BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Neversoft Ruined Guitar Hero

okay i see your point with the guitar simulation games. i agree with the free bird solo and probably other songs. in the raining blood and welcome to the jungle solos, they are both easy. i have to play them on expert because they are to easy then that is where i find a challenge. the only real hard song is "One-Metallica." it is easy up to its solo. that would probably be right. to get the full guitar simulation experience you need to play expert because you have to play every single note and then some. I see where you are coming from with the difficulty jump because it should be like that though. But you are probably playing it on the wrong difficulty like I said before.
Neversoft Ruined Guitar Hero

yes, but it's a guitar simulation video game. I think generally, it was directed at fans of guitar players, and most of the songs they put in are cool guitar songs. While GH 3 did this, they messed up some note charts. It is supposed to be like that...because it SIMULATES guitar. Freebirds solo would probably take you a year to learn, even if you're a seasoned guitar player. Most video games are about simulation and living out a fantasy. It lets you emulate a rockstar. About the last songs: See, the thing with this is, they made them too hard, or the other too easy. Welcome to the Jungles solo is easy in the game, but the intro to "Raining Blood" is hard. See, in a Harmonix-made game, the solo would be harder than raining blood. I'm all for difficulty, but when it is unjustified, then it makes for a bad game. I understand what you are saying about the songs at the end, but truthfully, the difficulty is like a 4 for the whole game up to the last tier, when it suddenly jumped to a 9 (10 for raining blood, it angers me). The previous games didn't have that jump, and no game should have a jump in difficulty so substantial.
Neversoft Ruined Guitar Hero

In guitar hero the guitar is not like the guitar because it is a video game. it is supposed to be like that because if you want to play guitar then you go and buy a guitar but if you want to play a game with preset music and you could play your favorite songs right away. the last few songs of the game should be harder than the rest because the game shouldnt be extremely easy to beat. you should have to try at it. i will agree with one thing but you did not bring it up. the only real bad thing about GH3 is the graphics are terrible because the people dont look normal in it. other than that i really like it alot.
Neversoft Ruined Guitar Hero

While Harmonix was not the first group of people to create a music game based on playing guitar, they were one of the best. Guitar Hero One broke a lot of barriers, and at the moment, Guitar Hero 2 is one of the most popular interactive music games in the world today. But, after making GH2 the producers of the game (who also owned the rights to it), RedOctane, was bought by Activision, and Guitar Hero 3 was created by Neversoft. Their have been many problems with the game. A lot of players have criticzed both the learning curve (In career mode, the last tier of songs is significantly tougher than the previous ones), and the note charting, as a lot of the Expert difficulty charts are way off from the actual guitar tabs. The hit window was increased, and a lot of people have criticized that also. I guess what I am trying to say, is that, because Neversoft really had no experience in making music games, they ruined the series for the future.
The Big Bang Theory

"Now what disappoints me is you must be one who just copy and pastes any information you see to try and prove something wrong." In DDO, as long as you cite the information correctly, you can pull stuff from that source. Otherwise, it's plagiarism. I cited the sources, didn't I? You ave nothing to call me out on. "Theoretical extremes happen all the time." name one theoretical extreme that you have heard of. "Check out this article for some simple, straightforward, but comprehensive evidence for the Big Bang, which no alternative has successfully explained." What article? You never cited any article relating to this message. You really goth work on your debating my friend. "It isn"t magic, it isn"t a push, and it isn"t a pile of emptiness." I never said it was magic, or any of those things to be exact, all i did was pull it from the website. No harm done in that, as long as I cited it, which I have. You have so many holes in these last rebuttals. I have rebutted your rebuttals, so my arguments are perfectly valid. Thank You.
The Big Bang Theory

There are many different theories on how everything we know came into existence, but there are two very well known theories the Biblical version and the Big Bang Theory. I believe the Big Bang Theory is the most probable start of all we know today. There are facts after facts that support the Big Bang or suggest towards it. Now some of the most compelling information was founded by Edwin Hubble and the pair of scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. "Edwin Hubble observations that galaxies are speeding away from us in all directions suggest some source of ancient explosive force" which led to the theory of the Big Bang. Now scientist suggested that the rate which we are expanding is slowing down, but when three astronomers, Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess, found that the universe was speeding up as though something were propelling it, driving its expansion faster and faster. Scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson helped us hear the leftovers of the Big Bang. "Bell Labs radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were using a large horn antenna in 1964 and 1965 to map signals from the Milky Way, when they serendipitously discovered the CMB(Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation)." "This unexpected discovery, offering strong evidence that the universe began with the Big Bang, ushered in experimental cosmology." These examples are only 2 among other substantial information which supports the Big Bang Theory. (http://science.nationalgeographic.com...) (http://hubblesite.org...) (http://www.aps.org...)
InfraRedEd Is The Greatest and Most Benevolent Being Who Has Ever Existed.

