BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Roblox is better than Minecraft

1. Roblox actually doesn't let you scale models. Only bricks. You can't scale up small models. Each piece has to be made by itself and attached to other pieces. The pictures I presented before don't look good because they are big, but because they are detailed. In fact, each of those places have amazing small pieces of detail that come together to create a big detailed structure. A lot of games on Roblox have great detail, and good gameplay that come together to make an entertaining game. Blender is hard to use and you have to get used to it, and Garry's Mod only comes with preset items. What does this have to do with Roblox, which lets you create anything you want, easily?2. What psychological battle is this? (http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net...) You're playing for free and nothing is required to play. You said that kids are impulsive buyers, but their parents obviously aren't. Parents won't just do the same thing. Even if they would pay for what their child wants, of course they would look over it first. You say that kids just buy whatever they want with their parent's money? The parent knows what they are buying and approves it first. Cannot have more than one place? That's fine, with the new games feature you can have more than one game inside your place, allowing you to have completely different games inside one place slot. 5 groups is enough, I play free and I have no problem with 5 groups, groups do not do much. The only items you can create with BC are shirts and pants, T-Shirts are free to create for people who don't have BC. People who don't play can afford buying a shirt or pants if they play Roblox enough, and getting place visits will get you tix, which can be converted to Robux and lets you buy things. 3. Textures have a few problems. One, they are reduced to a lower resolution. Two, they are changed in size. That's why some people prefer Roblox-made textures, which go on infinitely, and are always HD, unless you change your resolution.the updates that add new ones make the game more realistic with HD textures. "Minecraft can have near unlimited maps" Roblox has an unlimited space to build in. Minecraft's near unlimited maps are not made then and there, they are generated when someone walks through. You can never know what will be in your map unless you have a seed.If we're still going with your lego/duplo analogy, here.http://blog.roblox.com...http://blog.roblox.com...
Roblox is better than Minecraft

1. I'd like to point out that easier does not mean better. I get that not every game has to be Dark Souls, but challenge is not a detriment to the quality of a game. Sure, you can make an intricate object in Roblox, but you may as well use Blender or Garry's Mod, which offer way more tools in terms of building. Minecraft constructions have value because you can't just make a small model and expand it; the work is more detailed as it is near hand-crafted. Bigger constructions mean little in Roblox because you can easily scale up instead of build up. 2. Roblox is a free to play and while it wears the label of free, it limits you by withholding content behind paywalls. True, you can ignore them, but they never go away. You aren't given a choice here; you have to fight a psychological battle when you play free to play. You may not mind the advertising, but it's a game targeting children, who are compulsive buyers and usually have some degree of influence over their parents' wallets. It's manipulative to target the most impressionable and vulnerable as your source of wealth in my opinion, especially when it means exposing them to ads which may even contain malware. Refusing to pay for this free game means you cannot have more than one place, more than five groups, item creation and accessories, all of which increase in price over time. 3. Having done a tidbit of research and digging while in a hospital bed, it seems these updates aren't the most popular additions to the game. If textures really can be custom made, what's the point of updates adding new ones? How come no one modded in part removal and left it to the devs? Keep in mind Minecraft can have near unlimited maps, 35km to the Far Lands on pc. Research of this topic for me went from; this is a mediocre Gmod/Duplo game to; this is a work of manipulative psychology that sees children as a yet to be exploited resource for their parent's money. Welp. Duncan.
Roblox is better than Minecraft

