BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rayman Origins is better than all platformers (and games) besides Gateways.

I wasn't saying that just because it's newer, it's automatically better (duh!). Please read over my argument again. You will than take into account just how wrong you were in round three. I am DEFINITELY not saying that you need 100 people to make an outstanding game. Even my favorite game, Gateways, was made by mostly ONE PERSON. You obviously couldn't understand what I was trying to say in my previous argument. Plus, the Rayman Origins original dev team wasn't even CLOSE to 100 people. It was six. Sure they shifted to 100+ people, but all the original gameplay and concepts were created by those 6 people. HA! Proved you wrong! The 100+ people were mostly programmers (and a lot of artists, too), and they didn't concieve of the game (except for the original 6 people). I will now continue to rebuttal until you are speechless and forfeit. OK, here I go. 1) Rayman Origins has lots of things special to Rayman Origins and Rayman Origins only... like the ENEMIES! I have kept telling you over and over but you just don't get it. The enemies are MUCH more creative than the puzzles and story in Braid. For instance, in Braid, it's the story of putting your self back together. While that is unique and special, it is not NEARLY as unique as Rayman Origins as a whole. Plus, just because Braid has a more sophisticated story doesn't mean it is better (obviously). And if you even think that the sophisticated story brings it to a higher level or whatever, than just forfeit! I mean, I know I am getting a little too frustrated with your arguments, but why in your mind would you think that games are automatically more unique than mainstream games. Um... I am astounded by this. Some indie devs just try to rack up cash because of other popular indie devs like Team Meat or Derek Yu. Like for instance, take Seaside Racing for example. It SUCKS. Crappy controls, ripping off Mario Kart, crappy design, crappy EVERYTHING. And it's an indie game. I win. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. 2) The mood is just right in Rayman Origins too. Plus, I never said the overworld was better for Rayman Origins than for Super Metroid, person who hasn't read my previous argument carefully. I said that the levels and stages were better than Super Metroid's overworld. Not the world map/overworld. The LEVELS. Also, I think that after my round 4 argument, YOU are going down. Unless they just automatically like Braid or Metroid or Fez better than Rayman Origins, and don't even look at the debate, of course. Sorry for my temper getting the better of me though. Also, readers, look at the comments. Some essential info is down there, posted by me.
Rayman Origins is better than all platformers (and games) besides Gateways.

First, I have to say one thing: even though Rayman Origins is newer, it doesn't mean that the time it was made in was better than platformers. About Metroid, Castlevania and Super Metroid, they were made in a better age: some would say it was the golden age of platforming, the time when Mario and Sonic ruled the industry. This brings me to another point. Nowadays, platforming rules the indie scene. These are the micro-developers that show big companies(like Ubisoft Montpellier) that you don't need 100 people to make a platformer with outstanding design, visuals, and controls. An example is a completely unique game in every aspect. No matter how you look at it, it is completely unique. And it's not just the above categories it excels in. It has something very personal, something special to Braid and Braid only. Not only that, but the story is completely different than anything I have ever seen in a game. Compare it to Rayman Origins, which has sort of a basic plot of defeating the bad guys, or wiping them out and sending them back to their realm or whatever. On the other hand, Braid's story is not only different, but also great. It's a love story, but not in the sense of kissy kissy or Mario save the Princess. I interpreted it as Tim (as the main character is called) kind of trying to find something that he's lost, and the puzzles represent trying to put them back together again. You see, there's a huge difference between mainstream and indie. Indies are more personal, more unique, and a lot of times, more true to their original vision. Also the puzzles are phenomenal in Braid. I think Braid has more to it than any Rayman game ever will. About Super Metroid having worse boss battles: you obviously haven't played them. The cinematics are purrrfect; they have design to give a standing ovation to Nintendo for making, AND! the mood is just right. And about better sprites for Origins than Super Metroid: another thing you obviously haven't seen. I shall go into detail: the pixels are perfectly in place, the sprites are HUGE; it's just phenomenal. Also, you said Rayman Origins was a more detailed game and game world. Um... I am astounded by this. You obviously have no idea what you're doing, as you are just spewing out nonsense to try to win. The environment, the music, the world - much more detailed! You my sir, are going DOWN!!!!!! Everyone in their right mind will agree with me in this, round 3!
Army War: Pre-gunpowder