Arguably definitions of benevolence could vary from plane to plane, but I needn't go there. Suffice it to say that the lesser expression is lesser in part because he is prone to false modesty. Although even if the lesser expression were devoid of benevolence, certainly that would not prevent the greater expression from displaying it, and it does not. Why do you test me so, m'lord? ;)
InfraRedEd Is The Greatest and Most Benevolent Being Who Has Ever Existed.

My thanks to my opponent for his amusing reply. As my opponent has stated, the higher expression of InfraRedEd is not imaginary, at least not for the purposes of this debate. A delusion would not admit such a quality, or the delusion would be dissolved, in which case all existence, for the imaginary plane, would end and the assertion I have made at the start would stand. As for my attempting to conceive of a greater figure, even assuming such an attempt asserted itself as an element upon the plane of existence generated by my delusion, there is nothing to stop me from simply increasing the greatness and benevolence of InfraRedEd in response. Or rather, as I would experience it, there is nothing to stop InfraRedEd from developing such qualities in response. While this may lead to the development of subsequent greater conceptions of InfraRedEd or entities other than InfraRedEd, it would not matter as I have used the word existed, as in the past tense, and at the time I answered the question InfraRedEd was, as the assertion required, the greatest and most benevolent being that ever existed. I never guaranteed that he would continue to be qualified as such. As for what is real or not, well ... the verdict's still out on that. (http://en.wikipedia.org... Try also entering "What is Real?" into Google) Besides, it's irrelevant to this debate. As far as I know, my reality is the only reality and InfraRedEd remains the greatest and most benevolent being who ever existed within it. As for whether or not I am real, I have no way of verifying that. However, if I am not real, what I perceive to be this debate likely is not real, and that would render my opponent unreal and the whole thing moot. So it's kind of a non-point. Unless my opponent means imaginary in the sense that some qualities I ascribe to myself are not consistent with reality, in which case I will concede that as I am delusional, not that it impacts the debate in any way.
InfraRedEd Is The Greatest and Most Benevolent Being Who Has Ever Existed.

The imaginary InfraRedEd is not the same as the real one. For god it may be different depending on whom one asks and when. My Opponent is even now imagining or attempting to imagine or attempting to not imagine a Being even greater than Myself. If He attempts to argue that He is not that just proves that He is. That Being, imaginary or not, also inhabits the Vast Empty Mindscape which My Opponent is attempting to describe. But My Opponent will present an Argument He is attempting to not imagine that Being but He doesn't have to because that Being is not imaginary anyway. It is My Opponent. He is just a figment of his own imagination.
InfraRedEd Is The Greatest and Most Benevolent Being Who Has Ever Existed.

Contrary to my opponent's contention, this debate is about what I believe. I posit my delusional mindscape as an existential plane and Infrareded as an element upon it. My opponent never specified what level of existence we were discussing. In fact, he opened with an admittance that he contended nothing, which offers indisputable proof that he was not limiting this discussion to a consensual view of reality and therefore a shared existence. As a consequence, I am free to debate using the context of my own beliefs. As for my opponent's contention that I am not dutiful in my faith, that is irrelevant to my argument. I may very well just be a very feckless follower of an otherwise excellent being. After all, I have already conceded that I am delusional. Regardless of my level of devotion to Infrareded, I have no doubt of his infinitely benevolent intentions towards me. After all, God loves you even if you don't love him, and so does Infrareded. As for my opponent's contention that I must heed his decrees, this does not necessarily follow. I am a binarian Infrarededite. That means I believe that Infrareded is one being existing in two expressions, the one that everyone can communicate with and the one that only I can recognize. I consider the one that only I can recognize to be a higher expression of Infrareded. He tells me that I am free to ignore the musings of the lesser expression if I so choose. I so choose. In conclusion, Infrareded remains the greatest and most benevolent being who has ever existed.
InfraRedEd Is The Greatest and Most Benevolent Being Who Has Ever Existed.

