BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
After patches, Assassin's Creed Unity is a good game.

Pre-argument and some rules My argument is that after patches, Assassin's Creed Unity is a good game that is faithful in to the games of the "golden period" (AC 1, 2, and Brotherhood) in terms of feeling and gameplay. More will be elaborated once the challenge is accepted. The opponent will take up the opposite stance based on the idea that even after patching AC Unity remains a bad game and is a poor comparison to older games of the same series. The opponent may not say that all the games are bad or deviate from the con presented. After the opponent accepts in round 1 actual debating will begin in round 2. Once the opponent accepts both sides will present their points. Due to the argument points can be based not only on fact but also on personal feelings such as regarding the atmosphere of previous games and personal experiences regarding Unity's story and gameplay after the bugs were fixed. Before beginning I wish to remind that all arguments should be made regarding Unity after all bugs were patched.
If God is real, then he is stupid.

There's nothing more I can say, as my opponent has again refused to address my argument. Once again, I am not arguing that God is good. I am arguing that he is an intelligent force, and a malevolent force. Pointing out the evil he does and causes only supports my case. Intelligence does not equate to goodness. Yada yada yada.I'm dissapointed that you did not challenge these points once in the debate. Ah well.
If God is real, then he is stupid.

My opponent still seems to be equating intelligence with goodness. I do not think they understand my argument. I am not proposing God is good. I am saying that pointing at all the evil God as supposedly done, as is all the evidence my opponent has provided for his position, does not render one unintelligent in of itself. Evil acts would only make one unintelligent if their goal was to perform good acts. So to say God is unintelligent, because he does evil, presupposes that God is seeking to do good. If we remove this presupposition, God's actions can be entirely explain and rationalized, through the mind of a malevolent force. And this is my argument. That God is evil, and that the evil he does is not out of a lack of foresight or capacity to do good, but out of a desire not to do good.I have yet to see my opponent address this argument.
If God is real, then he is stupid.

Have you ever read the christian Bible? Here is a list of stupid sins; -Mixing fabrics -If an ox gores someone, the ox shall be stoned to death. -You must not boil a kid its mother's milk. -Four-legged fouls are an abomination. -Those with flat noses or damaged testicles must stay away from the altar. -Mixing seed when sowing fields -Breeding cows with diverse species -Ye shall keep my statutes. -Masturbation -Homosexuality -Women not dressing modestly -Crafty conversation -Abortion -Offending a child of god -Deceiving a child of god -Not spanking a disobedient child -Cursing -Drugs -Touching a woman while she's on her period. -Allowing a woman in church while she's on her period. -Not killing your neighbors for working on the sabbath. -Adultery only by looking -Aaron must wear a bell whenever he enters the holy place or God will kill him. Here is a small list of bad things God/Jesus is said to have done in the bible. EX 9:22-25 A plague of hail from the Lord strikes down everything in the fields of Egypt both man and beast except in Goshen where the Israelites reside. EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt. EX 17:13 With the Lord's approval, Joshua mows down Amalek and his people. EX 21:20-21 With the Lord's approval, a slave may be beaten to death with no punishment for the perpetrator as long as the slave doesn't die too quickly. EX 32:27 "Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. EX 32:27-29 With the Lord's approval, the Israelites slay 3000 men. LE 26:7-8 The Lord promises the Israelites that, if they are obedient, their enemies will "fall before your sword." LE 26:22 "I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children." LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10 As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends. LE 27:29 Human sacrifice is condoned. (Note: An example is given in JG 11:30-39) NU 11:33 The Lord smites the people with a great plague. NU 12:1-10 God makes Miriam a leper for seven days because she and Aaron had spoken against Moses. NU 15:32-36 A Sabbath breaker (who had gathered sticks for a fire) is stoned to death at the Lord's command. NU 16:27-33 The Lord causes the earth to open and swallow up the men and their households (including wives and children) because the men had been rebellious.
If God is real, then he is stupid.

I fail to see how this is a knock on God's intelligence. It could certainly be seen as a strike against his moral character, that it could. But that would seem to, if anything, support my stance.I hold that if God is indeed real, he is not only intelligent, but entirely evil. If we take away the presupposition of God being morally good, much of what we see in the modern world, and read in the Bible, suddenly becomes much more clear. An evil force that wipes out whole civilizations, yet gets people to worship it by claiming to be good and holy? This is highly manipulative behavior. Consider the amount of conflict and suffering we see in the world. Consider how many people pray to "God" for peace and clarity. If they receive it, praise be to God. If they are denied it, well, "he works in mysterious ways". To be able to convince people that, no matter what, you are right, requires a highly intelligent mind, capable of knowing just what to say and how to act to deceive others.My opponent seems to think that because God does bad things, he must not be very smart; this, however, presupposes God is seeking to do good. There are no grounds to assume this, and in fact, the world makes far more sense if we assume that God enjoys the suffering and conflict we experience, to one extent or another.Take, as an example, my opponent's citing of the biblical flood. God is displeased with the many cultures of the globe, and decides to slaughter them and all life on the planet, save an old man and his family, and some creatures this man brings with him. My opponent claims this is an act of incredible stupidity, but again, basis this on the presupposition that God is seeking to do good. Let us assume that God is instead malevolent. God would have wiped these life forms from the planet, simply because he desired to. Because he didn't like them. And at the same time as doing this, manages to convince a member of these life forms he is about to eradicate that he is morally good, and that he should dedicate the rest of his life to him. He does this successfully, and from this man, manages to spawn a cult that has engulfed the globe. This is nothing short of malevolent, calculated, manipulation. This requires an at least average level of intelligence, if not more so.
If God is real, then he is stupid.

