BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
there are so many things wrong with roblox

My argument is not invalid, Roblox and Minecraft both have faults, more Minecraft. You can't just go proposing that Minecraft is better, which it is not. Minecraft has Online daters if you look, Minecraft has hackers, such as glitching, and glitching is a from of hacking as well. Minecraft also has noobs too. Minecraft does not offer wide range of things to do besides build with blocks. Roblox offers many more than minecraft. More things may cost more for BC, but you can do many more things for just 5 Dollars, 3.40 Pounds. I'll give an example. Minecraft: $20.00 - Build with Bricks, kill monsters. +25 Dollars on Xbox for Xbox Live to chat, and play online. Roblox $5.00 - Build, Script, Join groups, Trade, Play, Socialize, Chat, Read Blogs, Communicate with Moderators, build to get paid. Roblox has many more options than just building and killing. In Roblox, you can also trade in Robux for real money, so really, you can get paied for building. As well as having a fun, good time.
there are so many things wrong with roblox

You just failed really badly and your arguments is invalid This is an example of roblox influencing others when the people who think roblox does not have no problems and they try to go and compare minecraft. Well before saying that I am wrong I would like to say there are many things wrong with it. First of all I would like to point out yhat roblox community is horrible oders hackers spammers crybabies noobs/guest Roblox use to be fun till that happened For example people now want to copy peoples games and take credit just like a guy you might know and his name is javervaldez I think thats his name and he copies games takes credit Roblox BC is everything and most thinks require BC Remove ads Make 2 or more places personal and mega to buy stuff to get rubux to make stuff to get more groups to make a group not be called a noob and the list goes on and on Really modrtates it takes time for moderates to listen and they really dont care if they do they would be stricter and you know it. Rebuttal Really how would you know if they make it every 5 mins. What does it teach cause the last time Ichecked no ttutorial on script ing. Now I bet you all you roblox fan boys would be like "oh you suck" and " play it yourself" I wont compete with you or fight back sk spam the comments page your not making a point
anarchist communism could deal with a zombie apocalypse better than my opponents ideal society

I would advise my opponent to read about anarchist communism before criticizing it The anarchist militia in the spanish civil war were an army of leaders, with weak weapons and limited soldiers they beat back much better armed soldiers for 3 years. I believe this serves as precedent for how a anarchist army would operate against an enemy that is only strong because it converts the enemies dead. Evidence for this comes from the IWW strikes, in which workers funded each other while they struck. Yes, but nationalism excludes members of other nations, meaning that people with a history of national conflict will fight each other. My opponent misunderstands me would be trained to work in the police, giving them experience. Authority is sometimes justified, usually when it is to make you equal, as with education, where the trainer makes the trainee his equal. For the military: training of soldiers is for humans, they learn to hit the center mass, not the head. Look WWZ, and the battle of Yonkers. Anarchy is ordered by the people not people from on top. The entire world would be war production not one company
anarchist communism could deal with a zombie apocalypse better than my opponents ideal society

Hierarchy kills initiative at the bottom, while organizing in an anarchist fashion encourges initiative at the bottom, and remember these are people who have been running their communities for their entire lives, to quote the IWW "we are all leaders." http://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://libcom.org... http://libcom.org... My opponent ignores solidarity, or "an injury to one is an injury to all.", in an ancom society it would be understood that if they get eaten today, we get eaten tomorrow. As for training, all you need to know to kill zombies is how to walk quietly, fire a rifle and use a close quarters weapon. Skills that are easily learned, and in a communist society, most people would be trained in combat from a young age. I concede that point In a communist society every worker is a soldier ready to fight, as they will take turns being the workers patrol (volunteer police force), and will have knowledge gained from studying the history of the revolution. This isn't a mass of mindless workers, this a society of people who rule their own lives, their are no shops to smash, every factory produces goods that are given to those in need. Everyone has what they want, and is always responsible for his own life, actively taking part in the democratic process of his town and workplace. Solidarity, the entire globe would be able to produce goods and ship them to the affected area, the requests could be made at the speed of light over the internet, and shipped just as quickly
anarchist communism could deal with a zombie apocalypse better than my opponents ideal society

