword fighting; MGS is shooting and stealth CQC. 3. The MGS controls have improved: Aye, they have. There are still the three walking modes, two crawling modes, and the addition of first-person stalking and shooting. 4. The drawn out movie sequences are useful: If you really want to understand the plotline, then yes, they are useful. 5. Con should pick a new game for comparsion: See 2, and consider Wind Waker. ;)
MGS3 is "Da Bomb"

Thanks for replying to this boredom-spawned topic ;) My opponent has stated that MGS is not a bomb of any sort (paraphrasing there). I would like to begin by stating that Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater was indeed a bomb, and a specific bomb of a sort: a nuclear bomb. And not any nuclear bomb, but a nuclear bomb that can be shot from a moving mecha-tank, as well as another nuclear bomb that can be shot from a gatling-gun style wielded rocket launcher (the Davy Crockett). I also believe that the, although reliable sources, were a bit biased in their opinions. This is basically comparing apples to oranges. The gameplay styles are completely different. If you've been a fan of the Metal Gear series beginning with the first game as I have (though I haven't been alive for that long), you would understand what I mean when I say that the gameplay in MGS3 can be considered a classic and time-testing (not to mention improved-upon) overhead view style. A few movements in the game are quite tedious, I do agree, but they are ingenuity and innovation upon a style of gameplay with an established fanbase. I would like to ask that my opponent choose a different game to base gameplay opinions on. As well, the God of War storyline is completely uncomparable to the Metal Gear series as far as topic and content. My opponent also quotes some reviewers with the opinion that MGS3 is mostly dragged-out video sequences, and no gameplay. Sure, this is true. Absolutely. But that is not to say that some players enjoy the deep feeling of the story and like getting more of a sense that they know what the heck is going on through cinematics. I do, and also enjoy pressing R1 at various points in the cinematics (hehehe >:D). I'm Looking forward to the next round! ^_^
MGS3 is "Da Bomb"

1. By Pro's own standards, MGS3 is only a bomb if you MAKE it a bomb. It's not already a bomb :p 2. Just because the games fall under different genres doesn't mean that they are unfit for comparison. It still doesn't negate my comparisons regarding plot, characters, graphics, controls, game play, etc. all of which still stand regardless of the game's genre. 3. As I said, MGS3's controls may have improved from the previous games; however, they're still awkward and inferior to the controls on GOW2. 4. Who says the plot line is more important than the game itself? Either way, I said it was a matter of preference whether or not the movie sequences were long. 5. I've never played Wind Waker. Moreover, it was never specified which game if any that Con had to choose to battle MGS3. R1 indicates that I could have chosen any game and I did. Still, Pro didn't offer any other options until the last round (which is not allowed). All of my points stand and haven't been refuted: (a) GOW has a superior plot (b) GOW has better ratings from critics and gamers alike (c) GOW has better game play (d) GOW has much better graphics (e) GOW has better and more interesting and unique characters (f) GOW has easier and more functional controls (g) GOW has better action sequences (h) GOW has very few if not any criticisms (i) GOW was the better sequel; it added different elements and the plot and villains weren't so redundant
Cod:Black Ops or Halo: Reach

///as i make a point you cant really compare modern warfare 2 to black ops because black ops was more in the cold war./// How else will you compare the gameplay? It's built off of the Call of Duty franchise and gameplay that the franchise has established through its years. Comparing it the most recent game released that has a similar build is the only logical way to go about deciding one whether or not its better. Going off of what you're saying between the Cold War and Modern Warfare 2, I should compare Halo: Reach to Halo: 1/CE, because Halo: Reach takes place before it chronologically and by those standards, Halo: Reach has made huge strides in almost every field, whereas Black Ops will only have made minimal strides to its nearest, newest chronological title, World at War. Beyond this, I have no more points to add.
Allah | Muhammad | Islam | Quran

As my opponent has not introduced further evidence for his case that meets his burden of proof or nullified my rebuttal statements, my arguments shall be brief. First, referring to C1, my opponent cites the Quran as being a book of signs, not to be interpreted as scientifically valid. However, my opponent's first round of arguments was based entirely on supposed scientific facts found in the Quran. He cannot simply cite "facts" in the Quran as science and then retract his arguments, unless he wishes to admit they were flawed. Referring to C2, my point was that "expanding", while somtimes translated as such, is generally interpreted to mean furthering, developing, etc, rather than physically increasing the volume. My arguments for C3-C4 were not countered. In reference to C5, the scientifically accepted age of the earth is 4.54 billion years, with homo sapiens existing for the lattermost 100,000 years. Man, therefore, could not be 5 billion years old. In conclusion, my opponent has not met his burden of proof for the resolution, both by failing to show the existence of a diety and failing to show the exclusivity of Allah over other deities, which was not even addressed by him.
Allah | Muhammad | Islam | Quran