My points then; 1; A sense of exploration. Minecraft worlds are generated and random, as well as near infinite on pc. Adventure can be encouraged through survival mode, building through creativity, or new inventive modes made by players. Each world an be made to feel custom and personalised from exploration, rather than a flatgrass building area. 2; Aesthetic. Minecraft accepts that it has little in terms of resolution, instead focusing on better looking designs. The important thing to remember is that aesthetics are not the same as graphics. CoD may have better graphics than Mario games, but which look better? The simplistic designs allow identification of each block and animal, all while granting the game the same charm that Lego holds. Roblox has a cheap, plastic and overall tacky appearance which fits into the Lego comparison by being Duplo. Each model looks like clip art rendered in 3d. Taking a look at the creations made by both and comparing, I came the the realisation. Roblox is Blender for kids. Blender is free 3d modelling software which you can design stuff in. Hell, a decent modder can make a weapon via blender and then put in a game, bringing me nicely to; 3; Customisation. PC gamers especially can enjoy the freedom of not only being able to design their own textures, but even own mods for their game. There are mods, challenge runs, competitions and exotic features that come from allowing the player to treat their copy of the game as alterable. Roblox is a free to play, always online game that requires a steady connection to play, and since it is never in ownership of the player, modding is out of the question, which also leads to; 4; Free to Play The notion of a free to play began as the idea that players would be able to decide the worth of a game while playing it for free, but it quickly devolved into a psychological battle between the devs and the players, locking content behind pay walls. It's not just an annoying detail; there's a degree of moral conflict in the way the game is designed to tempt you into premium content. The fact that Roblox is marketed towards children makes it worse. Minecraft asks for 1 payment up front. The console versions can't allow designed skins due to restrictions by Sony and Microsoft, but Mojang frequently makes new texture and skin packs around a theme along with a map designed on that world (Mass Effect, Skyrim, Halo etc.). The console versions make up for this by adding in local co-op, a feature Roblox lacks. See you next round, Duncan.
Roblox is better than Minecraft

Starting my arguments then.1. Roblox has better and easier ways to buildRoblox lets you build virtually anything. You can make your blocks virtually any shape you want with solid modelling, and resize them to any size you want. You can put them inside other blocks using CFraming, and uses the lua programming code to script things easily. You can use the terrain system to make tons of blocks with virtually no lag. However, Minecraft's system for building is pretty limited. You can only use preset blocks to builld your structures, and you cannot make your own. Most of Minecraft's blocks are cubes, and you are very limited to how big or small you can make them. It also takes a lot of time to build structures in Minecraft, however Roblox lets you copy and paste things with ease. Roblox uses HD textures and textures you can make yourself to let you make your bricks look like whatever you want.2. Roblox is completely free, and you can make money off itIt is completely free to make an account in Roblox, and every day you play you earn tix, which can be used to buy outfits and other things. You get one place slot to make your own place, and it's membership is completely optional. If you have a really popular place, you can turn the tix you earn from it into robux, and exchange the robux for real money, after getting the membership. You can get up to $20,000 per month.3. Roblox releases updates quicklyMinecraft's updates take lots of time, and usually release new blocks, items, and mobs, things like that. However Roblox's updates take only 1-2 weeks, and add new concepts that are benificial to your building, such as the most recent one solid modelling, which lets you create virtually any block you want. This new concept also lets you remove lag from your games by getting rid of dozens of parts. Roblox also releases new textures, which can be combined with colours to create up to 1216,000 different blocks. Well those are my arguments Con, you're up.
Gay Marriage

Insignificant, this is debate.org, not flattery.org, if said Hindu had legitimate cause, I would say ok and rethink my life. If said Hindu does not, like you are not now, I would say no it isn't and continue on with my life. Whether this offends someone or not, is not my concern, I provided evidence as to how Hinduism can be attributed to immoral things such as the cast system. For simply stating that it is a bad religion, that I will apologize for as it deluded my argument. But the truth is, Hinduism is not a very good religion to base your morality off of.
Gay Marriage

"Dude, studies show that gay parents can be as good parents." And I suppose you can provide a citation. "And if you are talking about the Hindus, you are a racist selfish bigot and should never come to this site again." I am sorry, but you are flamming here, it just so happens to be that Hinduism is where the "Aryan race" bull carp started, this is why the Nazis chose the swastika, a Hindu symbol. Oh yeah, and Hinduism is a religion, not a race, so you calling me a racist, now we know you are full of it. "Also, if you do not see gay marriage as marriage, OK. Let it not be marriage in your mind. If you see a homosexual wedding, you don't have to think of it as marriage." I'm sorry to tell you this, but there is a clear line between opinion, and fact, and there is a right and a wrong, regardless of what the supreme court says, oh yeah, fun fact, the supreme court decided that taking narcotics is a right protected under the constitution, in Dred Scott they also decided that owning slaves was a right protected under the constitution. Hinduism, is a bad religion "People require dignity, ideas do not require dignity"
Gay Marriage

Dude, studies show that gay parents can be as good parents. And if your talking about the Hindu's, your a racist selfish bigot and should never come to this website again. Also, if gay marriage isn't marriage, OK. Let it not be marriage in your mind. If you see a homosexual wedding, you don't have to think of it as marriage. Bigot. Also, honestly, you are only going by your religion and disrespecting another religion, Hindu, and should get your head out of your butt. I'm sorry to be mean, but that one guy was right. Insulting instead of debating. Classic.
Gay Marriage

