BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Final Fantasy VII is Not Good

You DO realise RPG's existed before FF7, maybe even before the original. The Legend of Zelda is probably the most well known. True, it's not a down-to-earth RPG like FF, but there's always Pokemon to disprove you. So what if it was one of the first to have 3D graphics? Doesn't matter if you were the first, it matters if you were the first to do it right. And FF7 didn't do it right. And I'm not, I'm compairing Final Fantasy 7 to Donkey Kong Country and Banjo-Kazooie. Both games that were well more better than FF7, especially Banjo-Kazooie. Let's be honest, the combat got boring after a while, I'm not a huge fan of RPGs. Yes, I enjoy them, but it's harder for me to get into them. Yes, yes, One-Winged Angel was a good song. But after you've heard it thousands of times from Dissida and, THAT fight in Kingdom Hearts that made me break my controller, you kinda don't care anymore and just want it to stop. Best story? Pfft, I beg to differ. The Walking Dead, Team Fortress 2, Transistor, Call of Duty: Bla- Well, maybe not Call of Duty JUST yet. And hell, even Watch_Dogs and Kingdom Hearts have better stories. All of them. Okay, yes, I get it, IGN, GameFan and all that love the game, but with a Metacritic of only 92... Let's see what beats that... Portal 2, Half-Life 1/2 (Personally hate Half-Life, but 'eh), Company of Heroes, Bioshock, Skyrim, and GTA V all have higher Metacritic scores. I don't get Sephiroth, he's just... Something about him irritates me. Maybe it's that unfair battle with him in Kingdom Hearts, maybe it's the COMMUNITY, maybe it's the fact he's a jerk, or the fact the final boss with him SUCKS. BAD. Now, a final boss can be bad and still be good, if the ending is perfect. Just look at Portal 2, the boss was easy, especially if you knew what to do. But the ending? That, my good sir/ma'am, is how you make an ending. FF7's entire story left me just wanting for it to get it over and done with already. Especially that laughably horrible bit where *Spoilers, if you care* Aerilith dies (if I got her name right). The god awful dialogue and stupid graphics left me laughing while the entire scene was playing. And that goes for a lot of the other scenes in the game. Same goes for the Crisis Core version of FF7. Ending was let down with stupid dialogue that would be 1-Upped by Halo: Reach's ending. From all the YouTube video's I've watched about Top 10 Games, none had Final Fantasy 7 in it. I've actually seen FF7 in Overrated Top 10's, which is where it'll be in my list, in the Top 3. Well, I like Call of Duty for being incredibly fun, especially Black Ops II. I like Grand Theft Auto for having no boundaries on what it shows you, and Halo's only fun if you have friends. None of those I found in FF7. AT ALL.
Final Fantasy VII is Not Good

Alright let's get started. Sorry for the late post, been traveling. Just to point out real quick, a-man-named-John was right. The blasphemy comment had nothing to do religion. Just a little pun for taking bad about FF7 lol. FF7 revolutionized gaming. It brought the RPG genre to North America. It it was one of the first games to utilize 3-D computer Graphic design and during its release in 1997 it had some of the best if not the best graphics of any game in that era. I remember literally crapping my self when I saw the first cut scene and you could see all 5 individual fingers on the human hand. The visuals of the game were breathtaking. My opponent has stated that the graphics were "mediocre". Well that is only possible if you are referencing FF7, a game made in 97', to modern day video game graphics which is just absolutely unfair. Anyone who played the game when it released would know that that games graphics were enough to make a grown man cry. The game play was phenomenal with literally hundreds of hours worth of playability and nearly a never ending trove of various things to do. Summoning was not only impressively done but also breathtaking and the integration of the materia(magic) system into the combat was superbly done. My opponent has stated that the music as "mediocre". 3 titles to disprove that. "Nobuo uematsu", "Aeris's Theme", and "One-Winged Angel". And there are many many more. It is also the best selling game out of the entire Final Fantasy series with over 10 million copies sold. It's was also accredited as the "game that sold the playstation." FF7 has been accredited with one of the best stories ever told in video games. Gaming critics and reviewers such as IGN, GameFan constantly rate FF7 among the top 10 greatest video games ever made and if it didn't make the top ten then it was most certainly in the top 100. Sephiroth has also been acclaimed as one of the best video game villains ever and constantly ranks in the top 10. And, let's just face it, how many games can boost that they had a moment in their game that literally made millions of people across the globe, children and full grown adults, BALL their freaking eyes out. (I cried for a good solid hour) lol. All in all. FF7, regardless of individual opinion, is still ranked by the global gaming community as 1 of if not the greatest video game of all time. And, as I already said, that's a game from 1997 that's competing against the new age graphics and game play of the modern world of Call of Dutys and your grand theft autos and your halos and all those other games that, compared to FF7, are quite honestly crap. Cheers to my opponent.
Final Fantasy VII is Not Good

