BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Valve is the best games developer

Okay, I was kind of enjoying this debate until my opponent decided to be an insensitive, anti-Semitic a-hole, by using one of the biggest tragedies in human history as an analogy in a debate about video games. Not only is this morally reprehensible, it's also childish. Save it for 4chan buddy. Reason 1 to vote the affirmative down: See above. And now I'm going to move on to reason number 2. This entire debate has been a waste of time. The resolution is worded in such a fashion that the Aff can't win. In order to decide if something is the best, you have to have a unanimous decision. Two people saying something is the best is not reliable. Many people think that Valve is ONE OF THE BEST, myself included, but not all gamers. You must take into account all the people that prefer console gaming, and all the people that don't hardcore game at all, and instead just play Angry Birds on their iPhone. They don't think Valve is the best. A lot of them probably don't even know what Valve is. So because there are people who think the negatory, this means a unanimous decision is impossible. Thus, Valve is not, nor ever will be, the best developer. So, this means that the ONLY POSSIBLE DECISION IS TO VOTE NEG. Namely because I've proven that Valve is not the best games developer. I'm the only side that has fulfilled their BoP, thus you must vote for me. Reason number 2 to vote down Aff: He can't win. Plain and simple. He says I dug a hole for myself by picking Ubisoft. I say he dug a hole for himself the second he wrote the resolution. I understand a lot of Valve fans are going to vote aff, and provide some BS reason for doing so, but for the more logical minded folks out there who are following this debate, I urge you to carefully think about what I've said here. For once you do, the decision will become clear. Thank you. Vote Neg.
Valve is the best games developer

The point of this debate, was for Con to bring to the table a single developer, which could show Valve is not the best. I have given my points, yet you have taken every oppurtunity to NOT make your own relevant ones or completely ignore the point. To ultimately win over the last votes, I believe it is simply necessary to give a reason why he is wrong. Saying that someone is the best is not down to opinion. Valve have successfully made several games which are superior in the ways stated above. Con's choice to leave them out of his argument, implies he does not wish to bring them up, and as such I can assume that he agrees that the games are superior in that manner. They do have amazing, deeply developed storylines when Valve chooses. In Watch Dogs, the game with what I would call the best story of all games published by Ubisoft, you have 11 frames of daughter, which I cannot remember, as a motive to hunt down the man who ordered the hit. It strays away too much. In Half Life, you are in a life or death situation. You are being hunted by the military for your involvment in an enormous accident, and you must fight your way out. It develops as you go (I won't give spoilers) and feels immersive. In Watch Dogs, the story does not provoke emotions, nor does it flow smoothly, or get adrenaline running. Then, he brings up opinion in multiplayer being good. It is the general opinion that it is boring. Evidence? The waiting times for small lobbies. He also brought up the problem of graphics being bad because it was ported to consoles. Counter Strike was ported to consoles, but it still had a beautiful version. So why would any other game be excused? Not primarily a PC developer? Put more effort into the console version. Watch Dogs bottlenecked the PS4? Their fault they chose the wrong market. The BoP I feel has been lying on top of Con like a corpse on a bed of nails. It won't move and he can't move it. I have provided both opinion and fact, mostly the latter. It is not my fault if Con completely missed the point of the argument. I admitted Bethesda was better at storylines, but they aren't better at everything. A single developer, where both common opinion and fact state that it is better in most or all ways was asked for. They brought to the table a less than satisfactory argument, as thus dug a hole pretty deep. They failed to provide sufficient fact over opinion, digging further. Then, they wasted a turn by attempting to divert the floor's opinion without an argument, lying down, getting shot and being left among his other Jewish friends and family. Sorry for the holocaust analogy, but I think it proved my point rather well. I urge the floor strongly to vote for Pro, especially those who got annoyed about missing appostophes. Thank you and good night.
Valve is the best games developer

Ok, i'm gonna switch gears because I've finally realized what's really going on. This debate is entirely opinionated. Ultimately, there is no way to prove that either Valve or Ubisoft are better than one another, because nobody has exactly the same opinions as one another. For instance, I play on both console and pc, and I was still not amazed by portals graphics either way. Some people think they're awe inspiring, but arguing opinions is pointless, so instead I'm going to prove why my opponent can't possibly win. It's my opponents OPINION that Valve is the best game developer. I don't think that Ubisoft is the best, but I think they're pretty good. I've enjoyed the games they've made, so I consider them one of the best, much like my opponent. I think the same of Valve. However, if I had to pick the "best," I would choose Bethesda. However, my opponents BOP is to prove that Valve is the BEST, which is inherently impossible, because there are always going to be people whose opinion it is that Valve is just decent, or perhaps bad. Me for example. Because my opponent can't fulfill his burden of proof, this debate is impossible for him to win. Keep in mind, that I don't have to prove that any developer is the best, just that Valve is not. Which I have because there are people whose opinion is that Valve is decent or bad but not the best. Vote Neg.
Valve is the best games developer

