BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Recent Bandai Namco Gundam Video Games should not be given positive reception

Gundam may perhaps be dying out but these anti-consumer practises aren't exactly helping. If games based on Gundams continue to deteriorate in quality then that will drive potential fans away. Right now, If we keep supporting these games, They may either stop producing games completely or change direction (which is unlikely). Right now, Gundam is relying mostly on Gunpla and somewhat on the anime, And that industry is keeping Gundam relevant and afloat. In the aspect of video games, However, Gundam is not faring well and while there are potential in these games, If Bandai Namco (or perhaps another company) doesn't bring anything new to the market that isn't a gacha, Obnoxious paywall, Or slight upgrades here and there, I believe they should not be taken positively. If you watched the video (which is fine if you didn't since it's not in english) you can see that he is not afraid to point out problems and anti consumer practises, And I am sure there are japanese people who do this as well. This is because these games are catered towards an Asian market, But here in the west we should not change our own standards because of that. Standards are standards, And we should not be grateful for the little bandai Namco have done for us. We should not let our standards drop just because it's Gundam, We should keep them as high as we would with other video games in the market. Bandai Namco is a triple A developer and publisher, So they wouldn't be short of creating quality games. In fact I believe we should take our standards higher, And expect more from them as they are a big company.
Recent Bandai Namco Gundam Video Games should not be given positive reception

First time debating. I believe that Bandai Namco's newest Gundam related video games such as Battle Operation 2 and Gundam Versus should not be positively accepted here in the west. This is because of the DLC, Gacha system, And the laziness in the games. Unfortunately I do not have Battle Operation 2 and have only played very little of battle operation next, But from what I have seen so far the game seems to be quite anti consumer and lazy. While this game is only the third installment of the series, (third being Battle Operation Next), It does not seem to have made many or any changes from the previous installments and seems to have a system where you roll for what you get. I believe this is very poor service as the people playing the game must gamble to get the suits they want. I will admit the game seems to look better, But the graphics are still hilariously poor. Next is Gundam Versus. I have played gundam vs gundam next plus on my psp endlessly and loved it to bits, And I still do. I won't disagree, Gundam versus seems to have improved from it's predecessors with the updated visuals, Polished gameplay, And the addition of a new mechanic. They all seem very interesting. However the problem I have with this game is with the DLC. Each DLC character costs 5 dollars and with a total of 26 dlc add-ons, That adds up to 130 dollars if you want to buy all the addons. That is MORE THAN DOUBLE the price of the base game! Not only this but God gundam is a DLC character. God Gundam was a staple character in the series, But now he is blocked behuind a paywall. The roster in the base game of Gundam versus is quite large, With many new mobile suits from newer series, And stranger editions like the rock zaku. Despite all this, Some mobile suits have been excluded such as X-wing gundam, Adn again the horrendous act of locking god gundam behind a paywall. All these together give Gundam Versus has bad reputation with it's unreasonable paywalls, Removal of x-wing series and possibly other mobile suits from the previous games. A similar outcry was given by a player in Hong Kong where they complain about the lack of modes, Characters, Poor graphics, And other problems. (video in cantonese) https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=1l2qHMypm-cAnd of course gundam breaker, I have yet to see much of the gameplay but judging from the community reception, It seems to be a low quality game. TL;DRThis tells me that the most recent Gundam Video games have been nothing but a cash grab and an attempt to exploit the most loyal of the gundam fanbase in order to make the most profit by producing a poor, Cheap product. I believe the new gundam games are disingenuous and should not be supported. Feel free to call me out
Abortion is generally immoral.

Hello. I notice you are a supporter or abortion. So i am challenging you to this debate. Abortion is generally immoral. General: mostly, basicallyIf you accept this debate, you must accept the rules established. Rules:1. first round you (the opponent) must write your opening statements. In the last round, you must write "thanks for the debate" and nothing more.2. no plagiarism3. no copying from previous debates 4. no forfeiting5. no making your own definitions (only applies to opponent)6. no profanity7. no personal attacks8.
Abortion is generally immoral.

Ok, the Webster's definition of profanity, as I've stated 3 times, is : "blasphemous or obscene language". Making rude and obscene comments about rape victims is profanity! And when you criticize rape victims, that's very personal. And I did not make it up, my Webster's dictionary, from 2008, states thee exact same, and don't argue it's outdated, I doubt much of the English language has changed in 6 years. Opinions can be changed, and that's exactly what I did. That's round 2, and I revised my platform in round 3. YOUR arguments on the fetus living is false, after all, were both making statements, right?I've looked at all arguments, and your only source for for ANYTHING was in round 2 when you were quoting from some college science article from 1999, and WebMd, the page doesn't display anything on that one, so you, have no sources. As I've stated, You've proved nothing, why do you keep saying that? If you say it enough I'll magically believe? I've broken 1 rule, the profanity one, but you've broken 2! Criticizing and targetting rape victims is very obscene! And my definition was from Webster's, I'm not bull crapping you! Your very hypocritical, man. Ok, I won't make any argument about abortion. You said so. You were insulting rape victims, I was insulting your insults. Let me ask, who REALLY is in the wrong here? Should I report you?
Abortion is generally immoral.