Good thing this debate is not about what My opponent believes. Now that I have disposed of My opponent's arguments I am free to rant. I am so great I needn't thank my opponent for accepting especially noting My opponent dictates terms to so great a being the lack of burnt offerings Failure to capitalize pronouns referring to Me and conversely not capitalizing those referring to himself and other inferior beings, including "i." Not even kneeling when offering an argument. Yes I can see. OK what about the Golden Rule. We can see that god is not even following his own stupid rule or he would worship us but he doesn't and just goes on with this "vengeance is mine" baloney just like a child. I have spoken to god many times about this. So I can certainly do better than god in those departments and I am still working on My universe-creating skills but hey how could I do worse there either. Oh wait I am arguing the wrong side. I guess I will just have to argue that there is someone greater than Myself although I cannot imagine such a thing. Perhaps it is my esteemed Opponent. I will try to be more respectful in the future. But I teach that all beings are one. My Opponent, one of My most faithful Followers, now knows this, and He cannot continue to believe there even is a greatest of one, whatever He believed in the past.
InfraRedEd Is The Greatest and Most Benevolent Being Who Has Ever Existed.

I accept my opponent's challenge to be his idolater and request only that the following terms be accepted in exchange: Definitions: Existed: to have been or to have existence Ever: period of time occurring throughout the duration of the plane of existence Being: any entity Benevolent: tending towards doing good, seeking not to cause harm; having an abundance of good will Most: possessing the greatest amount of, being foremost Greatest: largest Argument: I have accepted InfraRedEd as my god, and in my delusional mindscape he is an unimaginably large, kindly being that serves as the literal source of all goodness. Within that plane of existence, he is clearly the greatest and most benevolent being who has ever existed.
Paying to be a debate.org member is a fundamentally good idea.

To start off, here is a quote from my opponent. "IF a debater is pressed for time in any given month THEN they can simply make a quick funny ironic or entertaining 1 round debate to keep their membership. While this probably will not help debate. org overly much it will help on the months where said debater does have the time to make a good round, and must do so. " So we want debaters to not really think about their debates, and just type the sky is blue for a speech? We want them to just make a joke round? This will a) create less debates, because people won't want to debate on what 1 plus 1 is, and b) create less education. The purpose of a debate is to educate, and to develop argument skills, and by doing this, you gain neither. 2) This will create less debates too. By doing this, people will think "oh, I can just take a break from debating for a month, and make a sob story of how my internet was gone. " This takes away from everything. And there ARE circumstances where a month isn't enough. What if you're out of the country? Now, to my opponents case. A) Can you explain on this? I still don't get how tracking new members, and knowing whos on when will help so much. It doesn't seem to me like this reasoning will make the site any better. I understand you're point of this, but I still don't completely get the idea. B) If this is true, you're resolution is too vague. If people don't accept the debates, they aren't actually debating! So that means IF This is true(which it can't be) All of you're arguments against my speech aren't true, and don't make sense. The whole argument of getting on, however, is still in play.
Paying to be a debate.org member is a fundamentally good idea.

1. My opponent states that he does not have as much time as myself. He then goes on to state that each debate he does is not 30 minutes. However this is not my fault nor does it have any bearing on the resolution. IF a debater is pressed for time in any given month THEN they can simply make a quick funny ironic or entertaining 1 round debate to keep their membership. While this probably will not help debate.org overly much it will help on the months where said debater does have the time to make a good round, and must do so. 2. In the extreme circumstance that your internet goes down for an entire month, you can't use any of your friends computers, there is no internet cafe in your town, and the public library / school library is not open when you have free time; then I would suggest that when you finally do get your internet back you can send the webmaster an email and he can restore your account. However this is an extreme circumstance, I think given a month, someone can most likely find some way to make at the very least a 1 round debate. and now to defend my case. A. Knowing how many people are actually on this site would aid us in tracking new members relatively easily. It could also be used to watch for trolls and would force trolls to actually make debates. Something, that if not done well, would raise suspicion. Thus it would deter people from having multiple accounts as they would have to put excess effort in to upkeep such accounts. This is a voting issue. Furthermore it would allow all users to see just how many members there are and understand the competition on this website better. It would also allow common users to decide how well this website was doing and if it was on a decline or increase. B. No, there would be more debates. No where in my resolution do I mandate that people must accept the debates, if a debater makes a debate and no one accepts it then that is fine. This would not put unneeded pressure on debaters who did not want to take multiple debates. It would simply increase the number of debates in the challenge period, giving debaters who wanted more opportunities to debate, their desires. My last sentence was stating that debaters who no longer actively use this website but still want their accounts to remain in case they ever decide to come back (like solo) would have to create a debate once per month. Which would add to the overall debates.
Paying to be a debate.org member is a fundamentally good idea.