...Wait, what does christianity have anything to do with this? But anyways, the only reason I liked Final Fantasy VII was because of Dissdia: Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts, everything else is just... Mediocre. The graphics, the story, the music, everything bar the gameplay, which was good. Like I said, but that wasn't enough to even get me to Disk 3 before just giving up. And yes, I do like Call of Duty.
Captialism vs Socialism

To be more specific, my opponent will be arguing that unregulated capitalism with a stable inflation rate (correct me if I am wrong) is more beneficial than market-based socialism. When I use the word 'better' or 'more beneficial,' I will be referring to both systems ability to create a better quality of life. Thus, I argue that market-based socialism, of which is found in countries like Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, etc., is more beneficial for the people than a laissez-faire capitalism.
Although he has some flaws, Olimar is not a bad character in Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

After displaying his incredible capacity for resilience, my opponent seemed to have retaken the lead. But fear not; I shall climb back to the apex. I'll begin with some observations: 1) The standard for GOP that my opponent has provided renders me defenseless- although, something was overlooked. The resolution refers to Olimar as a character; what my opponent has done is prove that, in the case of a GOP, Olimar is not bad. But, Olimar remains to have potential flaws that are difficult to overcome. 2) SSB wikia providing that Olimar is in spot 8 says nothing, for two reasons. First, there is absolutely no analysis- it is a probability based chart. Second, we don't know what the standard is for tiers, so we can't analyze good/bad. Not only that, he's tier B, which puts him out of the list of "good" players. Moving on, I'll keep my responses limited, and simply a summary because my opponent won't have a chance to refute them, seeing as this is the last round. Olimar's non-cumbersome stature leaves a cumbersome burden on the player- a necessary desire to avoid smash attacks. Seeing as his small size renders him weak, he inherently has a disadvantage of some sort. Moreover, most of the scenarios in which my opponent provides about reorganizing pikmin and catching the opponent off guard with mind games are speculative, for you can never know the true nature of your opponent. In conclusion, I feel that the burden to prove that Olimar is not a bad character has not been fulfilled by my opponent. Although, I do admit, I am tempted to try him out a few times. I thank my opponent, and new friend, for this wonderful debate, and hope he stays on this site for an interesting future, as opposed to leaving like most first-debaters. Happy Halloween!
Although he has some flaws, Olimar is not a bad character in Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