I didn't break any rules. Profanity is swearing. You have done so, not just saying bad things. If I said you are too happy in a bad way, does that make the word "happy" profanity? Of course not. You litterally called me a donkey's behind which is profanity. Plus, a personal attack is insulting a specific person. I just explained why aborting is selfish, without specifically targeting someone. You made up that definition. I checked the webster one and it is completly different. I proved a fetus is living, in round 2. You even agreed with me. "I will begin my rebuttal, you state that a fetus is a living organism. True." So your arguments saying a fetus isn't alive are false. And all my arguments have proof and sources. None of yours do. Because of such, all of your points can be false, since they aren't backed up by proof. I proved that in most cases it is immoral. Not once did you prove it is moral, since you didn't have an argument. You broke 3 rules, and thus the deduction will be made. I did not break any. So the deduction only applies to you.Please remember that you may no longer make an argument because you had more rounds to debate if you do so. You agreed to not debate in round 5 when you accepted the debate, it is rule 1. If you break this rule, your argument will not be counted, and the 7 point deduction will be made again.Please stop insulting people when you debate. It is rude. I will report you if such consist.Thanks for the debate.
Tobacco Smoking Should be Completely Outlawed.

Dear Complexity, I sincerely apologise for forfeiting the previous round.Due to personal reasons i was unable to come on-line for a while. That said, you seem to have misunderstood a few of the points i made. 1. I always said that the government should ban a substance if it causes Violent anti-social behaviour, that harms *other* citizens.Even you seem to agree to this.But cigarettes when smoked in private do not do that so my contention still stands. If the government should ban it because of the harm it does to the smokers, then it might a well ban Junk food that affects even more people. Your 'bath-salts' example caused the user to attack another person, so even i agree it should be controlled.Governments are beginning to understand how harmless marijuana is. This is why it has become fully legalised even for recreational use in 4 US states and for medical use all over the world. Alcohol impairs judgement and makes people more violent.Bar-fights all over the world are common.There is even a term 'Dutch-courage' in the english language used to describe this violent behaviour.That is why it needs to be controlled. 2.I don't see how emergency room situations are caused by smoking cigarettes,but even if it did, that is not enough reason to ban something.Alcohol causes many accidents, bar-fights, drunk-driving accidents etc. but nobody calls for banning alcohol as the government realised that it was pointless in the 20's and 30's.It just ended up making a few Mobs like the Italian Mafia and some bootleggers really wealthy.Which is why alcohol became legal again in the US. 3.Using Vehicles also causes damage to the environment,but the government can't force people to use public transport.This is simply none of the government's business.The government can warn citizens about the the effects.It can't force citizens to do things that may seem good for the environment, unless there is an imminent threat.A nanny-state is not in the interests of anybody, and runs contrary to the lofty Ideals of individual liberty and freedom of choice that many democratic countries are based on. To conclude, A smoking ban would cost the government Billions of dollars to enforce, can never be enforced effectively and will only result in illegal groups making a lot of money.Those who used to be honest tax-paying smokers will now be forced to make contact with illegal dealers and will be exposed to a lot of other illicit activities.All the arguments that you gave, (about it harming the environment,Harming smokers etc) stand refuted. I still say, smoking should be banned in *public* places, where it can harm other non-smokers, as well as discouraged through public awareness programs.It should not be banned. I urge you to vote con! Sincerely, CynicalDiogenes
Tobacco Smoking Should be Completely Outlawed.