This is true, being evil is inherently not good. However, being good, and being intelligent, are not the same thing. One can be entirely evil, and still be highly intelligent. Especially so if we are dealing with an all-powerful, all-knowing deity.Since you still haven't posted a case for why God is stupid, I'll wait another round before posting my own. After that though, I'm moving on.
Chuck Norris Jokes debate

5 chuck norris jokes per round each person. I'll start-- Some people can walk on water, chuck norris can swim on land Chuck Norris once swallowed a whole bottle of sleeping pills. They made him blink. Chuck Norris can set ants on fire with a magnifying glass. At night. Chuck Norris doesn't sleep. he waits. Afghanistan has no weapons of mass destruction. Chuck Norris lives in America.
Chuck Norris Jokes debate

Chuck Norris dosn't eat food, food crawls into his mouth in fear. Chuck Norris drive, he just says "go" and his car moves. Chuck Norris dosn't cheat death, he wins fair and square Leading hand sanitizers claim they can kill 99.9 percent of germs. Chuck Norris can kill 100 percent of whatever the f**k he wants. Chuck Norris can speak braille
Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament

But, in this case, we talk about the athlete whose have so many fans. For example, the football player, they have so many fans all around the world, from those who already old, mid-age, or even the children. If the using of PED is allowed in this case, of course what the athlete did is being adapted by their fans. For example, Child "A" said "Oh, my idol use that drugs to improve the energy during the match, I will try it too" Isn't it will be dangerous for the children under age? And for your information, eating healthy diets and exercising more efficiently = Is natural ways :-)
Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament

A ban is not the way to deal with addiction and health issues. Addiction is a personal situation that must be handled properly, meaning between the user, his doctor, and those affected by his behavior. The drugs being unnatural does not prove that they should be banned. If a certain activity should be banned for giving an artificial advantage, then shouldn't athletes logically be banned from eating healthy diets and exercising more efficiently? Because after all, these are unnatural processes.
Performance Enhancing Drugs Would be Legalize in World Sport Tournament

Performance-enhancing drugs (PED) are substances used by athletes to improve their performances. These drugs are addictive and if we use it for a long time it will be affect our heart-health. And these regulation will not appropriate with the purpose of sport which is Be Healthy By Natural Ways. Because if the athlete use these PED it will insist them to do more than the energy they have. And of course it is not healthy.
Race is an ineffective social construct.

I am not, for one moment, arguing that social constructs are bad in their own right. Most are useful, like language and government. Race, however, is entirely ineffective. My opponent raises the argument of assisting with identification and uses the example of a police description. In the United Kingdom, our police fulfil this need using Identity Codes or ICs. For instance: IC1 refers to a person of Northern European descent; IC2 refers to someone of South European descent; IC3 refers to someone of Afro-Carribean descent; IC4 refers to those of South Asian descent; IC5 refers to those of East Asian descent; IC6 refers to someone of North African or Middle Eastern descent. Are you noticing something here? Descent. You also cite the fact that some diseases are "race specific". The only time it is important to categorise a patient as part of a larger group is epidemiologically. The individual specifics are always more telling of genetic afflictions than broad stereotyping. I think it is important to understand that race self-identification is is a poor surrogate for understanding a patient's genetically conditioned health. There are a myriad of things to take into account when a patient comes to a doctor. Often, what seems to be the result of a person's phenotype is actually a consequence of their socioeconomic status as opposed to their ancestral geography. Take for instance the "Population-based fracture risk assessment and osteoporosis treatment disparities by race and gender" study by J Gen Intern Med. (specifically: 24: 956"62) from 2009. In short, it found that, because African-Americans were thought to have stronger bones, those that self-identified as a African-American were less likely to be prescribed Osteoporosis medication, even though the initial claim was false. Thus, racial stereotypes may overshadow actual individual problems. Another thing to note is that individual genetic assessment is becoming more affordable and fast. It could be, in the near future, that upon arriving at a new doctor's surgery, one does not fill out a form but takes a swab and his doctor receives an instant picture of genetic problems as a result (http://www.gis.a-star.edu.sg...). My opponents final point, about being "color blind" fails to recognise that race, as a social construct, can be replaced by more effective ones. Like descent. I would find it much easier to emphasise with someone who describes themselves as "Sino-North European" than "Half white, half asian". It tells me a lot more. It tells a doctor a lot more. It tells a police man a lot more. I would much rather like to hear your geographical ancestry than your "race". There are genes common amongst specific geographical groups, but there are no genes common amongst a race.
Race is an ineffective social construct.