Now to get this started. Your first video proves nothing. Your second video shows a terribly played Olimar. The Olimar player shown in the video made extremely poor decisions, such as staying Pikminless for too long and doing random moves, all while not even concentrating on his opponent. It's not Olimar's fault he lost the battle, but rather the poor player using him. Now to counter my opponent's arguments. 1. Yes, all characters have powerful moves, but Olimar's stands out before the rest. With multiple white pikmin, Pikmin Throw's damage soars, doing more damage than just about any attack. 1) Yes they can be blocked, but they will beat the opponent's shield. With many Pikmin latched on, careless players will find their shield broken. 2, 3, 4, and 6) This is there the mindgames come in. While the opponent is busy attacking, dodging the Pikmin being lobbed at him/her, Olimar can rush in for a free grab or smash while the opponent is left vulnerable after attacking or dodging. "I've seen it where people only run around tossing the colorful little demons and end up getting cornered with no pikmin. The second they try to spawn some, they are knocked off course. " That's the player's fault for carelessly using his Pikmin. Good Olimar players know when to throw their Pikmin and when to pluck some more. 2. Like I said before, Olimar can instantly replenish his Pikmin supply, so Pikmin being killed is not an issue. 3. These "mindgames" are what separates good Olimar players from bad. Olimar can keep his opponent at bay by using Pikmin Throw mindgames to throw off his opponent, which keeps Olimar from being attack and therefore keeps him from being launched off the stage. I admit, I made a huge mistake about his Down B. What I meant to say was the first few frames, not the first few seconds. This was a foolish error on my part. Anyway, after protecting himself from an attack, Olimar has plenty of time to dodge out of the way of another attack. The "rainbow sparkles" go away quickly. 1. Olimar's smashes are very powerful, especially if Red or Purple Pikmin are used. The only exception are White Pikmin. If they are used for a smash attack, the damage is small with barely any knockback, but that's not Olimar's fault. It's the player's fault for not organizing his/her Pikmin correctly. Also, Olimar's Down Smash is a great tool against people who like to roll-dodge around you a lot. 2. Unless the opponent is someone who can fly really high (Kirby, Pit, Metaknight, etc), the opponent gets a guaranteed 54% damage from the monsters, therefore the rocketship explosion does not matter as much. 3. As I said before, Olimar has the necessary tools to prevent himself from being launched off the map, therefore size and weight don't matter. I now await a response from my opponent.
Although he has some flaws, Olimar is not a bad character in Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

Many Brawl players are quick to flag Captain Olimar as a horrible character. It's been 2 years since Brawl's release, and within the time span, people still don't know about Olimar's potential as a fighter. As an Olimar main, I find this very offensive. The main reasons people think Olimar is terrible are (from which I've seen): 1. His tether recovery. or 2. People don't know how to use him correctly. Olimar is a great character, and for a lot of reasons: 1. His Side B can dish out insane amounts of damage when White Pikmin are latched on. Not only that, he can also use his Side B for mindgames. An Olimar player can throw Pikmin around the stage, confusing the opponent about which Pikmin are going to land on him/her and which aren't. While the opponent is dodging/attacking the Pikmin, Olimar can rush in for a surprise attack. 2. Many people think you can kill Olimar's Pikmin easily, and that Olimar is a sitting duck when they're killed. Unless the Pikmin aren't following Olimar, they cannot be killed. Olimar can also quickly replenish his Pikmin supply, pulling out all 6 in about 1 second. 3. I have to admit, Olimar's recovery isn't very good. However, Olimar has all the necessary tools to prevent himself from being launched off the stage. First are the mindgames I mentioned earlier. Second is his Down B. The 1st few seconds of his Down B provide him with Super Armor, which prevents Olimar from being launched at all. Third are his amazing spacing techniques. Olimar can space with his long smashes, his Side B, and even his grab! All the necessary tools to keep the opponent away. I will now await an opponent.
LD Debate: Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission ruling undermines democracy in the U.S.

Thanks for this debate. I remember that affirmative always goes last and I have a feeling that I didn't win, so this will just be the end of the debate. I urge everyone to vote according to who they believe won the debate. Thanks Niwsa and I can't wait to debate against you again.*handshakes* Sorry, I didn't do that in the third round.
LD Debate: Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission ruling undermines democracy in the U.S.

