BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
halo5 vs call of duty black ops 3

Black Ops 3 is clearly a better game than Halo 5. 1. Graphics Black Ops 3 provides much better shadowing and textures than Halo. Take the following Black Ops Screenshot: . http://cdn.wccftech.com... As you can clearly see, the detail of the gun, shadowing, texture and plants is far above that of this Halo 5 screenshot. . http://assets.vg247.it... The shadow of the gun does not perfectly line up with the rest of the scene, the rendering distance is very low and enemies and buildings are not detailed and too unrealistic. 2. Single Player Mode Here is what the reviewing website WhatCulture had to say on the Halo storyline: "343 promised that Halo 5"s campaign would be roughly twice the length of Halo 4, so it stings that this isn"t the case at all. On Normal difficulty, it can be comfortably beaten in 5-6 hours, which is only marginally longer than the previous game, but that"s only where the complaints begin. The mystery of "Has Master Chief become a villain? " isn"t much of a mystery at all, the Locke vs. Chief feud that the game was marketed on is downplayed entirely in the main game, several of the main missions involving the player just walking around for a few minutes, and you barely play as Master Chief. What a disappointment. " It ranked Black Ops 3 as having the best storyline due to the fact that it was extended, the story was interesting and the Nightmares version unlocked by completing the normal campaign makes up for any shortcomings that the original campaign might make. In addition, a reviewer on the site Metacritic said: "Halo 5: Guardians features an underwhelming, confusing and surprisingly banal campaign that's not actively bad, but equally not quite good enough to warrant a purchase on its own. " Multiplayer Battle Maps Many of the Halo maps are unoriginal and the futuristic designs lacking in variation. Take the following screenshots of Halo battle maps. . http://i.kinja-img.com... . http://mp1st.com... . https://content.halocdn.com... . http://cdn.arstechnica.net... As you can clearly see, the maps do not have any individual character, unlike the Call of Duty maps below. As Call of Duty 3 is located in the near future the developers can produce many more ideas for maps because they can refer to modern places. . http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net... . http://i0.wp.com... . http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net... Halo maps are boring and repetitive while each COD map is themed around a certain thing. Next I shall rebut my opponents arguments explain more of my own. I look forwards to his next argument.
We need to abolish legal marriages.

Yes, not everyone is cheating the system but if you can still get married religiously, we can stop the people who are which will save the government and the people money. I don't understand your second statement. Can you please elaborate? My whole point was saying that you can't argue that we are taking away legal marriages completely because we aren't. The system has so many flaws though and with all of the controversy between gays and lesbians, demolishing the system would be the best choice here. I'm saying they aren't fair because unmarried couple don't get these benefits. If we take away the system, it will be fair for everyone, like our country is supposed to be. .equal. Of course there is no guarantee, there is also no guarantee a child is being cared for with legal marriages. A child can still be under abuse at home. Ever read the story a child called it? There isn't a guarantee for anything.
We need to abolish legal marriages.

You say that "couples can get married to get these benefits and are 'cheating the system. ' If we get rid of these marriages, we won't see the problems. " Just because there are people that abuse the system doesn't mean that we shouldn't have the system in place. You said that one can still get married religiously. That is very obvious; it doesn't mean that we don't require a civil marriage however. You said that people are taking advantage of the legal marriage system. Again, abuse of the system doesn't mean that we should get rid of the system. You said that taking away legal marriages will get rid of controversy. Perhaps, we need to have some legal benefits for non-standard couples rather than just throw out the whole system as it is. You said that having a piece of paper saying that you are married does not make you happier. I don't think the purpose of a civil marriage is to make one happy, so I'm not sure what your point is here. You said that the rights given to married couples aren't fair. Actually, they are fair; that's why they were designed. An example: If I live with a man and I die I may not want him to make decisions on my burial, etc. The way the system is set up now, he doesn't have that right. If I am in a committed marriage, society recognizes that we are one and he can make those decisions. A religious marriage alone doesn't give us the rights and protections that we require as a married couple. Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. . http://www.religioustolerance.org...
We need to abolish legal marriages.