Most of it is a continuation from what was wanted to say last round until the character limit ran out. Now lets examine the missile power of each side and there resistance thereof. Now I will be the first to admit that my opponent has more ranged capabilities than my army however my opponent has almost no anti-missile resistance. Only one squad within my opponents army possess any type of shield which is the primary anti arrow weapon of the day. As soon as my bows were in range they would be able to decimate my opponent. His Teutonic knights are much to slow and as was proved at the battle of Agincourt it doesn't matter how heavily armored you are if you are being shot at with arrows for long enough you will perish. Now his Mongol warriors are only very lightly armored being primarily weighed down with weapons. They have no real protection and would be reduced to something resembling this in a matter of minutes. . http://macombhistory.us... Now his Samurai are moderately well armored and can make reasonably good speed, but the Japanese armor to which he refers has many wholes between the pieces and no major leg protection so although they would probably fare better than the Mongols or Teutons they would still be severely reduced in numbers and capabilities. Finally the Roman Legionaries. These forces are the possibly the most anti missle troops in reasonable history as they can employ a formation known as Tustedo formation where they form a "tortise" which is virtually immune to archer fire . http://www.militaryfactory.com... so the only unit that would not sustain significant causalities is my opponents Roman Legionaries. Now let us examine my troops. First my Spartan Hoplites, now Spartan Hoplites were often equipped with large shields and the incredible level of discipline and training would be very capable of using a formation similar to that of the Tustedo formation of the Romans. A foulkon which is where all soldiers would create a impenetrable shield wall that would be almost impossible for arrows to pierce. So my Spartans are near immune to ranged fire. Next my Celtic Warriors. Now the shields of the Celts are of a large size and the entire body can hide behind one. In addition the arrows can't penetrate it because it is made of wood so most will get stuck in it. Thus the Celts would sustain very light causalities from ranged weapons. Finally my Assyrians. These would be my forces most vulnerable to ranged fire as they lack incredible shield size or strong shields they may sustain moderate casualties. So in conclusion in terms of ranged powers. My opponent has only one unit that has more than half its strength still intact and only one other unit that still is in even moderate fighting condition I on the other hand have 2/3rds of my force still at almost complete strength and the other only having sustained light casualties. In summary I have proved in this debate that my forces have completely destroyed my opponents forces and is superior in Range and Melee engagements. My opponent must prove not only that my forces could not beat his but that his forces could beat mine in order to win this debate.
Army War: Pre-gunpowder

My opponent forfeited his turn and I am not quite sure how to respond to that. In the rules for this debate, we are each supposed to present our arguments in Round 3. Because my opponent has presented no argument, he has given up the opportunity to argue that his army will beat mine. By giving up this opportunity, he has, at least in effect, admitted that there is no argument that supports his claim that his army will beat mine. As such, I see no reason for me to present arguments of my own, in part because the burden of proof is on my opponent first. I wait for the next round to see how my opponent decides to continue this debate.
Army War: Pre-gunpowder

It should be a lot of fun! Commander: Genghis Khan 1162 AD-1227 AD Mongolian He founded the Mongol Empire by uniting nomadic tribes of northeast Asia, and then started the Mongol invasions of Kara-Khitan Khanate, Caucasus, Khwarezmid Empire, Western Xia and Jin dynasties. His military tactics and organization are often regarded as the first "modern" system, and it is with such great tactics that Genghis Khan made the Mongol Empire the largest contiguous empire in history. In less than 25 years, he conquered more land and people than the Romans had in 400 years. First two captains: Hannibal Barca 248 BC - 182 BC Hannibal Barca is the most famous of the three Carthaginian military leaders known as Hannibal. Hannibal Barca famously led his forces -- including elephants -- across the Alps and into Rome, where he terrorized Roman forces during the Second Punic War. Hannibal led his forces in a daring overland campaign in 218 B. C. , rather than challenge Roman forces on the Mediterranean. By 211 B. C. he had marched on Rome and had early success, but ultimately found it difficult to maintain control and was forced to withdraw and negotiate peace. The historian Theodore Ayrault Dodge nicknamed Hannibal the "father of strategy" for his habit of outwitting and outflanking the more powerful Romans, and because the Romans eventually adopted many of his tactics. Maximus Decimus Meridius Maximus is a fictional character in the film Gladiator. He is the General of the Roman army, and is about to be given reigning authority over Rome when, in a palace coup, he is ordered to be executed. He amazingly escapes execution, but is then sold into slavery and becomes a gladiator. Maximus overcomes overwhelming odds by organizing the slaves/gladiators into brilliant tactical formations to win game after game. He wins multiple gladiator games that are staged to make him lose, demonstrating his remarkable understanding of battle and ability to react quickly to situations.
Education of a girl is a burden? NO