So, homosexuality is not natural, you can't say that because some penguins supposedly did stuff that it is natural. The truth is is that there is no genetic link to homosexuality, we know that it is developed over time, and that it causes mental instability. It is not natural, I would also like to state that the Hindu religion consists of the cast system, and it was where all this "the Aryan race" business came from. I think it is quite ridiculous to justify something because of what the Hindus believe, not to mention the fact that they are not as good parents. A natural mother, or natural father, naturally have oxytocin directed toward their children, gay people have none because it is not their child. Gay marriage is not marriage at all, it is a little different in the way that it is perverse. We all know what happened to Victor Frankenstein when HE violated natural law don't you?
Gay Marriage

Yes, I'm doing another debate. Our gun debates went terrible so...eh, well. I'm a Democrat, you're a Republican, let's see how this go's. Anyway, you see, I think gay marriage should be legal. The bible is a terrible excuse because in the Hindu religion, it describes homosexuality as fine, and nothing to worry about. So if a Christian says, "Well the Bible said-," I don't want to hear it. That could be considered insulting a Hindu. And you can't say, "It's against nature," because if it is, than how come in Antarctica, so many penguins have turned out to be gay, and basically that's happened a lot in nature in general. Also, love is huge part of life, and not being able to celebrate that love just because you love the same sex, (Remember, usually in gay sex the other person also want's to have sex. Gay rape is another issue, and you can't use molesting a child because that child will eventually get scared, and beastiality....the animal never said yes.) you shouldn't have the love of being married taken away, just because of different attractions, and some weird Christians forcing everybody to go by what they believe.
Playing Goalkeeper in Soccer is more difficult and high-pressured than that of an NFL Quarterback

Ever heard the saying, "Defense wins championships,"? Well it does. Quarterbacks only impact the game on one side of the ball, whereas goalkeepers are the last line of defence, and first line of offence. One-on-one opportunity. Keeper with the save. They immediatly look to start a counter attack the other way. As soon as the offence fails to convert on a first down, or turns the ball over, the quarterback comes off of the field and hopes the defence stops the opposing team. In soccer, the goalkeeper can make or break the game. The only reason the USA had a chance to beat Belgium was Tim Howard. Being a goalkeeper is also more physically demanding than a quarterback. Sure, quarterbacks can take huge hits, but goalkeepers are diving into the direct line of fire. They take kicks to pretty much anywhere, just look at Petr Cech. He comes out to get the ball in a one-on-one opportunity, and his skull gets fractured. FInal round is for any closing arguments.
Playing Goalkeeper in Soccer is more difficult and high-pressured than that of an NFL Quarterback

I would like to thank Pro for the clarification before I state my points and rebuttals. I have several counterclaims. It is far more difficult, as well as requires more skill, to play Quarterback than Goal Keeper. The quarterback has more of an impact in the game of football than the goal keeper has in the game of soccer. I'll introduce my second point first, I ran out of characters before when I was explaining the difference in skill between the two positions. Alright, CC #2 - QB has a more direct impact on a game than GK. The goal of any sport is to win, how do you win? By accumulating points. I argue that a QB has more value in a game because it's mainly thanks to the QB that offenses in football score points (touchdowns) and thus win games. Unlike QBs, however, Gks do nothing for most of the game as Pro stated. They are only valuable when defending against goals. Defenders have the same role as GKs making the position of Gk somewhat obsolete. I don't have any more characters for rebuttals.
Playing Goalkeeper in Soccer is more difficult and high-pressured than that of an NFL Quarterback

I was saying in general which is more difficult in general, but that is a good point, so we will roll with both. Argument 1: Goalkeepers are held more responsible for losing than any other person on the team, excluding a few cases where a defender puts the winner in the wrong goal. As a quarterback, if you complete 19 of 20 passes, that is a very good percentage. Most people assume that the quarterback is very skilled. Which he can be. But if a goalkeeper stops all the shots but one, he/she will most likely be blamed for the loss (excluding Tim Howard). As a goalkeeper myself, I feel the pressure of keeping my team in the game, and it's hard to do. Argument 2: Goalkeepers must be ready to make a play in a moment's notice. Quarterbacks drive their team down the field in successive plays, whereas a goalkeeper can go 85 minutes without touching the ball and then come up with a big save. Again, if that one shot scores, the goalkeeper will be blamed for not making the save. Good Luck Con
Playing Goalkeeper in Soccer is more difficult and high-pressured than that of an NFL Quarterback