My apologies for not specifically stating as you did that "According to this debate, democracy seems to be the appropriate valuefor this debate."I believed that it was implied I was accepting that we were arguing on democracy as it 1. Appears directly in the Contention2. Is stated in my contentionsI will let the voters decide how they wish to deal with this problem (if it is one at all?). I would like to begin by refuting my opponent's rebuttal and then extend my arguments.My opponent states "Mitt Romney says that corporations are in fact people and many people concede to that statement."I do not contest that Mitt Romney states that corporations are in fact people, but nowhere does my opponent provide evidence, even in his source, that "many people concede to that statement."My opponent's argument here is unwarranted. My opponent states that I concede to his definition without stating what definition I conceded to, I did not "concede" to any definitions I accepted a few of them. Corporations can indeed donate money, I am not arguing against this, we are arguing whether or not Citizens united undermines democracy, not whether corporations should be able to donate money. My opponent states that my first Contention is invalid because "Mitt Romney had more money, but Barack Obama won."I have already refuted this piece of evidence as it pertains to the resolution. But what does who won the election have to do with the image of our democracy, just because in this instance Obama managed to win has nothing to with the image of our democracy as I laid out in my arguments in the previous round. My opponent attacks my second Contention my alluding to the idea that Citizens United promotes democracy or the right to peaceably assemble. How does Citizens United promote this aspect of the First Amendment?Again I apologize, I did not realize I had to specifically cite a value or criterion to uphold; I thought that the value of democracy was implied by the resolution and my contentions. As this is the final round for debating, I extend my arguments as they have not been successfully refuted. I urge a Pro Vote.
LD Debate: Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission ruling undermines democracy in the U.S.

Thanks Niwsa, but since you did not post a value to uphold on your side of the debate, my value overrides. Viewers, please uphold democracy when voting on this debate.I am in a rush right now so I will attack my opponent's case weakly. I will first back up my arguments, then I will refute my opponent's case.Corporation's Individuality under the LawMitt Romney says that corporations are in fact people and many people concede to that statement. http://www.nationalreview.com... My opponent concedes to my definition and becaue an individual can donate money to a politician and a corporation can act as an individual, then a corporation can donate money.The Constitution says that certain amendments can be appealed if it hurts the democratic process. Then, they created the 14th amendment saying that everyone has "equal protection under the law". The Citizens United ruling fundamentally changes our elections process, my opponent seems to focus on corporations, but corporations are not the only ones effected by the decision. People can still vote the same way so this argument is invalid. Contention 1: The Citizens United ruling undermines democracy by undermining the image of our democracyI have just proven that from corporation donations, Mitt Romney had more money, but Barack Obama won.This statement is invalid.Contention 2: The Citizens United ruling undermines democracy by corrupting the political process. Her example just proves how this promotes democracy. It shows how the people in this individual have the freedom to peaceably assemble(First Amendment). To take this away from them will undermine democracy.Now I am not trying to be a troll, but you did not post a value or a criterion to uphold. Usually, that would be a complete disqualification in the debate, but that would make the debate boring so back to you Niwsa.
LD Debate: Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission ruling undermines democracy in the U.S.

I accept my opponent's challenge, however I have a question. First I'd like to point out that I am a member of my school's debate team, although I participate in Public Forum, not LD. Anyways, what did you mean by "The vote of the more reliable sources goes to the person with the most appropriate value, if the same, then settle in a tie"? What is "the most appropriate value" with respect to sources. If you have a specific voting criteria you wan't voters to use you should clarify it. Thanks, I wish you a good debate.
LD Debate: Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission ruling undermines democracy in the U.S.