If all women get educated, then all the problems like female infanticide, dowry, female suicides, domestic battering, malnutrition of women, child marriage and other related atrocities would get vanished from our country. Education provides on essential qualification to fulfill certain economic, political and cultural functions and improves women’s socio-economic status. At every age and level, education enhances the intellectual, social and emotional development of women, and enables them to meet their basic needs of daily life. It brings reduction in inequalities in the society.
Education of a girl is a burden? NO

1 Timothy 2:11 - 2:14 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. women are not only a burden to educate but are a burden in every way i wish i hadn't ripped out adam's rib
Education of a girl is a burden? NO

Who Says Education of a Girl Child is a Burden , Women carry an Average of 53% of total burden of Work in Developing countries . Among the 1.3 Billion people living in poverty , Women consist of 70% . Educating them would not only solve the Gender Based Problems but would Also Give Women an Equal chance to represent them . Educating a Man Is Educating an Individual , But Educating a Women is Educating an Entire Generation - Brigham Young .
The Gold Standard

Thanks you PRO for your response. RC1: Gold despite its famous stable nature is still a product If anybody had taken economics they would know the price of anything is dependent on the supply and demand. Changes in supply and changes in demand both affect the price of a product. Thus PROs rebuttal about how the market doesn't affect the price of gold doesn't work in the economic models. With no demand in gold there will be no gold mined. The reality is the component of aggregate demand known as government spending and investments are what are controlling the price of gold, as in PRO's example of China buying gold argument of the potential of gold. When the demand of gold drops, government will buy more gold to keep the prices stable. However government couldn't be doing this in the long term because of the change in market structure due to technology. Back then the prices for gold are inelastic and thus government doesn't need to interfere with the market. RC2: The gold standard isn't a international standard and can be controlled I will provide an analogy for how international trade would affect the gold standard. As of the Kenya and China's example, if the gold standard was standardized, a countries would buy lots of gold from countries where it is in excess and sell the gold to where it is sparse, making money. Soon the countries with sparse gold will have more gold and the gold value will decrease there making the value of money, standardized with the gold standard will decrease, causing deflation in the that country. A country without the gold standard will have more gold and inflation will increase because luxury products are brought in. RC3: Hyperinflation is not a likely problem for developed countries PROs comment is true, deflation and inflation are unavoidable, but the deflation and inflation would make a better economic model if the relationship was related to the overall capital and GDP or growth rather than the price of a certain commodity, such as gold. It is true to an extend that returning to the gold standard will prevent hyperinflation, but it doesn't prevent long-term depression, a more likely problem for developed countries.
The Gold Standard

Thank you for such a quick reply! RC1: Not everyone in the world trades gold in this way One of the best things that the gold standard does for America is that it gives us a solid currency that other countries can trade with. Some of the countries that we would be trading with do not have gold sold in the public as commonly as we do in America. In fact, only in richer countries such as America do we buy and sell gold among the public as if it's nothing. But most of this is irrelevant because the price of gold is not based on how much is being sold in the public. What changes the price of gold is at what rate it can be mined out of the ground. If gold is becoming rare in a certain year, the price of gold will change. The amount of gold that is in the market will change all the time but it will never be as severe as the production of gold. Therefore, technology could not change the value of gold to a severe extent because it does not affect it's production or how other countries use it. RC2: This is true but even without the gold standard this happens This contention does not pertain to the gold standard specifically as this can happen when the gold standard is not active. As of now your example could take place with America and Kenya: A man buys a product from America with his own currency. He takes his product back to Kenya where it has a lower demand. Another man from China buys the Kenya mans product and because it has high demand in China, the Chinese man walks away with a better deal. This type of thing is unavoidable as world economies trade with each other and do not have the same resources available. It has no relation to the gold standard. RC3: Deflation and Inflation are unavoidable to some extent in any economy As the value of gold fluctuates, deflation and inflation will fluctuate. However in any economy deflation and inflation are unavoidable. Right now America is printing more money. This money is not based on a any foundation so it is subject to hyper-inflation if it is severe enough. Once hyper-inflation happens there will be no economy for us to and other countries to trade with. We would have to build back up on a new currency because the dollar would be so expendable it would be worth nothing. Now let me ask you this, would it be better to risk this happening or return to the gold standard where there could be possible deflation. Note that this deflation would not be severe enough to destroy our economy, it would only postpone the growth for a certain time. All economies go through this and the gold standard would not change that. The only change the gold standard makes is it stops the possibility of hyper-inflation. As this is the final round, no new arguments can be made. Please read both sides thoroughly before voting and I encourage you to do an honest job! Thank you con for the great debate.
The Gold Standard

