BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Paintball Vs Airsoft Part 2

I am operating under the assumption for this debate: 1-acceptance 2-build your case 3-rebuttals 4-reconstruction 5-closing arguments (no new material may be presented). In looking for 'Tippman Carbine' on the web, I found lots of used guns, qualified with the tag 'Tippman Pro-Lite", in 80+ dollar range. In searching for a specific gun by the name of Tippman Carbine, going to their home site, the cheapest out of the box gun I could find was a MilSim marker, no tank, no rounds, 80 dollars. Counter to that, I went searching at my preferred site, airsoftextreme, and checked the low price for a generic M4 carbine. The JG M4 is highly upgradeable 'clone', meaning its internal parts are widely available. It comes with 200 BBs, magazine, and battery. The airsoft L96 sniper rifle (bolt action), is 80 dollars, mag included, BBs included, by AGM. While not a superior quality gun, it too has parts widely available. More to the point of price, through Amazon, I found the following ammo deals for paintballs: 500 for 15$, 1000 for give or take 28. Again, airsoft extreme: biodegradable standard rounds (.25 gram) 4000 rounds. .. for 15 dollars. Going up the chain in quality and weight, Javelin has .43 gram rounds, 2000 count for 21 dollars. I would like to call to attention something my opposition said: 'there is also customizations for the players, but many just choose not too'. This is VERY true. The choice not to gain various customizations is because they aren't needed. Beyond gun grip, the role and ammo is the same: put rounds down range as fast as possible when needed. Airsoft is much more nuanced. A sniper or designated marksmen has no need for fully automatic guns, instead he will be relying on barrel ability, scopes, and varying weight of ammunition to strike their targets with precision rather than probability, this effective distance carries out easily to 300 meters with reliable punch and accuracy. Even in close quarters battles, the same variety of gun can be cut down quickly, new optics added, lighter weight ammo added to the mags, and the gun now serves a much different purpose. Further more, close quarters shot guns exist for airsoft, capable of putting an actual BB pattern, rather than 1 BB into a target area. A word on cleanup: odds are if you are playing in a location in which paint can be willy-nilly be applied at high velocity to people and things, BB's being scattered about are the least of the player's concerns. Admittedly, when a bag of BBs breaks in my car, its a royal hassle, but I don't need soap and water to right the wrong. For the upcoming round, I will seek to demonstrate more exact price, including admission costs for high and low end players, better qualify the need for gear and roles, as well as promo some of the more interesting aspects of airsoft, and lay to rest what further hurdles might come ahead.
Paintball Vs Airsoft Part 2

The thing that overall stuck out in your arguement was the price of starting. My first paintball gun was a Tippman Carbine, it cost 50 bucks. Granted, now the gun i own is significantly more expensive, but, paintball is my source of living so thats expected. So, you do not have to have a 2 thousand dollar gun to compete, you can use a 50 or a 100 or a 500 hundred dollar gun and do the same damage. If you look at all the beginner custimization stuff for paintball it actually equals less than that of airsoft. Now, another thing ive noticed is that many many airsofters say "airsoft guns match a person paintball guns dont" but, every gun is different for every person, some people prefer woodsball over speed, and many other variations. There is also custimizations for the players but many just choose not to. Also, there is objective paintball aka woodsball, which varies game modes, has medics, has special weapons or many different game types, i myself just stick to speed because thats what im trained in. Now yes, airsoft is alot less dangerous than paintball and thus many people prefer to get shot over a high speed plastic projectile than a high speed quarter sized ball filled with sticky crap. But in my opinion, that just makes the game more exciting. It doesnt hurt to bad either, just leaves a minor bruise. Lastly, Clean up. yes, you have to wipe off paint to avoid confusion after a match, BUT, its the equivalent of picking up tiny little BBs after a airsoft game. Can you please pick an area we can focus on debating per round so that we dont spread out the rounds?s
Paintball Vs Airsoft Part 2