I'll answer the arguments in the order my opponent did(Mine then ours) 1) So that's YOUR schedule. Lets just talk about mine, for instance, also. So I wake up at 6:30, school starts at 7:30(I'm in high school) And usually, I don't get home until about 6, because of Band, Jazz Band, Broadcasting, Debate, and other activities. I usually then get home, and do homework, which takes around an hour. After that, I'll watch TV for a bit, and possibly some studying. Time is NOT something I have a lot of, and especially with exams coming up, I have less of it. Also, its not 30 minutes a month for every debate. Many debates(my other debate I'm doing right now) requires research. That research can take between half an hour, and an hour. I'm barely able to do this debate right now! Infact, I had to forefit a round on the online debate toruney because of school! Time isn't everyone's friend. 2) I'm not sure where any internet cafe's are in my area, I'm not sure if there are any. And what if you don't have a laptop? Many of my friends don't have internet either, and a few don't even have computers. And the library, well, with a schedule like mine, the library is about closed by the time I'm done with other things. So no time to write a good speech. Also, how can you send the webmaster an EMAIL if you don't have INTERNET? Now, on to my opponents case. A. Why is it necessary to know how many people use this site? Would that solve any problems to say that 150 people use debate.org? Why can't we just look at the online now list? I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think its anything worth noting, and isn't significant enough to be a voting issue. B. Actually, their would be LESS debates. Less people=more debates forced on one person=time screw=my first argument. This would create problems, to FORCE people to do a debate each month. I personally don't do one every month, does that mean I should lose my rights to this site, because I have homework? And can you explain your last sentence? I'm not quite sure on what you're saying. Thanks, and good luck for the last speech!
Paying to be a debate.org member is a fundamentally good idea.

I haven't had to debate solvency in quite some time, thank you. My opponent has exactly two comments that I am going to attack, the first one is as follows, "Doing this would be a huge time screw. Many people have jobs, school, and other business, so they aren't able to do this. For example, a student may find this a problem, because he will spend a month studying for AP exams." >>Really? I work about 50 hours a week, I do some parkour on the side, I enjoy reading anything from Fantasy to Philosophy, occasionally go to the gym, attempt to go for a run when my ankles aren't devastated, and spend time with my friends + girlfriend. And yet after all of that I believe I can still amount 30 minutes once every month to do something that does not include my daily routine of activities. Let us take this debate as an example. It took me perhaps 4 minutes to initiate the debate, and it'll possibly take me 10 minutes to write my response this round, and depending on the length perhaps 15 minutes for the final round. This means I am taking close to 30 minutes out of a month. However I didn't even need to make this a three round debate. I could have in all reality made it a simple 2 round debate or even a 1 round monologue with a thought provoking idea. Quote #2: "This might also be a problem for someone if their internet is down for a month or so. It wouldn't be fair to them to have this rule, if they can't even get on the website." >>Entertainingly enough I had no power supply to my computer for about 10 days during the current tournament. I was effectively forced to find alternatives. Which were rather simple to find. 1. The public library is a very great source. 2. Internet Cafe pretty good also. 3. Friends houses. And honestly, if your internet was down then yeah, sure, just send the webmaster an email if none of these alternatives are viable. =========== Which brings me to my advantages of this case. A. We would actually know how many people use this website. Instead of showing 3800 or so current members most of which only logged on once or twice we would have an actual reading on just how many debaters there are. B. There would be more debates. There are debaters on this site that almost exclusively take the contender in debates without ever initiating. Thus this would add a few more debates into the challenge period each month. Also this would keep good debaters such as Solo active once per month so that there accounts didn't get deleted.
Paying to be a debate.org member is a fundamentally good idea.

First of all, the wording of your resolution is kind of weird. You stated that "Paying to be a debate. org member is good" and yet, you're saying its not actually paying. I believe your wording should be "Debate. org members should have a 1 debate minimum per month," Now on to the topic. Doing this would be a huge time screw. Many people have jobs, school, and other business, so they aren't able to do this. For example, a student may find this a problem, because he will spend a month studying for AP exams. This might also be a problem for someone if their internet is down for a month or so. It wouldn't be fair to them to have this rule, if they can't even get on the website.
Schools should have snacks often rather than one lunch.

Haha yeah, my PE teacher said the same sort of things back when I was in high school. Always question everything. Don't take what your health teacher says to you as fact. There's a saying that goes, "people who can't do, teach; people who can't teach, teach phys. ed." The best suggestion I could give you is to always have a big breakfast if you feel hungry in the morning, and pack a big lunch. Foods with high protein actually extend how long you feel "full", so you don't get urges to eat again. Also, often your brain can mix up feeling thirsty with being hungry; try drinking lots of fluids, preferably water, during and in between classes. You might just be thirsty, and not hungry. Hope that helps!
Schools should have snacks often rather than one lunch.

Scientific studies have been inconclusive in determining whether multiple, small meals are healthier than fewer, large meals: http://examine.com... http://www.slideshare.net... Additional sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...