Hello, I am a high school student that wants to practice LD debate and this is the topic. If the challenger is not familiar with the rules or how to structure an LD case, then look on uiltexas.com to find the rules. Anyways, I am not allowed to say my case first, because I am negative. I will, however, introduce my argument in the second round. But I do have one extra ruleRound One- introduction of argumentRound Two- I will introduce my argument and refute; you will refute my argument.Roound Three- We will both refute each others arguments; after, we will virtually give each other a handshake.Round Four- You will tell me if I did a good job and what do I need to do to improve my argument. I will do the same.Also, if you are in the debate team at your high school, then please notify that in the first round so I can give good critcism in the first round.Additional Rules:The vote of more reliable sources goes to the person with the most appropriate value, if the same, then settle in a tie.
American Tai Qwon Do is not good for self defense

Tae kwon Do is useful, and satisfactory in quality. Especially when you would otherwise know nothing. What we must notice is my opponent never specified what degree of tae kwon do is not good for self defense. If you were a 9th degree black belt I'm most certain that you would be fairly good in self defense. You can't tell me that these guys wouldn't be good in self defense =D http://www.youtube.com... All other arguments extended, hopefully my opponent will come back for the last round.
American Tai Qwon Do is not good for self defense

I am going to assume we are referring to Tae Kwon Do. My opponent makes no case, so I will start with the basics. Definition of "Good" "Satisfactory in quality" http://dictionary.reference.com... ======= Arguments ======= 1. Versatile: Tae Won Do provides defenses for nearly any attack, including but not limited to defense vs Kicks, punches, chokes/holds attacks with weapons such as knives and more. 2. Basic techniques are useful to anyone: Even if one is not highly adept at fighting, possessing some of these basic, easy to learn techniques can get you out of a tough spot. Or save you from a situation where you may have otherwise been done. I am in a hurry and don't have much time but I would like to get the debate kicked off so I will post this for now and bring about a well thought out case tomorrow.
The US government should cease regulating its borders

This was an enjoyable, quick debate. I heartily thank my opponent. == Closing Remarks== 1. The Con argues that "The use of physical... the U.S. illegally." Certainly, border patrol stops *some*, but that statistic of 9000 does not include all the immigrants that the system *failed* to stop. As immigrants will always be able to find the chinks in the fence, we should focus inland on law enforcement. 2. Next, the Con states that "Illegal immigration is estimated... in each state." I must agree; illegal immigrants are like citizens in that they utilize government programs. However, if we cease border regulation, that will free up monetary resources to cover immigrant social program costs. Even better, the border patrol personnel could be put to work in the Immigration Service. If they can stop "9,000 people trying to enter," they can file 9000 more immigration applications. Now the immigrants are citizens paying taxes, a true solution compared to funneling them to holes in the fence.
The US government should cease regulating its borders

The purpose of border control is to preserve American citizens from illegal activities in the best interest of the nation. The use of physical blockade and surveillance increases the possibility of stopping illegal immigrants from entering. Arizona has been the center for crossings by illegal immigrants for many years. In 2009 the system stopped about 9,000 people trying to enter the U.S. illegally. Illegal immigration is estimated to cost the U.S. millions of dollars in lost income tax revenue. Not only is the United States at a loss of millions of dollars but illegal immigration also depletes government spending by overusing social welfare and education programs. TIME magazine states in California alone, $400million is spent on health care for illegal immigrants. CNN says that the care of illegal immigrants in Jacksonville, Florida costs taxpayers $44.5 million. Think of how much money is spent on illegal immigrants across the country, not just in each state.
The US government should cease regulating its borders

And away we go. == The Empire Strikes Back== 1. The Con argued "The government is... prevent 'weak spots.' " Yet, though the government may try, with a Southern border the size it is, certain chinks in the armor still appear. The whole fence can not be perfect; illegal immigrants find the weakest spots on the fence and enter there. In Arizona, the weak spot is in front of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, where "there are now 1,200 miles of illegal roads and footpaths created by drug smugglers and illegal immigrants scarring the refuge." (1) This shows, first, that border patrol fails to stop immigration and, second, that it causes damage. Two reasons to cease regulation. 2. The Con says "how could we control our staggering... people entering?" First, my description of chinks in the armor explains why we can not control the number who enter. We should simply focus on law enforcement. Next, "This could provide... our economy." Adding tax-paid jobs does not boost the econ.