Being legally married can get you benefits such as inheritance and tax cuts. However, couples can get married to get these benefits and are 'cheating the system. ' If we get rid of these marriages, we won't see the problems. Contention 1: You can still get married religiously. This debate topic says we are ending legal marriages. That doesn't mean we are taking away marriage all together. Marriage is a religious bond and therefore should not have a religious contract. Those who are completely in love cannot complain because they can still go to their local church and get married. . http://atheism.about.com... The difference between religious and civil marriages is undeniable. Civil marriages have very little in the way of requirements. They are basic contracts with a bare minimum in the way of qualifications. Religious marriages, however, are entirely different. They aren't civil contracts. Individual churches and denominations can create all sorts of requirements or qualifications before they will perform one. Legal Marriages are not religious marriages Contention 2: People are taking advantage of the legal marriage system. When people get married, you get a lot of benefits such as inheritance money and tax cuts. People are getting married to get these benefits and not because they love the person that they are marrying. Contention 3: Taking away legal marriages will get rid of controversy Everyone can agree that there is controversy between gays or such people and whether they should be allowed to get married. Taking away legal marriages can end this dispute. They can get married religiously and there will no longer be the controversy. . http://atheism.about.com... So why are people trying to change things here? Banning marriage between gays simply because some churches object to gay marriage is no better than banning re-marriage for divorced people simply because some churches object to divorce and re-marriage. Contention 4: Having a piece of paper saying that you are married does not make you happier. A legal marriae gets you a piece of paper saying that you are married. If you can still get married religiously, you can still be happy. You don't need to be legally married to do that. Contention 5: The rights given to married couples aren't fair. We give all of these rights to married couples, around 1,000 actually. However, is it really fair that we give these rights to married couples? What about those couples that need these benefits but aren't receiving them?
We need to abolish legal marriages.

Without civil marriage, families are not legally recognized. This affects child custody, medical decisions, burial decisions, and inheritance. Without legal marriage recognition, it is difficult or impossible to legally establish and maintain families. http://www.pflag-palatine.org... On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well. http://www.religioustolerance.org...
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Changing the date of Australia day will not change anything. Even though it may not be as meaningful there are many people in this country that are very passionate about our country and will celebrate it weather it is on the 26th of January or not. Therefor changing the date will only mean that Australians are celebrating Australia day a different time of the year. As for completely abolishing Australia day why don't we have an Indigenous day as well as Australia day? this will be benefiting the people who greatly admire what the British did by building up our country and that celebrate this day and it would also benefit the aboriginals because they will have a day where they can celebrate their culture along with many other Australians.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Australia was already beautiful before the British came, our place is now a polluted country. Lastly, many Australians says "It"s time to move on". Applying that same logic to non-Aboriginal Australians, "It"s time to move on. The wars were years ago." then we should stop celebrating ANZAC day. Isn"t that a horrible thing to say to our country"s soldiers? Well it goes the same with "Invasion day". As Caine Carrol (a public servant at a protest) says, "A lot of blood has been spilled on this land, and it still hasn"t been recognised, even to this day. It"s important for them to know that their people died fighting for this land, and we are still fighting today for our rights."
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

In 2011 census showed that about 26% of people living in Australia were Born overseas. Many of these people have moved to Australia from extremely dangerous countries and have come here because it is known to be one of the most liveable countries in the world. The people that have moved to Australia under terrible circumstances use Australia day to thank the British for creating a beautiful country that they have come to, to start over and have a better and more sustainable life. If it wasn't for theBritish coming to Australia on the 26th of January 1788 these people may be dead or in very unsafe conditions as we speak. The 26th of January is a day that is appreciated by many of the people that have moved here.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Why should we celebrate a day we killed many people and be proud of that? Secondly, our day is about Colonisation and other countries surrounding Australia celebrate their day of independance. Celebrating a day of war and massacares is completely wrong. New Zealand celebrates Waitangi Day, which is celebrated on February the 6th, is a day commemorating the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi between the settlers and the local Maori people in 1840, while we are proud of people not agreeing with each other and starting big wars. Reference: http://www.sbs.com.au...
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Australia day marks the anniversary of the first fleet that arrived in 1788. Some people see Australia day as a very important day to celebrate the arrival of the British who hugely developed our country and made it liveable around Australia. If the date of Australia day was changed it would no longer mark the day of which the first fleet came to Australia and made our country what it is today.Australia would represent nothing at all and overall would not be as special to the country as it is today. With the Aboriginals calling Australia day 'invasion day' is a very ungrateful action. If it was not for the English coming to Australia and taking action over the Aboriginals we would not have nay of the technology or facilities we have today.
We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