I accept the challenge. Since I have been invited to choose any topic regarding Islam, I will refer to your first paragraph and debate what you have asserted. Therefore, the two-part resolution I am selecting is as follows.Resolution: It is probable that a deity exists, and, if he does exist, it is probable that Allah is the only deity in existence.Definitions: The following definitions will be used in the resolution, though I am open to debate via PM if you strongly disagree with one of them. (Though I see them as reasonable.)Probable: More likely than not.Allah: The main deity mentioned in the Quran, defined as distinct from other diety figures (such as God, etc.) by passages in the Quran.Deity: An all-powerful, immortal, supernatural being percieved as being holy and/or sacred. [1]Exist: To be real.Burden of Proof: As Pro is making the affirmative claims, he/she has the burden of proof to show that it is more likely than not that a deity figure exists, and that the only diety that exists is Allah. Should Pro fail to meet either element of this burden (either failing to show deities exist or failing to disprove the existence of other deity figures), votes should be given to Con.Structure: Since it is infeasible to prove a negative assertion such as my side of the resolution, my arguments shall revolve mainly around rebutting Pro's arguments. I will not make any new arguments in the final round, as requested, but reserve the right to rebut my opponent's claims in the final round.I look forward to a productive and insightful debate!References:[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Allah | Muhammad | Islam | Quran

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, MOST GRACIOUS, MOST MERCIFUL.Good Evening to People out there this might have been an eyecatching Title which brought you to read this... I Believe Allah as Only Single God. Muhammad His Last Prophet & Servent & I look forward for a Friendly Debate for better understanding eachother's point of view.Its an Open Topic Debate:You Choose the Topic: WHATEVER "TOPIC" YOU WANT TO DEBATE REGARDING ISLAM.You can Cricticise anything but not foul language! RULES: Topic will be decided in inbox for Private Debate & in Comments for Public Debate If you Pose something is wrong you have to bring BOP(Burden of Proof) Because debates go long redaring to keep it short & simple Maximum 2 Arguments at a time. Everything should be with valid evidence and proof. No New Arguments in last round. Purpose: Well the purpose of my previous, this and up coming debates is never to hurt any personal or private feelings of anyone I believe the purpose always be to learn and seek knowledge and establish Truth & the right facts for the people out there and to make people understand the difference between Rational & Irrational Thoughts. MAY GOD'S MERCY UPON YOU
Schools should educate their students about issues surrounding mental health.

I agree but doesn't mental health have an impact on some individuals lives? Even if it was one assembly or one short presentation once every 6 months or something. It could show the pupils where to get help and how to build up the confidence to actually receive the help. Another point is the actual work. Some problems such as suicidal thoughts, eating disorders etc can actually affect their schoolwork meaning a poor performance if they aren't focusing 100% on schoolwork.
Schools should educate their students about issues surrounding mental health.

Suicide. Self-harming. Eating disorders. These are only three of the serious issues that goes on in every country, city etc. 1 in 5 teenagers will get the help that they need. only 1 out of 5 teenagers. Why shouldn't schools educate their pupils about mental health related issues? If you educate teenagers and maybe even younger students, about the various issues then there would be a chance that more pupils would speak out for help if they suspect that they have a mental-health issue. It's better safe than sorry isn't it? The amounts of suicides, self-harmers etc may even decrease because they are more educated about the topic.
Reforming the Racially-biased Criminal Justice System will Imprison More Caucasians

Although reforming the justice system, like making punishments for drug offenses, which impact black communities extremely harshly and proverbially disproportionately, less severe would increase the proportion of punishment dished out to whites, it wouldn't increase the amount. Think about it this way: you and I are both in prison, and my sentence is 1 year, yours is 2. Then your sentence is commuted by 1 year, and we both have equal jail time. Your logic suggests that I have been punished more, when in truth only my proportion of the total punishment went up. I used to have 1/3 of the total punishment, now I have 1/2.Your logic also suggests that the Justice department has some sort of quota(why else would it have to compensate for a drop in punishment), which isn't true.
Reforming the Racially-biased Criminal Justice System will Imprison More Caucasians

Since most statistics tend to show that people of color (Latino, Black, Asian, American-Indian, etc.) are more likely to be jailed than whites, wouldn't reforming the justice system only mean arresting more white people to even it out, and making the prison population more diverse? As a white person I cannot support reforming racially-biased CJS, because it will not lead to less arrests overall, but instead to more arrests of non-ethnic minorities.
landing on moon