Hello Complexity,I will be taking Con in this debate.Being a non-smoker myself, I will not argue that smoking cigarettes is good for health, but will merely explain to you why it should not be completely outlawed.I completely agree that Smoking is harmful for health and it should be banned in *public* places as it exposes other non-smokers to a variety of carcinogens.I will also say it is morally wrong to smoke cigarettes as it harms one's body, which is a God given gift.Nevertheless, i still feel *all* drugs should not be controlled by the government as what poison I put inside my body is none of the Government's business.This is why it must be tolerated as a necessary byproduct of freedom of choice, just like how pornography and prostitution are tolerated in most civilised societies.I'll give you another anology, Junk food(Fast foods) like Burger King,KFC etc are the leading cause of Obesity and heart disease in the western world.Obesity has a much bigger impact than tobacco smooking as it affects even small children. Junk food (like tobacco) has little or no nutrients other than a lot of fat and a killer dose of carbohydrates.Many people(especially obese children) woulld benefit if a ban was passed on Junk food.[1][2]But I am sure you would agree that the government must not ban Junk food as it is aginst the basic idea of individual liberty that many countries are based on.Frankly speaking, the government is not a grandmother to tell it's citizens what they can and cannot consume. Unless there is proof of a direct link between the substance and violent anti-social behaviour that can harm other citizens. it should not be banned.Also Nicotine, the main psychoactive agent in tobacco has been used to treat certain conditions like ADHD(Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) as well as certain cases of colon infections.It also improves mental function if used infrequently, provided the user does not get addicted.As much as i hate to write these things down, they are facts that cannot be ignored.[3]Tobacco companies also generate a lot of Tax revenue each year.The government is already spending billions to control drug abuse, banning it will put a further strain on its resources, and will not really work.Many of those who smoke weed(like me) will tell you that banning it will actually deregulate distribution, and make it cheaper and more easily available for teens.Banning cigarettes would be a disasterous idea if you really want to reduce its effects in the country.Thus, cigarettes should be controlled, and the government should inform it's citizens about its harmful effects, but it should not be banned.Sincerely, CynicalDiogenesSources1.http://calorielab.com...2.http://www.worldometers.info...3, http://en.wikipedia.org...; - read the medical uses section in this one.
Tobacco Smoking Should be Completely Outlawed.

Tobacco in 2004 to 2005 killed 14,900 Australians. This means there were 40 preventable deaths every day. www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au Tobacco is a disease. Many people claim it's a victimless drug which is simply not true. You aren't only hurting yourself you are hurting people near you. Family, Friends, Strangers can all be affected by smoking. Diseases spread just like smoking tobacco does. Some may argue it's a choice, you don't have to do it. This is true to a certain point. Some with a low amount of will power can be pressured into doing something even if they don't want to. Tobacco has literally no good use intellectually or physically. It is not used for any health benefits or reliefs of pain ect. The Tobacco industry is costing the US government billions. All the health effects are cutting into the tax payers money for health insurance and cutting into the governments money to help them for something that could of been prevented with a simple law. Tobacco is a dangerous drug and a complete waste of time. It hurts others, and is preventable. It's a choice that when starts can have an effect on others to make them start smoking too. Tobacco smoking has no health benefits. It's hurting the economy. Smoking Tobacco should be outlawed.
satan is good

Satan provoked Adam and Eve to eat the "apple" of the garden, and satan is ruler of evil and tried to overthrow God, Satan killed those people in the flood, because He caused them to sin, making God have no choice but to wipe out humanity accept for Noah and his family. This debate should be looked at by atheists as well, regardless of their belief in satan, if you are an atheist reading this, here's my question: If satan is real, would you call him good? I sure wouldn't, due to the fact that he caused hell to exist. My opponent has made no argument that Satan is good, all he/she has done is say why he isn't bad, so he/she isn't hasn't continued the true meaning of this debate. Satan tried to trick Jesus into bowing down to him for riches and kingdoms, but Jesus refused, and satan threw a fit and left. So regardless of the realism of satan, how could he be a good person/devil/spirit? He couldn't because he wants people to endure hell.
child welfare service is inhuman and barbaric

Sorry for the late response, I've had a lot of work this past few days.Yes, but most kids don't wet the bed by choice when they wet it- they wake up cold, wet, and uncomfortable, and I don't think that any kid enjoys that. Bedwetting is almost always involuntary and occurs with most young kids. If you want a long scientific breakdown of bedwetting, then you can read this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org.... However, I have bought up the points that are relevant to this argument.That being said, what point do you find in scolding kids for doing something that's involuntary? That doesn't help the kids at all, because they'll end up fearing the parent, fearing getting in trouble for everything that they do, and getting caught up with things that they just can't control. In fact, kids that are bought up like this frequently end up with self-esteem issues. I'm not saying that you should praise kids for wetting the bed, but they definitely shouldn't be scolded for it. If it becomes a daily problem, the parent should take the kid to the doctor and see what's going on. If kids are taken away from their parents in Norway for scolding their kids when doing something like wetting the bed, then I agree with you that it's the wrong way to handle things. However, I find it hard to believe that there is nothing more to it than that if the child welfare services were called and the child was put up in foster care as a result.You also state that the child should only be separated from their parents in cases of the child being put up for adoption by the parents or in the event of the death of the parents. However, I will still maintain that there are cases in which the child should be taken from the parents- my argument is not changing from round 1 in that regard. There are cases in which the parents are severely physically abusing, emotionally abusing, and/or just downright exploiting the child, and it would probably be in the child's best interest to be removed from the household and raised by a foster parent. Again, I believe that it should be used only as a last resort, but it should be used. You state that the parent is always the person that does what's best for the child, and that just isn't true.
child welfare service is inhuman and barbaric