1. Because anarcho communism has all society decentralized to individual communities, zombies could be dealt with without having to rely on a military and political command. 2. because mutual aid and solidarity are the basic theory of anarchism the entire world would mobilize to defend against the zombies think international brigades: http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. because the workers themselves would own the means of production (MoP) they could change production to defend themselves, without a profit motive. (I assume you mean democracy as capitalist parliamentary)
anarchist communism could deal with a zombie apocalypse better than my opponents ideal society

definitions: anarcho communism: a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, markets, money, capitalism and private property (while retaining respect for personal property) zombie: a walking corpse that eats the living and can only be killed by a head shot my opponent will define their ideal society rules: no semantics first round is stating ideal society and acceptance anarcho communists cannot accept the challenge
should students wear uniform to school

Surely bullying will exist whether there are uniforms or not? It would remove a persons clothing as a reason for derision, but bullying is not limited to barbed commentary and behavior shredding a persons self esteem and school wear. Is it right to ignore the true problem of bullying? That people have the situations removed from themselves and be not given guidance or opportunity to learn empathy or right from wrong. I do not advocate intentionally putting someone in a situation of bullying. But nor can I advocate removing all situations where bullying can occur. By that thinking recess would be removed as to limit peoples interactions and chances of bullying. And what I say of money? If this was a private school, I 'assume' that the people paying for their children to attend would be rich enough in any case to simply buy them clothing for school. And if an average public school, why must all of society pay their hard earned money simply for a school to 'look' more unified? So long as no one expects the students to but their own suit and tie for school, can simple clothing truly be so expensive?
should students wear uniform to school

students should be required to wear uniform. it makes the school seem more in unison. you may disagree with me and say students need to express themselves but there are other ways you can express yourself. Furthermore, my school which doesn't use uniform encounters bullying and students break the dress code. we gave them an opportunity to express themselves and they took that for granted. wearing uniform also saves families money. Also, the amount of bullying based on outfits will decrease because everyone will be wearing the same thing.
god doesn't exist

here (space\time) is not a propriety it s what something is made of humans are made of atoms so atoms is not one propriety of humans so an example : 1)apples are made of atoms 2)blood is made of atoms 3)so if apples exist that will lead to concluding that atoms exist knowing that the above statement are true then the conclusion must be true 4)blood exist because blood is made of atoms and atoms exist so also (space\time) is not a propriety of something its what something is made off so nothing is made of no (space/time) and since nothing doesn't exist then what nothing is made of doesn't exist and since god is made of no (space\time) then god is made of nothing therefore He's nothing making my argument valid
god doesn't exist

If I'm strawmanning you, I apologize in advance. It seems to me that your argument procedes in this fashion.Premise 1: Nothing is no (space\time)Premise 2: God is no (space\time)Conclusion: God is nothingThis part doesn't strike me as sound, although I'm not sure what the name for it is. At the most basic level, I suppose it's a non-sequitur.Just because two share a property doesn't make them identical in all aspects. A random example I came up with:Apples are red.Blood is red.Therefore, apples are blood.As this doesn't follow, the rest of the argument is automatically unsound because of it's dependence on the aforementioned conclusion.
god doesn't exist

first I would like to welcome you and now to start my argument 1)nothing is no (space\time) here am going to define nothing as no thing so nothing is what a thing isn't and here i am going to define a thing as all that exist and since all that exist is within (space\time) then a thing is (space\time) and since nothing is no thing then nothing is no (space\time) 2)god is no (space\time) here i am going to define god as a being without a Beginning so god have to exist before anything so god cant be within any form of (space/time) because if god is within a (space\time) then he's not without a beginning and in this case he will have to begin with the beginning of his own (space\time) so god must be outside any (space\time) so he's no (space\time) 3)nothing doesn't exist absolute nothing doesn't exist in a logical sense because nothing is an inconceivable concept so logically it doesn't exist and here the conclusion of those statement 1)nothing is no (space\time) 2)god is no (space\time) according to 1 and 2 then : 3)god is nothing 4)nothing doesn't exist according to 3 and 4 then : 5)god doesn't exist
People should stop greening in toon town rewritten

"ψ rR4;U0;S6;Q9;P5;eR3;N2;U0;U6;O3;P0;Q5;R6;P9;pR4;M9;N5;V1;T2;P5;P1;T5;U8;P2;eR2;V1;N6;S4;O2;nR1;L9;S6;O0;O8;tR3;S1;M8;N3;N0;Q4;S7; R3;V1;S3;Q0;yR2;U5;M1;T3;T8;P3;R5;oR4;T8;R9;S4;S5;R5;P3;Q0;U7;uR0;M3;O9;P2;P2;Q9;O8;rR4;T2;M5;S1;M2;O5;U7;P8;T5;Q5; R1;U9;M3;V1;S1;U8;sR2;O4;U9;N3;U5;P4;V0;Q6;Q0;iR2;M9;R6;P4;P8;T6;R8;nR0;R9;M6;T6;T0;P9;Q4;sR3;S6;S6;V1;M6;P4; c59;" - charlie brown
Troops in Afgan