Today we will be arguing if the date of Australia day should be changed. Firstly, it is a day celebrating those Aboriginals who were invaded and even killed by the British, who then claim the land as theirs. The 19th century was the period of colonial expansion that destroyed their cultural links to the land. Indigenous australians found themselves on the fringes of the new society, as their lives, values and traditions were pushed aside. Jack Gibson, of the Wiradjuri nation says,"Australia day is a date linked to whiteness, colonialism and perpetuating the myth that Aboriginal people don't belong in this country, so it is important that we always resist that."
Should the house of lords be elected

Democracy is Admittedly the most efficient way of choosing a leader, but The Prime Minister thinks to put in the house of lords very meticulously and chooses them knowing that they will help depending in what sector they're good at. And I believe that Hereditary peers shouldn't be, unless they have some sort of experience in doing something that can make A change. As I said before the public can't always be trusted to make the right choice so to trust them with electing the Lords
Should the house of lords be elected

Advantages to democratizing the House of Lords include: Legitimacy: There can be no doubt about the democratic mandate of a freely elected body. Status of members: Membership of the second chamber would be seen as a job with specific and important duties attached. Representation: All parts of the country and all shades of political opinion could be represented. Age: An elected House is likely to have more younger people in it than a nominated one. Entrenched bicameralism: It is an unequivocal sign the Government was committed to a bicameral legislature. [1][2] The main problem with keeping the House of Lords hereditary is that Britain's democratic system of government is more aristocratic. More people will be given the opportunity to stand for Parliament giving a greater range of representation, as the second house would be more representative of the lower classes outside the M25 instead of just to those in that group. Therefore, the people of Britain would be better represented, as is the fundumental idea behind a representative democracy. [3][4] In the words of Katie Ghose, chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society, "If you hold the power to help decide how Britain is run you should be elected by us, the British public. That's democracy. No-one should be able to inherit or buy a place in the British Parliament. "[5][6] I will get to rebuttals in round 3. Sources [1]: Modernising Parliament, Reforming the House of Lords, HMSO, December 1998. [2]: . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]: . http://www.parliament.uk... [4]: . http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [5]: . http://www.independent.co.uk... [6]: . http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...
Should the house of lords be elected

The house of Lords shouldn't be elected because the public might just choose a friend to run for Lord and vote for them because of favouritism. Bribes People would do anything for money and people would do anything to win almost every time a judge could be bribed to side with them and who says they wont as well. Mistakes people might be tricked into thinking that what they're saying is what they want but there's always the small print like if they say that if they vote for them he/she would give more benefit for people who need it but what they don't say is for that to happen they would have to raise taxes for people on benefits. Plus I believe the prime minister should know what is best for the country. And what you might say is that the public chooses the prime minister who chooses the lords but not all the time does the public make good choices in which Prime minister they choose hence why the public protests for rights this and rights that and if the public can't always be trusted to pick a good Leader then they can't fully be trusted to pick Lords. And also some might not even give three f*cks about Voting so we might even have to bring compulsory voting because of how serious the house of Lords are and no one wants to get fined "50.00 because they didn't vote.
Should the house of lords be elected