When it comes to airsoft v paintball, there really is only one clear option. Speaking from a customization, price, and role stand point, paintball simply does no offer the same versatility that can be found at any airsoft field. Because of the varying aspects of play style, airsoft guns (which look every part of the role needed of them) can be easily tooled to better match a player's innate desires and abilities. Further more, the starting 'introduction' cost is MUCH easier on the hobbyist, as well as continued upkeep for gear and ammo.Starting from the basics, a 'good' reliable out of the box airsoft carbine can run a few hundred dollars, with high end out of the box machines (like a KWA or Tokyo Marui) hitting maybe 4 hundred, depending on the variety of battery pack purchased with the rifle. Like paintball, airsoft gun manufacturers range in quality and price point, as well as 'upgrade-ability'. This factor, it should be noted, is key to how a player can proceed in the experience. An airsoft gun is highly customizable for utility and role in-field. For a minimum outlay of cash, even starting players can have a versatile, modular weapon to execute and comply with field rules and roles. Appropriate gear while in field is just as varying, as it helps other players to identify a play style. Bolt action snipers, box fed magazines with high rate of fire outputs, designated marksmen rifles, even grenade and RPG launcher troopers can be assigned a mission or patrol based on what they bring to the table for the team. Its more than just slinging plastic or paint now, its a concerted effort of many troopers to make for a cohesive and diverse force. For an even more immersive play set, medic bags, satchel charges, and prop bombs all bring an element to the game that is more than just simple capture the flag, or speed ball.Cost wise, airsoft is CLEARLY superior, on going. Gaskets and batteries and BBs are all incredibly affordable, with a few thousand rounds of quality ammo only costing 20 bucks. Wear and tear on guns for forming air seals are easy and affordable to replace, and don't require extensive knowledge to fix common problems. Safety, I think, airsoft still has an edge. Between the two projectiles, a BB from an airsoft gun on the high end weighs less than a gram. Paintballs, in addition to having more mass, do not always break as intended, and I have never heard of airsoft players freezing BBs... it would do no good. Because the rounds are less invasive, they don't require as much to shield vital areas against. Even common shooting glasses can provide enough protection in a simple low player skirmish, though different facemasks and goggles are available for more intense engagements. Lastly, the self evident: clean up. Minus a few stray BBs in a pocket or lodged some place odd, after a game of airsoft, the player is ready to go out again, there is no wiping down of anything.
Paintball Vs Airsoft Part 2

As a PSP member, and respected paintballer, I believe that Paintball is superior to Airsoft in not only gear (guns, ammunition, protection) but, also a superior community and demands more physical play. Now, there is different types of paintball and I am going to use speedball, since thats what i am experienced in. For those of you that don't know Speedball consists of 1 to 5 players per team whose objective is to tactically take out the opponents for points and capture a flag. Speedball requires not only sprinting to cover, long periods of sitting in physically demanding positions, or extremely fast reflexives, but also requires a strong knit tactical team, strong communication, knowledge of the field, knowledge of ones weapons and surroundings, and overall a knowledge of the game. Other than the literal game itself, the gear required to play speedball is, yes, over priced, but if you're invested in the game such as i am, its a small price to pay for the love of the game. Most players have electric run guns, varying from Tippmans to Luxes, and thus the price ranges too. Most of the top of the line guns vary from 1k to 2k, BUT a top of the line gun such as a luxe or a geo is a luxury and is not a must. using a small tippman can be just affective. An electric hopper, is a must, a mask is a must and experienced players prefer 4 to 6 pods and a belt to hold them (for extra ammo). With all this said, I believe that Paintball is more demanding than Airsoft
Resolved: In a nuclear war, a shield is better than a helmet. :P

Thanks vmpire for accepting :P I almost forgot about this debate…with all that wonderful AP testing tomorrow…whoopsies...creative thinking is always great…I apologize for the brevity of this, but, not failing the AP exam tomorrow is more important. Even with that aside…why did I make this 8,000 characters… Now onto arguments. Of course I shall be demonstrating the superiority of a helmet over a shield during a nuclear war. The year is 2050, a nuclear holocaust has just began, you have the choice between one of two defensive weaponry, a shield or a helmet. So why choose a helmet over the shield? 1. When one is to fall asleep, they still can have the helmet on, not so with the shield. 2. A helmet can constantly protect your head from falling debris 3. If you ever need to knock down a door to find shelter, the helmet allows you to use your head as a battering ram 4. You can take your helmet off and use it to store drinking water 5. It is a good holder of supplies (when off your head) 6. Your arm will not get tired from wearing a helmet as such you can use your fists to fight 7. If someone punches you in the face, they will be punching a sheet of metal 8. A shield can only protect your front, where your facing, a helmet protects your entire head 9. Falling rocks? No problem, your head is safe. 10. Very good as a disguise, no one can see your face, and you can sneak through the world. As an added benefit, if anyone asks you to take off your helmet for whatever reason, and they look mean, you can just say your head is stuck :P 11. It's easier to get a shield stuck between two objects then a helmet 12. If your head gets stuck in a helmet, you can always just open the visor to eat, if your arm gets stuck in the shield….you only have one arm to use now. 13. It's easier for a person to pull off your shield than your helmet, thus leaving you defenseless. 14. You can use your helmet to head but people 15. All in all, a helmet just looks cooler :P HELMET'S ARE BETTER!!!
Gay marriage