I have to prove that landing on the moon is real. If that is the case, I only have to prove ONE instance of when something landed on the moon to win this debate.It should be noted, however, that my opponent has never specified if we humans landed on the moon or if one of our spacecraft landed on the moon. Thus, either should apply. I. Luna 2, Luna 17, and Luna 21 These robotic spacecraft were launched by the Soviet Union. They all sucessfully reached the moon. Luna 2 was the first manmade object to ever have reached the moon. In addition, Luna 17 and 21 landed on the moon, as well as having vehicles travel across the moon's surface to collect data. http://en.wikipedia.org...II. Look at the picture below This picture here indicates different Luna spacecraft landing on various different locations on the moon. Not only that, it shows other spacecraft launched by other countries landing on the moon. Con will have to rebut every single location on here in order to win. III. Apollo 11 mission. The Apollo 11 group was the first group that ever landed humans on the moon. These humans were Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, and they landed at July 20, 1969, 20:17:39, in standard UTC (2). I do not feel further argumentation is necessary, since I am sure most readers here will possibly be familiar with Apollo 11 and definitely familiar with Neil Armstrong. I am sure all of you have heard this quote: "That's one small step for a man, but one giant leap for mankind." as quoted by Armstrong.ConclusionI have proved various instances where humans have landed spacecraft (whether humans were on it or not). In addition, even if Con can rebut some of these points, he must rebut EVERY SINGLE point listed, otherwise, I should get the win. Anyhow, I hope Con is able to respond in time for the next round.1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
landing on moon

My opponent has not assumed positions, therefore, I shall do so. Con must prove that landing on the moon is not real. I assume this since the title of this debate is landing on moon, and he is con, which means he believes that landing on the moon is not real. I, Pro, must prove that landing on the moon is in fact real. My opponent has not specified how the rounds will go. I will assume that this first round is for acceptance. With that, I hand over the next round to my opponent.
The only solution to changing a destructive lifestlye is making a quality decision

Pro, we're debating: "The only solution to changing a destructive lifestyle is making a quality decision." But Pro did not specify that the lifestyle must by mainly destructive to the individual practicing it or anything like that. In fact, Pro did not even specify that the change must be for the better. Going to jail would change the destructive lifestyle substantively. I'm not saying that the PERSON would necessarily change, but their lifestyle would. In the right jail at least that person would be unable to access drugs, alcohol, or victims. That would constitute a substantial improvement in the destructive lifestyle. That's all I needed to prove for the debate. Pro, debates like this are hard for Pro because the contentendor only needs to point out one exception and then Pro's case is lost.
The only solution to changing a destructive lifestlye is making a quality decision

Pro says the only solution to changing a destructive lifestyle is making a quality decision. All I have to do is find one alternative solution, and I win. I agree that, in the main, a "quality decision" is required. However, the government succeeds in changing destructive lifestyles all the time. You know how? Jail for life. What was a destructive lifestyle before (murder and drugs and rape and other horrible things) may now still not be moral (jail isn't that great) but it is not destructive to anyone outside the jail. That constitutes a substantive change. So, I have proved Pro wrong. Happy day, everyone.
"Without God"everything is permitted" or: Atheism Invalidates Moral Absolutism

Thank you for the opportunity, this has been a good debate. Rebuttals: "Can situations change things, or do things happen to change just as situations occur?" Situations can change what we think of a certain action in terms of morality. ""What if this consciousness had varying views of an action? The popular God of the Bible does." That"s a fair question for a Judeo-Christian believer who argues for moral absolutism ; I just don"t happen to be such a person." If it would depend on the God at all, then you would have needed to specify a single one in the beginning because so many have so many different and contrasting beliefs about morality. "I suppose I would have to concede. Or would I?" I honestly can't argue this as you haven't clearly stated where you stand. Concluding Statements: Human beings are creatures with consciousness. We live in fairly modern societies where laws regarding things that would seem morally debatable (such as slavery) have changed drastically just over the past century. From our experiences in such a society, and from interacting with fellow human beings regardless of how similar or different you may be, we are able to create our own gauge of morality that most would agree with. Because we have not yet been able to definitively prove whether or not a universal consciousness exists, and she/he has not clearly contacted us with absolute moralities, we can assume that we would be able to come to these moral conclusions if a deity exists or not.
"Without God"everything is permitted" or: Atheism Invalidates Moral Absolutism