My opponent's main argument revolves around the idea that making the house of lords fully elected would damage the political process as he argues that most voters would not vote responsibly. However true this statement may be, it is important to remember who holds the real power in the British Legislature - the House of Commons. Basically, all the House of Lords does is scrutinize bills passed by the House of Commons, and on occasion, amends them. They, by no means, have any significant power. [1][2][3]Basically, there shouldn't be a group of people making decisions for people who have not elected them, and therefore do not represent their interests. "Nothing could be less representative than the current London-centric incumbents. A wholly or mainly elected chamber is bound to be more reflective of Britain today. "[4][5]My opponent admits: "Democracy is Admittedly the most efficient way of choosing a leader. .. " Then he should be interested to know that 69 per cent of the population support an elected House of Lords. If he thinks democracy is good, then he should support electoral reform. [5]Overall, for a more representative democracy to be established, the House of Lords needs to be elected by the people, and not appointed or given hereditary birthright. Sources [1]: . http://www.parliament.uk...[2]: . http://news.bbc.co.uk...[3]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]: . http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...[5]: . http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...;
Scientific evidence supports Geo-centrism

1. You just assumed that the bible was wrong on these things. When really they were right. Because those things you listed arn't true! No refutation was given on this one 2. "The concept of an absolute velocity, including being "at rest" as a particular case, is ruled out by the principle of relativity," You've just refuted your Heliocentric model. Thanks. An obvious "center" is different from an absolute center. Since an obvious center has the property of movement. as absolute center doesn't. "distant masses in the universe to have special properties." Yes you're killing yourself here. 2 Distant masses one getting smaller would decrease constant time. Con didn't reffute this argument either, he just straw manned it. 3. Newtons's theory of Universal Law of Gravitation couldn't be demonstrated. or proven by testing on earth. ALl testing with say with a telescope assumes heliocentric 4. The switching of prograde and retrograde would cause an increase in gravity to the planets. Gaining forward momentum by the conservation of angular momentum. Since the sun is losing mass in past time it would of been larger. Meaning that the momentum would of been increasing amazingly in the past. So a heliocentric model would of burned up all planets.
Scientific evidence supports Geo-centrism

1. The BibleThe bible says the earth doesn't move.Chronicles 16:30 -Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.Psalm 96:10 - Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns." The world is firmly established, it cannot be movedPsalm 104:5 - He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.The bible has been right SO many times on science. In fact its listed 101 times the bible was right So its a perfectly reasonable assumption to claim that geocentrism is correct because the bile documents it2. Relativity Relativity states that there is no favored frame of reference, so a geocentric frame is as good as a heliocentric one.We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance. An object centering around a mass of light(sun) would in turn have no constant time frame. Since how fast you're travailing determines the time. If the earth is going 66,630 mph in space and is changing by a few mph then 1 minute cannot be constantly 1 minute as it was yesterday. The time frame of a heliocentric universe is out of wack and we would see vary ageing. Yet vary aging is not observed3. Jump If I jump and I'm on top of a moving car. What would happen? The car would move and I would drop. So if we are going 66,630 mph thru space and I jump I should fly off. Yet we I don't Because everything revolves around the earth.4. Sun would eat it all! An object with a big mass (sun) would have a strong gravitational pull. WHich would gradually obsorve the gravitational fields of the planets near it. Causing the gravatiational pull to increase and the planets would progress towards the sun quickly and burn up all planets. This is estimated to take 3000 years from the beginning of the sun. It (supposably) has been 4.5 billion years with the earth.A geocentric model is the only plausable explaiantion.
Barack Obama does not have enough experience in the political office to be president

"I don't think when George Bush was running for president he was expecting 9/11 to happen." Good point but irrelevant, George Bush still had experience making tough decisions as governor of Texas and time in congress. He oversaw executions, handled disaster situations, and managed one of the largest states in the union. George Bush had the leadership experience to make tough decisions, Barack Obama does not. "What Barack Obama is experienced in is change" What did he change? Can you give me some evidence of some great changes he has made in his less than six month career in congress. "He's experienced in talking to the public, he can make people smile." So is Dave Chappelle, Carlos Mencia, and George Lopez, but I am not voting for any of them for president "but from what I've known hes been around several countries now talking to leaders, and trying to solve conflict." With minimal authority, what can he do to solve any conflict with foreign countries. That is the issue, he is attempting to fix problems without having the authority to do so, he can't fix anything. Talking is great but what change has he effected oversees? "And the problem with politics is no matter how much experience you have people will look for flaws in you to get people to not vote for you." this doesn't negate experience. Your right but to embrace one of your suppositions is not neccesarily to embrace the other.