First of all, I would like to point out that Ubisoft did NOT develop the far cry series, Assassin's Creed, splinter cell black list or indeed any of the Rayman games. I stated that Con was to use a single developer, and he chose Ubisoft. Ubisoft Monpellier developed Rayman, or at least the latest one, Tom clancy's Splinter Cell Blacklist was developed by 3 separate devs, none of which were 'Ubisoft', and Far Cry and Assassin's Creed were Ubisoft Montreal. From saying that you said 'Graphics wise they are just decent', I can assume you are a console player. Good graphics aren't defined by the blooms and reflections. The source engine has the most advanced lightning I have seen, and the textures and among the most highly detailed. Even today, Half-Life 2 has aged well enough to rival call of duty and other releases of today (I admit call of duty isn't hard to beat, but HL2 is 10 years old). Then, he claimed that the Assassin's Creed 3 mp was fun. I know many people who have played the AC games from launch. They all agree it is less fun, as, on PC at least, it didn't add anything graphically and they had removed the only game mode any of them ever enjoyed, from Brotherhood. Finally you say LoL is superior to DoTA. DoTA started the genre, and is completely original. Even I admit DoTA is more balanced, fun, good looking and amusing than LoL and I hate MOBAs. If you disagree then it is clearly down to a personal opinion. Knowing how popular COD instalments are, you can't bring in the argument of popularity. Watch Dogs is the only game developed by Ubisoft I have played, but not the only one PUBLISHED by Ubisoft I have played.
Valve is the best games developer

First of all, you're assuming that Valve and Bethesda are top of the line in storytelling. You're forgetting about Bioware. Not to mention Valve is weak when it comes to storytelling. Only the Half Life games, and the Portal games actually have a story. The rest just have a setting but not a narrative. There's a difference. All the important Ubisoft games have a narrative. Graphics wise they're just decent. Half Life graphics are terrible by today's standards. Graphics in the other games are ok on console, and pretty good on pc. Dota isn't very good if you're comparing it to LOL, and that's not just me talking. I haven't played CS:GO. To be fair, videogames are a moneymaking industry, so at some point, you have to favor making money over pleasing ALL of your fans, which is near impossible. Ubisoft releases it's games on consoles and pc's. Because of this, they have to change their engines regularly to accommodate the constantly changing specs. Now onto attacks made on me. First of all, my opponent only talks about games on Steam, but fails to consider console gamers. Far Cry 3 is hugely popular, and so was Splinter Cell Blacklist. And Watch Dogs is hugely popular. Don't forget about the Rayman games that came out. My opponent is being a bit close minded. The multiplayer is quite fun, especially in Assassin's Creed 3, and Splinter Cell Blacklist. I haven't played Watch Dogs, but I get the feeling that my opponent is referencing Watch Dogs because that's the only one he's actually played. Whereas I've played two so I know what I'm talking about. Arguing graphics is weak because their games are also ported to consoles which naturally look worse than pc. Then my opponent brings up the games Valve has versus the ones Ubisoft has, but it doesn't account for all the games so it's pointless. That's it.
Valve is the best games developer

Pros of Valve as a developer: Story lines in valve's games are second only to those featured in Bethesda games The graphics are far in advance of many developers for their time, and their cinematics are unrivaled full stop. Valve have perfected balanced competitive games, i.e. DoTA 2 and CS:GO Valve don't release games to pump money in, they release games which will please their fan base. Portal 2 was 4 years after Portal 1, and they had added and changed the perfect amount to make a sequel. Valve have spent time perfecting their source engine, and it now makes games much smoother, better looking and more accessible than Ubisoft's games. Endless replayability- the online modes on Ubisoft's titles do not justify hundreds of hours for gamers. Counter Strike (and sequels), Team Fortress/ 2 and DoTA/2 all can have 100s of hours from the average gamer Price- 2 of Valve's 3 biggest titles are free to play, with added costs only being cosmetic, and the other is £12 but has been available for £3. Cons of Ubisoft as a developer: Apart from dated titles, such as the single Prince of Persia developed by Ubisoft and Splinter Cell, the only popular game is £40 on steam (cheapest first hand). It has not seen a decent sale and does not justify the price. Weak multiplayer- feeble and repetetive gameplay does not make for a good multiplayer system, which is where Watch Dogs fell down. No more than 60 hours can be squeazed without getting very bored. There is no incentive to replay games to do things you missed, because the insane amount is accessible at all times. Games aren't released when they are promised, or even finished. Watch Dogs had unfinished settings hidden inside config files, because they wanted to get the money before pleasing customers Graphics are gritty usually, without the innovation of Valve's games they bring nothing new to the table and look mediocre unless pre-rendered. Story lines are not immersive and don't feel fun after a while. Gameplay is where they try to succeed and it is a niche market they successfully breach. Valve's games available on PC. Only games developed by Valve count. http://store.steampowered.com... Ubisoft's games available on PC. Only games developed strictly by Ubisoft count. http://store.steampowered.com... Surprised you chose Ubisoft over Ubisoft Montreal, but you chose it and it is up to you to stop digging the hole you jumped in the moment you accepted the debate.
Valve is the best games developer