Denying people gay marriage rights is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the United States, guaranteeing people the freedom of religion, press, speech, and assembly. It would also decrease the number of kids in children's homes, because that's how gay couples must have children. Marriage is about uniting two people that love each other, and nothing else should matter. Allowing gay marriage will only strenghten the idea of marriage. http://www.angelfire.com... Sorry about the length, but yeah I just wanted to get to the point.
Resolved: Affirmative Action is Reverse Discrimination

Indeed, I care not for trifling wins, but for rightness, righteousness, correcting societal wrongs, etc. And you may indeed accept my concession, Mr. Grizzly, but it comes with a depreciation of your character in my regard. For shame--and you were doing so well!Scrounging racists, eh? No, we can't give the blacks the leg-up they so desperately need! I want that!
Resolved: Affirmative Action is Reverse Discrimination

Interesting. Rarely have I seen someone start out their counter-argument by conceding the point of the debate, ie: 'Resolved: Affirmative Action is Reverse Discrimination,' and basically admitting that I was right, by saying [and I quote here]: 'I will not be arguing, then, that Affirmative Action is not discrimination--for indeed it is.......'In fact, so rare is it, that I am temporarily at a loss for words how to respond. The other thing which makes response difficult, is that the rest of my esteemed opponent's arguments appears to be 'stream of consciousness' which goes on for several paragraphs, wherein I'm not actually sure exactly what he is trying to say, other than things like: "African American people are at a disadvantage, it's as simple as that. If they don't get a chance to get in the game,--and let's not pretend they wont be discriminated against in trying to get into the game--then they don't have any chance."So..........from all this, I surmise that 1) he concedes my point, but, 2) he still believes that AA is necessary to rectify past wrongs against Blacks. So, he is basically admitting that I am right (see original quote above) but stating that he is still against Affirmative Action. If that is the case, then, I accept your concession but respect your opinion.
Resolved: Affirmative Action is Reverse Discrimination

Affirmative Action is a form of reverse racism because: it imposes a race-based evaluation system for admission to colleges and other programs, which favors non-whites and minorities and is, hence a form of racial discrimination against Caucasians. In other words, merely being Caucasian can cause you to be rejected for admission to a college and that is same as the earlier forms of racial discrimination against Blacks and Jews that we deplored in the past, only in reverse. All forms of racial discrimination should be wrong. Furthermore: "The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in the 1996 Hopwood v. Texas case that race could not be a factor in admission decisions. The defendant, the state of Texas, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, but the appeal was refused. Similarly, in the 2001 Johnson v. University of Georgia case, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that the university's admission policy, which used race as a factor in admission decisions, violated the Equal Protection Clause. " Source: http://www.ncsl.org...
Did the Russians hack the dnc emails and if they did should they be punished

first of all there isn"t really a lot of evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC. Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, has stated repeatedly that Wikileaks did not receive the emails from Russia. Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and also close associate to Julian Assange said that these emails weren"t hacked at all but were leaks. If the Russians did hack the DNC should they be punished? Of course not. Most people don"t see the point. they ignore the corruption Wikileaks revealed and blame Russia for hacking the emails even though they probably didn"t have much to do with it. Even if the Russians did hack the DNC all they did was reveal the corruption and dishonesty. We should be more concerned with the corruption in the DNC than trying to figure out whether or not the Russians actually hacked the DNC"s emails. The Russians didn"t hack the DNC, and even if they did, they definitely shouldn"t get punished.
People Treat Debates Like Robotic Systems Rather Than Human Experiences In Questioning

There you go again proving that you're a complete idiot. Nobody - nobody loses this many debates. Actually, no. People call me rude, but I can prove that they are just soft cowards and the term "idiot" is nothing like the term "retard". Go ahead and go through every response I've made on this site - not once did I use "retard", why? I am not "rude". I am a genius. The amusing thing is, is means nothing to me, but everyone else get so worked up over it? Why? Because they doubt themselves. Machine-like thinking is the product of regression. Humans start out with emotion, heart and mind, but if that is taken away, they become machine only. It's not a claim - it's how the world works. You think everything is fine, while every single country in the history of mankind has fallen to very thing you practice and encourage with what exactly? Nothing. You have nothing. You are just too stupid to understand that you have no say in something you do not even understand in the first place. You cannot even recognize the damage it causes to everything. And lastly, wise men treat us the way they do because they do not want to see us go through their pain, as do I - I'm just more wicked than they are because I was raised by my subconscious throughout my childhood; forced to face my fears throughout the subconsciously projected monsters and environments filled with the smell of blood and darkness. If this machine-shape debate is justified by how many agree, then you're just proving my point. Wise men don't need an army to get their points across - those who do are the cowards who have lost already, but refuse to face bit, so they rationalize and reassure themselves by getting other idiots to agree.
People Treat Debates Like Robotic Systems Rather Than Human Experiences In Questioning