Troops need to stay in Afghanistan in order to help maintain safety and security there and abroad. SAFETY IN AFGHANISTAN Before President Bush sent American troops, Afghanistan was controlled by the terror faction Taliban that provided safe haven for Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. [1] After the installation of troops, the citizens of Afghanistan could live without the constant shadow of fear, and were able to have their first free election in eight years. [2] SAFETY ABROAD Keeping troops in Afghanistan will maintain a situation where the Taliban won't be able to build a large cell of terrorists bent on attacking Western democracies like the United States: ". .. the foremost responsibility of any president is to keep Americans safe. Preventing Afghanistan from once again becoming a terrorist sanctuary from which attacks on America can be launched is as clear-cut a vital national interest as any in the world. If the price for this is a sustained military presence there"and the alternative, withdrawal, is more likely to result in a terrorist victory along the lines of what happened in Iraq after America left. .. " [3] To summarize, troops need to stay in Afghanistan in order to maintain safety there and abroad. Sources: 1. . https://www.cfr.org... 2. . http://www.bbc.com... 3. . https://www.theatlantic.com...
Obama Must Stop Promoting Homosexuality

So I really don't have anything to say in this round. I said what I had to say in the previous rounds. I do want to provide some inspirational gay marriage quotes. You don't have to read them if you don't want to. I just want to end this debate on a positive note. "This is my doctrine: Give every other human being every right you claim for yourself. " R13; Robert G. Ingersoll, The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child "So, let me get this straight-- You want me to stop being a lesbian and being attracted to women because it is a 'sin'? Last time I checked, when you lie you are sinning. Sure, I could tell you I am no longer a lesbian or that I am no longer attracted to women and am straight, or I could even tell you the moon is made of cheese. I could tell you many things, but the moon will still not be made of cheese, and I will still not be attracted to men. I could tell you a lie in order to placate you, but isn"t the truth supposed to set me free? I choose truth over lies any day of the week. " R13; Cristina Marrero "We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. " R13; John E Lewis Some time ago there was a story of a mother who disowned her son for being gay. Her father found out and wrote this letter: Dear Christine, I"m disappointed in you as a daughter. You're correct that we have a "shame in the family," but mistaken about what it is. Kicking Chad out of your home simply because he told you he was gay is the real "abomination" here. A parent disowning her child is what goes "against nature. " The only intelligent thing I heard you saying in all this was that "you didn"t raise your son to be gay. " Of course you didn"t. He was born this way and didn't choose it any more than he being left-handed. You however, have made a choice of being hurtful, narrow-minded, and backward. So, while we are in the business of disowning our children, I think I'll take this moment to say goodbye to you. I now have a fabulous (as the gays put it) grandson to raise, and I don"t have time for heart-less B-word of a daughter. If you find your heart, give us a call. " Dad . http://www.newsmax.com...
Obama Must Stop Promoting Homosexuality

QUOTE :================================================== "...Not quite. The message he promoted is that it is ok to be gay." ================================================== Buy it's NOT ok to be gay, and this is the heart of the matter. The 20 year-old male who "comes-out" dramatically increases chances of getting HIV. The CDC tells us 75% of all new HIV cases are gay males. How can you possibly say "it's ok to be gay" with stats like that staring you in the face? ================================================== QUOTE: "...We know that sexual attraction is emotional and is a biological thing that develops during puberty. You don't choose who you are attracted to, you are. In fact the only way to remove your attraction is chemical castration showing that attraction is a physical non-voluntary process. I can't just decide I am not attracted to women, I just am. Gays are sexually attracted to the opposite sex and cannot choose to be attracted differently." ================================================================ Your "born this way" theory was discredited ages ago. The American Psychological Association doesn't support it and never has. And your "Gays are sexually attracted to the opposite sex and cannot choose to be attracted differently" is yet more LGBT junk science not supported by a scintilla of evidence. I've read the scientific literature. You clearly haven't. ===================================================================== QUOTE: "...You will be less happy married to a person you are not attracted to. If gays are attracted to each other, their marriages will be better if they marry each other instead of people they are not attracted to. A healthy sex life is vital to a healthy marriage." =================================================================== Gays are actually more miserable married than unmarried. Most gays want nothing to do with same-sex. In Massachusetts 10 years after same sex marriage less than 5% of gay males are married. Why do you think that is? What do these gay males know you don't?
Obama Must Stop Promoting Homosexuality