In my opinion, valve is the best video games developer. Con must choose a single developer which they believe does most things or even all things better.Round 1. Acceptance and stating developerRound 2. Listing pros of your dev and cons of the opp's devRound 3. Rebuttal Round 4. Further rebuttal, either against points forgotten or left out by text capacity, or against Round 3.
Creationism is more Logical than the Theory of Evolution

I will be arguing that Creationism makes more sense and is backed by more evidence than the Theory of Evolution. Creationism: the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. Evolution: the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form. I will be arguing for the existence of a creator, and more specifically the Judeo-Christian God. I will also argue that life was made by the Creator and not through evolution. Con will argue for proof of evolution, and the origins of life without a creator.
3D Printing will change the world

In your argument you stated that acquiring 3d printers is cheap which it is but the problem is that the us of 3D printers can be pricey. After viewing a graph on the link posted below it has come to my attention that using 3d printers can be pricier than injection molding for anyone who plans on mass producing a product(which most industrial companies do). For this reason i cannot see companies switching to 3d printers since it is less profitable than more traditional manufacturing techniques. Another reason why i cannot see companies switching over to 3d printers is that it can require up to 100 times as much energy as other methods. In this day and age in which saving energy is a key priority it would not be the dream of any manufacturer to shove these energy leeches in their where ever they would use them. Source(s) http://www.shapeways.com...
3D Printing will change the world

3D printing is a new technology with plenty different methods and materials. It is not fully developed and has already been used by many industries, replacing manufacturing techniques. That is the result of huge flexibility it offers, combining with geometrical complexity. And we should not forget the low cost of acquiring 3D printer compared with other machines. Also, research and development is promising and supported by huge economies. It is almost sure that when it is fully developed, will replace a big part of manufacturing techniques in industry.
Abortion

the bit about sperm and an unfertilized egg.. wrong. they are not changing and developing the chancing and developing does not happen until the egg is fertilized, ones and egg is fertilized life has begun in a separate human being. also alot of women do not use HEALTH reasons for abortion, alot of times they do it simply to not have to take responsibility for their actions which if your actions result in a pregnancy you should have to follow through with it. do not punish a separate life for something that was your fault not theirs. to put into A religious sense, which explains my moral belief only god has the right to take a life that he created within a woman no one else not even her. just like we would get punished for ending our own lives or someone elses, Life does not begin at birth but at conception. and don't mention the separation of church and state as there is no law of separation between church and state and Morality should play a roll in law. you say a pregnancy is a punishment for having sex I don't I say its a known expectation of unprotected sex besides disease. Life is Life it does not matter when it begins thank you
Abortion

for one for something to develop and change it has to be Living, Brain function doesn't matter. also when I said convenience I didn't mean if it would kill the I just mean that if they say* oh I'm just not ready for the baby I wanna have a party life first* bit thats just irresponsible to do that. and condoms are not that expensive so the idea of people not having access to contraceptives is BS. unless they are homeless. I say if you don't want a baby, don't have sex without a condom, and if you can't get condoms, don't have sex unless you are ready to risk becoming pregnant and thus giving a child the right to live. the fetus is still developing, and as stated before, growth, development, these all require one simple thing, LIFE. and if it is alive and has HUMAN DNA and is developing which requires life, it is Human. to have an abortion for selfish irresponsible reasons such as wanting a party life first should be wrong, there should be a Health Reason first, not just cause you don't want a baby. if you become pregnant due to irresponsible actions such as Unprotected sex, you should have to take responsibility for your actions( that doesn't include killing an innocent life) as abortions are just punishing another life for your irresponsible actions, if you know you don't want a baby use protection
Abortion

as long as conception has begun it has become a HUMAN, also I'm sayin abortion shouldn't be used simply as a form of birth control, it is wrong and can have dangerous effects. abortions should ONLY be used in a matter of safety if neither the mother or child would survive the birth. it should never be used as a form of revenge against the man who got the woman pregnant. as long as it has Human DNA, Has been conceived and is in any form of development it is human and subject to protection. having an abortion is no different than taking a child you already have and snapping its neck. but anyway as I said it should never be used simply because a child is unwanted. I think anyone who has an abortion should never be allowed to have any children whatsoever especially if they use the abortion simply for Convenience
Abortion