C1: Technology changes the value for gold Some problems with todays world is that technology is taking over jewelry. If you haven't realized fewer and fewer people are buying jewelry for their loved ones and the market for a lot of jewelry is changing. If a modern person were to buy a gift for his loved one? What will he buy? Probably an iPhone or computer. Now what is the jewelry industry mainly composed of? Gold. Hundreds of years ago people didn't have this problem. Gold was the the definition of luxury and people would be happy to buy gold wristwatches. In 1980, the inflation adjusted price of gold was $2,337, much higher than than today's price of $1,672 per ounce (Dec. 19, 2012) [1]. Technology has changed that, just like the industrial revolution changed the value for aluminium. If you didn't know aluminium was more expensive than gold at that time. C2: Difficulties with trade A lot of currencies in the past are based on materials, such as the bronze and silver Chinese coins back in the days. Why did they change to paper money? Because of trade. As you can see if nations trade with each other using the gold standard. There is much less to negotiate and prices for some certain products are standardized when the value of produce changes depending on certain factors. To put this in simple terms: A man in Kenya buys a certain product from america using gold standardized currency. Gold has low value in Kenya as there is lower demand for luxury goods, resulting in Kenya gaining more. The same man from a country with a high demand for luxury buys the same product and loses the trade. C3: Difficulties with economic growth Under a gold standard, economic growth can outpace the growth in currency since more money cannot be created and circulated until more gold is first obtained. This would be the cause of deflation and economic contraction as seen in the middle of the 20th century. Furthermore advances in technology and the rapid population is rapidly increasing. Returning to an ancient standard does not seem feasible at all. [2] [1] Inflation Data, "Inflation Adjusted Annual Average Gold Prices," inflationdata.com, Sep. 15, 2011 [2] Robert McTeer, "A Brief History of the Gold Standard," www.ncpa.org, June 16, 2011
The Gold Standard

C1: Inflation is rare Something can only be valuable when it is somewhat rare. If a certain currency has been printed to an extent where there is too much in the economy, it loses it's value. The reason for this is because it has lost a portion of it's rarity making it less valuable. Gold has a value that does fluctuate, but it has maintained worth to some degree ever since it has been valued. If currencies were backed by the gold standard, a currency could not lose value. The only way value would change is if the value of gold changes. My source will prove that gold has only gone up in prices overtime and they have not been drastic enough for the economy to recover from any change. C2: Emerging economic powers are seeing the potential of gold. We all know that China is emerging as a huge economic power. They have been hugely successful in recent years as far as net worth goes. China has recently been buying gold in an attempt to make their currency hold more definite value than the dollar. China knows that the dollar; the most important currency in the world, will eventually lose value. They know this because we are not backed by gold. If the dollar falls and the U. S. does not have the gold to rely on, China will become the number 1 economy in the world because they have a solid currency that other countries can trade with. C3: The gold standard failed during WW1 and we now know how to avoid this. The gold standard failed during WW1 because the U. S. was forced to spend an incredible amount of money in very little time. We now know that because money cannot be excessively printed, if we are forced to spend more than we have we could either go into large debt or bankruptcy. This problem can be avoided by having a large enough gold reserve set aside for the sole purpose of an emergency. As ISIS gets more powerful, the U. S. could be forced to spend money in a small amount of time to address them. If we returned to the gold standard, we would set gold aside to address this problem. Conclusion: Gold holds enough value to support an economy As the U. S. prints money, we will see a decrease in the value of the dollar. If gold is used as the basis for the worth of the dollar, the dollar cannot lose that value. The only way the dollar will change in value is if gold changes. As my source proves, gold has not recently changed to a large enough degree to hurt our economy drastically. Yes if it decreases it will hurt the economy, but it will not hurt it to the point of no recovery. In fact, the recovery from gold changing would hurt a lot less than the road of inflation that we are currently on. . http://www.econlib.org... . http://www.thisismoney.co.uk... . http://goldinvestingnews.com...
The Gold Standard

Please take note of the rules as breaking them will cause you to lose points at the end of the debate. 1. No new arguments in the last round 2. Cite every source 3. No trolling 4. No logical fallacies In this debate my position is that all currency should be supported by gold. I hope to have a formal debate with my opponent. If you do not feel you can give adequate arguments relating to the topic please do not accept. Leave questions in the comments.