When Obama publicly congratulated the NBA player for "coming out" he sent a message to youth around the world that "homosexuality is cool." Not quite. The message he promoted is that it is ok to be gay. But Obama wanted much more than this: he wanted to go on record as homosexuality's most influential supporter. He wanted to tell young boys that if they think they have the urge, it's far-better to embrace it than fight it. That is correct. And, although there's not a scintilla of evidence to support this claim, it may have some foundation. We know that sexual attraction is emotional and is a biological thing that develops during puberty. You don't choose who you are attracted to, you are. In fact the only way to remove your attraction is chemical castration showing that attraction is a physical non-voluntary process. I can't just decide I am not attracted to women, I just am. Gays are sexually attracted to the opposite sex and cannot choose to be attracted differently. You will be less happy married to a person you are not attracted to. If gays are attracted to each other, their marriages will be better if they marry each other instead of people they are not attracted to. A healthy sex life is vital to a healthy marriage. Also, gays marrying straits will not be good for the strait person. Imagine if you are a girl and you are married to a man who don't want to have sex with you and doesn't find you attractive. This will cause problems for your relationship and create a lot of strain on you. Another path is celibacy. However, celibacy is lonely and miserable. Imagine hardly ever having sex in your life. Sucks. The best path for gays is the best path for humans in general which is to be in a wonderful relationship with a partner you are attracted to. For gays that partner is someone of the same sex. The biggest difference between gay marriage and strait marriage is the fact that gays cannot produce kids. However, many marriages are not about kids. For example, I don't have a desire for children. When gays form relationships, they are not hurting each other and they are not hurting others around them. So there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. Bisexuals can choose between both sexes and are not doing harm in their choices. So what makes homosexuality wrong? Why should people repress their desires that can bring them happiness in gay relationships?
Obama Must Stop Promoting Homosexuality

When Obama publicly congratulated the NBA player for "coming out" he sent a message to youth around the world that "homosexuality is cool." What else could his purpose have been? If he simply wanted to support the player, a private email would have accomplished this. But Obama wanted much more than this: he wanted to go on record as homosexuality's most influential supporter. He wanted to tell young boys that if they think they have the urge, it's far-better to embrace it than fight it. And, although there's not a scintilla of evidence to support this claim, it may have some foundation. However, as it stands right now, all it is, is LGBT wishful thinking. Obama got it all from Ellen Degeneris. He didn't research the scientific literature, he didn't assign a committee to investigate the question, he didn't do his homework. Letting Degeneris fill his head with gay urban myths is not due diligence. You can't have it both ways. You can't tell kids homosexuality is cool, then say you're not promoting homosexuality
We should neither hate Hitler nor respect Martin Luther King

First off I would like to apologize for this... "I was somewhat suprised that CON spent the entirity of round 1 discussing whether he accepted my premises or not... have been informed that this is not standard practise and can be considered as bad conduct." I did not mean to do this, I am a fairly new member for debate.org, I think i joined less than a week ago, and this is my first debate that I consider legitimate. I really do apologize and will try to uhh... I guess try to figure out how to follow the rules of conduct more appropriately, are you aware of any way I could do this? Ok now actually on with the debate. (1) "Hitler and MLK are defined by their actions and so should be judged by their actions" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree that that should remain my main argument throughout the debate. (2) "You would not hate a glass beaker..." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A glass beaker is an inanimate object, it obviously does not have any way to know right from wrong, does not know the alphabet, and in fact, does not have a brain. It does not have the capacity for emotions such as love or hatred, so when talking about Martin Luther King Jr. (I apologize for the part in my previous argument where I criticized you for using simply "Martin Luther King".) and Adolf Hitler I do not think comparing them to a glass beaker is a legitimate analogy. (3) "... had no real choice in his/her actions." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you trying to say that MLK had no control over his actions? I guess I understand the argument for use with Hitler, and I guess this is starting to relate with solipsism, but I really do not believe it is fair to assume that MLK had no control over his actions. But we obviously can trace the parentage of MLK and Hitler and figure out their social status, economic stability etc. (4) Regarding your basketball player argument ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This does not make much sense regarding the argument, if there is someone that really wants to play basketball, but do not fit the physical criteria, they could simply try as hard as they could to reach these criteria to play. Even the disabled, if they really wanted to play, could join a team for the disabled, there are no real limits to what on can or cannot do. Sorry for the short argument, I don't really have time for more, I'll hopefully elaborate on this and your next argument in my next argument.