Murder does not only mean if the HUMAN has Personhood it means the killing of a Human not just a Human Person, this said abortion is the Premeditated killing of an innocent. once a woman willingly has unprotected sex, they have given the right to the child that may be created because of that choice. also if you are raped its called go to the hospital that night, get the morning after pill and don't wait for weeks up on weeks, and you should have to PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that you were raped not just say you were raped. anyway That being said blaming the innocent for your mistake in not being protected is cruel and should be banned, also Husbands or whoever the father is of the baby( unless it rape of course) should have a say in it too and if they both don't agree it should not be able to be done as the baby does not only belong to the mother just cause its in her, the father of it is part of it too
Abortion

We've also been through this. Nobody is 'punishing' foetuses for anything. That they typically do not end up surviving the abortion of a pregnancy is irrelevant. you say ending a life isn't a punishment, Purposley ending a life is a punishment to the life you are ending. if you end the life of a fetus then you are punishing that fetus and that fetus is a human fetus which the main word is Human not Fetus . to prove that god exists all you have to do is look around, all of creation cannot exist without a creator. you don't have to be able to think to be alive, there are species all over the world that can't think cause they don't have a brain but they are alive, all a fetus has to do is be HUMAN for murder to take place, it is alive or it could not Grow and develop and a Human fetus is still a human it doesn't change to a human just because it leaves the womb
Gun rights

I'm sorry I forgot to cite my sources, but since I'm "new" to this debate thing, I'm not very used to it. However these are the sources I used in round 2:http://listverse.com...http://www.balancedpolitics.org...-http://www.economist.com...http://www.motherjones.com...A principal would most likely not have not be able to defeat the shooter and most likely kill himself and cause others to be injured. Only 1.6 percent of mass shootings end in a successful intervention by a bystander and only 0.5% of Americans successfully defend themselves from gun violence each year. Statistically speaking, there is a 98.4-99.5 percent chance that he would get killed or worse, injured and brain dead. The argument that more guns= less violence is false, the 5 most dangerous states in America have less gun control than states that have more gun control. While citizens should be able to have guns they NEED to be controlled. The Unites States murder rate and crime rate have been decreasing because of factors, unrelated to gun rights. There are two articles here about it:http://usnews.nbcnews.com...http://www.bbc.co.uk...States have also been enforcing more gun control and crime is dropping. A ban on semi-automatic and auto-matic guns in from 1994-2004 helped curb crime and murder in the U.S. until it expired in 2004. The ban on semi-automatic weapons is proof that gun control actually works and crime is easily controlled by gun control. IT's okay for citizens to have guns, but they need to be controlled. With power comes responsiblity, that means background checks and banning dangerous military weapons like semi-automatic weapons so that is doesn't fall into the wrong hands. More guns actually mean more murders and crime according to a study done by Micheal Siegel in Boston College the more guns people have the more crime that they will commit. "With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: "for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership," Siegel et al. found, "firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9R43; percent. A onestandard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent."This also happened to bethe largest gun study EVER DONE. http://thinkprogress.org...More guns= less crime argument makes no sense. Worse is the fact that the U.S. has the higher homicide rates and higesr gun ownership.
Gun rights

I'm so sorry con but your whole argument in round 2 is false as per you failed to cite any sources.My good friend a teacher would never have a gun on school grounds in the first place- this is only a privilege for principals. Teachers guns would be easily obtainable by children causing a risk. According to http://www.ijreview.com...:USA is 24th in murder rate of countries so we need to arm our citizens. Also John Lott, Jr. and Bill Landes say “States that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns enjoy a 60 percent decrease in multiple-victim public shootings and a 78 percent decrease in victims per attack.” USA's Murder rate has decreased over %65 since 1973 in stride with many state's gaining gun rights.John Lott, Jr. Co-author with Bill Landes of “More Guns, Less Crime. says: “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.” (Kates & Mauser, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 2)There is a direct relationship that the more citizens have guns, the less the murder rate.Let's save our children and generation and give the the people of this world guns to protect themselves!