parents should not scold child for wetting the bed or any misshape? why? scolding is called according to behavior theory a negative reinforcement. it is used to discourage the child to repeat that misshape. i think this practice is good for the kids. yes in some cases child needs to be raised by somebody other than parents. i think when parents leave their kids or parents go to jail or parents die, only then child should be raised by somebody other than parents. but here in many country, specially in Norway, kids are taken because parents scold him for misshape which i think is parents’ duty. kids of foreign descents are taken away from their parent on very trivial grounds. this is to me is very inhuman and barbaric.
child welfare service is inhuman and barbaric

I'm going to primarily focus my argument on the United States' Child Protective Services (CPS), as you did not appear to call out any country's service in particular and instead seem to be focused on the idea of children being removed from their households. The Child Protective Services (CPS) were established to respond to reports of child neglect and abuse. They offer services such as family counseling and, as is the basis of this debate, the removal of children from their homes to prevent emotional and physical trauma from abusive households. First of all, I will start my argument by agreeing with the fact that separation of children from their parents is inherently traumatic to the child and should only be used as a last resort. I also accept the fact that there are some situations in which the child was taken away from his/her parents when family counseling would have probably been more appropriate. However, there are also situations in which the child needs to be removed from the household; in cases where the child is subject to extreme emotional and/or physical abuse on a daily basis, I don't believe that the parents are the best people to be raising the child. You state that parents are having their kids taken away because they are scolding their kids for wetting the bed or falling on the ground (things that are obviously very normal for small children to do). While I agree that parents should not have their kids taken away based on this alone (something that I have never heard of happening), this is definitely not the kind of thing that parents should be scolding their kids for. However, if the parent scolds the child for something like this and engages in physical abuse, then I believe that it is appropriate for CPS to become involved and take away the child if appropriate. Lastly, you state that nobody but the parents can raise a child well. This is simply not true in my eyes, as I have witnessed numerous cases where the child was raised by somebody other than their parents for one reason or another and turned out fine (probably better than if he/she was raised by his/her parents).
child welfare service is inhuman and barbaric

in these days news comes that child welfare service takes away little kids from their parents in the name of protection and upbringing for very TRIVIAL REASON. if parents scold a kid for any mishap of that kid which is VERY NORMAL at that age of the kid. mishaps like peeing in the bed, falling on the ground are taken as BIG MISTAKE on part of the parents. this attitude of so called child welfare service is inhuman and barbaric to me because only the parent can do most welfare of the kids. nobody else can do that.con is required to argue against me.
Firefox 5 is the best browser

PISSANT OPENING ARGUMENT BECAUSE I'M HUNGOVER AND ONLY HAVE 30 MINUTES LEFTFirefox 5.0 has seen significant improvements over 4.x.It is a very fast browser, able to run on all operating systems (where IE9 for example, cannot run on OSX).It also has the massive catalogue of useful apps which one can use to customise their browsing experience.I'll elaborate and provide sources during round two.>:)-Tom
Firefox 5 is the best browser

Sup peeps.Resolution is obvious; I will put Firefox 5 up against any and all contenders and on any PC/Mac operating system you like. I'm specifically excluding phone/PDA/mp3 hardware like Andriod and iPod/iPad.First round is for acceptance. No arguments please.Please don't accept this debate if you aren't going to finish it OR if you don't know what you're talking about. Thank you and good luck.
Firefox 5 is the best browser

I had initially believed that Firefox 3 is the best browser, not Firefox 5, because newer updates of Firefox have incompatibility with too many add-ons designed for Firefox 3 (or so I thought). I discovered after accepting the debate, however, that Firefox 5 can override those compatibility issues. So, that makes Firefox 5 the better browser. I now have no disagreement with the resolution, and I forfeit.Sorry. I don't know what I can do to make up for the act of accepting the Con position of a debate with a resolution that I very quickly agreed with after doing a little investigation, but the least I can do is to show you this video on YouTube.http://www.youtube.com...
You cannot disprove the trinity as per the Hebrew Scripture

Let's rehearse my arguments:The Bible says nothing about flying walruses, so they must be real.The Bible says that G-d is one, when it could have just easily said that He is a plural unity. Therefore, the likeliness of the latter are less than the first claim. Philosophically, a plural unity is impossible, as I explained. The Bible refers to the Messiah as G-d's servant. Servitude is a physical concept, which separates G-d from Jesus, because you cannot be your own servant.