I hope you do not take this the "wrong" way, but I did not intend a semantic debate; I am more interested in philosophical concepts than language games (as much as I love Alice's Adventures in Wonderland). Obviously something cannot be invalidated if it does not exist in the first place. My argument is that the lack of belief in a god is not compatible with a belief in moral absolutism. But hey" ""Without God, everything is permitted" cannot be true, as laws exist."" Do laws exist without a God? Unless you actually know that there is no God in our world of laws, how can you be sure there is a contradiction in the statement? "What if this consciousness had varying views of an action? The popular God of the Bible does." That"s a fair question for a Judeo-Christian believer who argues for moral absolutism ; I just don"t happen to be such a person. "Moral Absolution does not exist as a universal truth." Is that a statement? And if so, are you absolutely sure? "People naturally have opinions, and situations can always change things." Can situations change things, or do things happen to change just as situations occur? "For instance, you could say writing someone a heartfelt kind letter is always 'right.' What if the letter was one of an insanely large number the writer had sent that week, without ever personally receiving an address from the person they were writing to" ""the situation's 'rightness' gets questionable at that point." I would argue that all situational "rightness" is questionable. But in the case of the writer, maybe the "rightness" is in the pleasure he/she is giving him/herself (e.g. "It"s the thought that counts; not necessarily sharing that thought with anyone"). "If moral absolution doesn't exist, it can't be invalidated by atheism." Actually, moral absolution can exist without a god (someone only need forgive you). But I think you meant absolutism, in which case"I suppose I would have to concede. Or would I? At any rate, You are welcome for the debate. Thank you for taking it on (in some form at least).
"Without God"everything is permitted" or: Atheism Invalidates Moral Absolutism

Thank you! Sorry for the long wait. 1. This is based on your title, and is on semantics. "Without God, everything is permitted" cannot be true, as laws exist. 2. "If no path has been deemed correct by a universal consciousness, then any "chosen" path can be correct, even to the point that two or more completely contrasting moral positions can exist as correct simultaneously (e.g. "Killing can be right" and "Killing is always wrong")." What if this consciousness had varying views of an action? The popular God of the Bible does. http://www.godandscience.org... 3. Moral Absolution does not exist as a universal truth. People naturally have opinions, and situations can always change things. For instance, you could say writing someone a heartfelt kind letter is always 'right.' What if the letter was one of an insanely large number the writer had sent that week, without ever personally receiving an address from the person they were writing to It at the least, the situation's 'rightness' gets questionable at that point. If moral absolution doesn't exist, it can't be invalidated by atheism. Thank you for the debate, I'm sorry I've been a little short on time. I've taken on a bit too many debates!
"Without God"everything is permitted" or: Atheism Invalidates Moral Absolutism

This argument presupposes both parties believe that there is a reality objective to human consciousness, and that consciousness is a requirement for belief. I am defining god/deity as- a universal architect and the conscious creative force behind human/animal existence. I am defining moral absolutism as- the belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong. If someone feels that I have created an argument which begs the question, please acknowledge in the comments section before challenging. Argument If: Atheism is the rejection of, or disbelief in, a god/deity (gods/deities). And: A god/deity is the central component of a belief in a universe of purposeful design and, subsequently, a purposefully designed consciousness. [I would not consider alien design of human consciousness as a valid point of argument as the rejection of ultimate design would relegate our morality to an experimental aspect as opposed to a universal truth.] Then: Without a god/deity human consciousness is a result of accidental processes and, therefore, accidental. And so: If human consciousness and, subsequently, moral belief are accidentally acquired, than moral belief can have no objective validation as a universal truth. [No one part of an accident (or one person as a part of an accidental process) could be said to be on purpose, let alone more on purpose without purpose, than any other part; therefore appeals to social rules and laws are inevitably appeals to personal bias.] If morality is merely an arbitrary aspect of, or the result of a mutations within, accidental processes, then all rules and laws can be challenged based on differing opinions of "should" and "should not". If no path has been deemed correct by a universal consciousness, then any "chosen" path can be correct, even to the point that two or more completely contrasting moral positions can exist as correct simultaneously (e.g. "Killing can be right" and "Killing is always wrong"). Moral absolutism is invalidated by the theory of accidental existence which atheism presupposes.
war is not the answer

Well sinc emy opponent didn't post anything there's not really much for me to do, so I'll just reinforce some of my previous points. Essentially, all you need to do for this is look at the past and see all of the times diplomacy failed and war was the only answer. From the revolutionary War to now, nearly all of the wars our country has been in happened only after diplomacy failed. Now remember, this debate is not about whether or not war in Iraq in the answer. It's broader than that. War, in general usually starts after diplomacy has failed. That being said, diplomacy has solved many conflicts and should always be tried before war, but that doesn't mean it'll always work. Thus, a blanket ban on wars would be illogical since human nature causes us to have many disputes, and as history shows, not everything can be solved without war.
war is not the answer

Well you haven't really given me much to go on at this point, so I guess I'll start things off. The truth is that all I really need to do to prove you wrong is look at the past. WW2 is probably the best example as to how war is the answer. There was no way Hitler was going to be stopped without a war, and the British and French tried too. However why stop there, the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW1, The Korean War, the Vietnam War, and more recently, Gulf Wars 1 and 2. Whether or not you believe that America's involvement in these wars to be justified or not (especially the last 3) is irrelevant because the facts are that all of them are examples where diplomacy failed and the countries involved went to war (and still would have if we didn't).