I accept. However, I'm a bit dazzled by Pro's claim. Does Pro mean being a goal keeper in the game of soccer is more rigourous and exhausting than that of an NFL quarterback or that the position of goal keeper is more important in the game of soccer relative to the position a quarterback plays in a football game? I'm assuning the latter, and unless Pro clarifies himself, I will be assuming that this debate is about Which position, between Goal Keeper and Quarterback, plays a more significant role in securing victory for the team.
The Census is one of the more totalitarian aspects of the government

First off, my opponent argued that the census releasing data so that people could be interned could "never be done again" However, in the years 2002 and 2003,information that is discriminating and was from the census was released. "The tabulations were produced in August 2002 and December 2003 in response to requests from what is now the Customs and Border Protection division of the Department of Homeland Security. One set listed cities with more than 1,000 Arab-Americans. The second, far more detailed, provided ZIP-code-level breakdowns of Arab-American populations, sorted by country of origin. The categories provided were Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese, Moroccan, Palestinian, Syrian and two general categories, "Arab/Arabic" and "Other Arab." source: http://www.nytimes.com.... While this was not used to round people up, it could be used hypothetically to do so. Now to debate your other arguments. The constitution:"Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." Nowhere in this text does it say that they will take down the names, addresses, races, or any other information about these people. And the fact that it does, that there is a fine for refusing to give the information that is not needed to determine the number of congressmen elected, the mere fact that the government has this information, and the fact that they could use it against you, THAT is totalitarianism. And now for the fine issue. You argued that the fine is only $100. A while ago, you would have been correct. However, Congress recently changed that source: http://www.lewrockwell.com... You argue that the census is used for good things. I completely agree. However, I believe that this is panem et cirtcuses, or bread and circuses. That means that they are just putting on those programs to have us continue filling out the census. In other words, all of the programs, except the head count for congressmen, is just used as a distraction. An excuse. The census has gone FAR away from what it was originally supposed to do. My genocide reference was an inference. If there is a mass racial roundup, there is going to be at least a few forms of torture and abuse, no? I thank you for debating. Remember to vote Pro! Thank you!
The Census is one of the more totalitarian aspects of the government

Thanks Pro for this opportunity to have this debate. The Japanese Internment It is correct that thousands of Japanese were rounded up and placed in internment camps. It is also correct that the US census helped identify these citizens. This internment happened 68 years ago and could never be done again today without complete public outrage so it is not really a problem. When you think of this horrible act, do you see the totalitarianism in the fact that the US government collects census data on its citizens every ten years because it is mandated by the constitution to do so, so that it can better provide services to its citizens with this information, and redistrict political boundaries more easily for different House seats? On the contrary, I see the totalitarianism in the act of rounding up citizens and putting them into camps. This is a case of mis-placed blame. The government collecting data on our nation is a tool that can be used for more effective governing or to abuse its citizens. The real totalitarianism only occurs when the government abuses this information to do harm. The collection of data is itself not totalitarian. It is like calling ovens too much of a danger for a home because people sometimes leave them on far too long and get their houses burned down. The census has many uses. It is used to apportion seats in the House of Representatives, define legislature districts, school districts, efficiently provide services to the elderly, efficiently build new roads, place job training centers, distribute federal funds for Tribes, Social Security, Medicare, public Health, education, transportation, and much more. It also allows us to see the state of our nation and improve upon it. Ensuring that our government runs efficiently requires that it have the proper information for it to do so. Proper information can be used to help our nation or to hurt it. It is only a tool. Recall that my opponent claims that the Census is one of the more totalitarian aspects of our government. Our government has security cameras everywhere tracking people's movements, can arrest US citizens and detain them indefinitely without trial thanks to the Patriot Act, monitor our emails and phone calls, collect detailed financial information about most Americans and Businesses and ruin them if they fail to give them a large percent of their earnings, force someone to join the military if there is a draft, force people to purchase health care, and much more. I really don't see how these census questionnaires even compare to any of these acts that I have listed. The Census non-compliance Fine Actually the census non-compliance fine is only $100 [1]. Doesn't sound very totalitarian to me. "This is an example of racial discrimination and genocide," There was no genocide going on in the internment camps. If you do not agree, then show us a source. 1: http://geography.about.com...