I would like to point one thing out while my opponent countinues to tout weightless claims (much like a politician). Aerogant has lost an excessive number of debates. He has continued, time and time again, to be scolded for being rude to debaters. He has been voted down for misconduct in debates. All the while, stating that everyone around him is not understanding enough, or too stupid to comprehend his pure genius. Now, he must consider this, is he the only human being alive who is right? Why is it that this systematic flow of debates is so incorrect? Are we all just too stupid to understand that debating is an internal, spiritual experience that should be cherished through deep discussion? Or is it that this one man, dislikes our way of doing things so he insists it is wrong, while his only support for that claimis that we're simply not ready to understand why. Personally, I think our way of doing things is fine. Enjoyable even. Seeing Aerogant will inevitably lose this debate for misconduct, I assume everyone agrees. So, this systematic "robotic" way of debating is correct, because everyone who participates in it agrees it is. Aerogant's ideals are irrelevant to that truism.
People Treat Debates Like Robotic Systems Rather Than Human Experiences In Questioning

You can't call it a claim, when the entire society we live in reflects on the damages of machine-like living. Secondly, machine-like living is tied to damaged childhoods. Third, you can see that deep inside machine-liker livers, there is a very hurt child by the way they react to feelings and emotions. Therefore machine-like living is a weakness and a disease to the human brain which should be based on heart and mind, not machine. You just don't understand because you're an idiot. Grow up, kid. Stop ruining everyone's discussions with your tiny knowledge pocket.
People Treat Debates Like Robotic Systems Rather Than Human Experiences In Questioning

When you debate like a machine, you prove to everyone that you have lost your enthusiasm you had as a child. This enthusiasm is what many geniuses have called the "the genesis of genius". "Enthusiasm" is another word for "passion". Wise men do not speak like machines - they speak like beating hearts containing vials of the Universe. As well as demonstrating that you have no heart and mind, as to be a machine is to remove humanity and practice psychopathy. The machine turns the human mind into a business; an industry that feeds without satiation.
I will not contradict myself.

Pro has adequately answered questions 5, 7 and 10. P=NP Problem The P=NP problem asks this: if the answer to a problem can be VERIFIED in polynomial time (as opposed to exponential time), can the answer also be DEDUCED in polynomial time? This is a rather famous unproven conjecture. But by asserting that yes, if the answer can be verified (by me) in polynomial time, it can also be deduced (by Pro) in polynomial time, Pro has assumed that he has a proof that P=NP. Yet he stated that he does not have any such proof. Contradiction. <<<"However, it is not logically impossible to create a being more powerful than oneself." Not when "oneself" happens to have infinite power. At that point, it is logically impossible to create a being with higher than the highest infinite power.>>> Not true. One infinity can be greater than another, as proven by Georg Cantor. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_diagonal_argument Also, there is no highest infinity: a higher infinity can always be found. ======== Contradiction Three: #17 ("Russell's Paradox" http://en.wikipedia.org...) If this set contains itself, then it is not a set that is not a member of itself, and it should not contain itself. If the set does contain itself, it follows that it does not contain itself, which contradicts Pro's claim; and yet it directly follows from Pro's claim. Pro has contradicted himself. Contradiction Four: #1 and #18 ("Riemann Hypothesis" http://en.wikipedia.org...) The distribution of the primes is directly linked to the Riemann Hypothesis, possibly the most famous unproven conjecture. If the primes are distributed randomly, it is because the Riemann Hypothesis is true; if they are not distributed randomly, it is because the Riemann Hypothesis is false. Pro seems to know that the Riemann Hypothesis is false, which contradicts #1. Contradiction Five: #6 and #14 Pro stated that "[p]eople should have their entire lives regulated by government" and he also stated that "[the government should be allowed to keep track of citizens' personal lives] [t]o an extent." This is a clear contradiction. Contradiction Six: #15 The Bible offers two alternate creation stories. They cannot both be true, but Pro has claimed that they are. ======== 21. Is your answer to #7 correct? 22. Is your answer to #10 correct? 23. Are the widely accepted laws of physics pretty much accurate? 24. Is it possible that some choice of four integers greater than two, let's call them a, b, c and n, make this equation work? a^n + b^n = c^n 25. Can every even integer greater than 2 be written as a sum of two prime numbers? 26. Are you going to fail to answer this question with a positive statement (yes, definitely, of course, etc.)? 27. Is your answer to #2 necessarily correct? 28. Can God design an ideal voting system? 29. Do you agree with Richard Dawkins on anything? 30. Is war sometimes justified?