A social construct is just a convenient way for people to easily communicate some facts to each other. Race is an effective social construct, because it can be used to help identify people. If the police are chasing a bad guy, then it is much easier to say something like "in foot pursuit of a white male headed east on MLK" then it is to come up with more precise details. The most important reason for this effective social construct I can think of is health reasons. By asking patients race on the form everyone feels out when getting a new doctor, they can easily identify certain risk factors and focus on preventing those problems. Some diseases can actually be pretty race specific. For example, One article state: "It is well known that some diseases are more common in particular racial or ethnic groups than in others, for example, cystic fibrosis among people of European ancestry, sickle cell disease among those of African and Mediterranean ancestry, and Tay-Sachs disease among Ashkenazi Jews. Lactase deficiency, which can cause difficulties for those whose diets include lactose, is common in virtually all populations except those that trace their ancestry to Europe and a few regions in Africa, the Middle East, and south and central Asia." http://www.nchpeg.org... My opponent by eliminating this social construct would take away a very useful tool for doctors. Another reason race as a social construct is important, is because being color blind would take away our ability to empathize with groups of people who were marginalized and still face the repercussions for that to this very day.
Race is an ineffective social construct.

Firstly, I would like start by pointing out that different cultures have different concepts of race. In the United States, the great racial divide is seen as being between those of European descent, or "whites", and those of African descent, or "blacks". There is a long history of suffering amongst the latter as a result of the former justified through the espousal of the idea that those of African descent are somehow inferior. Two populations of the same species were, and still are, treated differently on the grounds of minor genetic variations. Do you know how many genes a black man and a white man generally share? Greater than 99%. In fact, you share at least 99% of DNA with every human you have ever come across. Genetically speaking, the first "black" President of the United States was as much white as he was black. George Zimmerman, the "white" man who shot dead a youth of African descent is, genetically speaking, as white as Obama. This is my problem with the social construct of race. It is illogical. I understand that, as humans, we seek to identify patterns and classify everything, but the classifications we use for fellow members of our species are inconsistent. Where I come from, the UK, there is a history of a racial struggle between two populations. Ever since the Irish parliament swore fealty and granted the Kingdom of Ireland to King Henry VIII in 1541, there has been a difficult and often bloody Anglo-Irish relationship. Actions and events such as the Cromwellian war in Ireland, the Penal Laws and The Troubles all highlight how, based on nothing more than small genetic variation and cultural differences, the British aristocracy was capable of painting a group of people who were far more similar that different, both genetically and culturally, as inferior thus justifying the sustained and ruinous actions against them. Those of Anglo-Saxon descent and Irish descent generally share similarities in skin colour, hair colour, eye colour, in adherence to Christianity, in geography, in customs and norms and yet the Irish are considered a distinct racial group. "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs" was a sign seen frequently on boarding houses around Britain. How can two groups of people who share so much in common, at least 99% of the same genetic information, be considered wholly separate racial entities, how can they be comparable to dogs, an entirely separate species? On the topic of dogs, they're quite similar to us in that they have a wide range of minute genetic variations that lead them to be aesthetically different. There are a few differences that constitute the difference between a Doberman and a King Charles, but at the end of the day, they don't care. They'll sniff any old dogs arse, regardless of difference.
Super-Walmart is the best establishment to set up a camp for a zombie apocalypse

What a cool debate! The biggest problem with the Super-Walmart is that it is hard to defend from bandits. Because we are in the Walking Dead universe, one must avoid staying in high risk locations. All the shops have long since been raided, hence they loot houses. Walmarts have multiple points of ingress, and the living and can be so much worse than the dead. Assuming you hold off the attack, Walmart's have TONS of supplies, but I think you'll be disappointed in the selection. For starters, I shop for bullets quite frequently, and Walmarts tend to be in short supply. Even stocked, the selection of weapons and ammo you'd want to use (for zombies a hi-cap .22 rifle) are going to be limited. As for food, Walmart has a seemingly unlimited amount, unless this apocalypse isn't over quickly. Our AMC friends think it would drag on and on, and that food supply won't be getting bigger. Given that Super Walmarts are in urban areas, hunting options will be limited. The problem with the gardening section is it's for house plants, not vegetables. Good luck finding seeds that produce something edible. From a tactical prospective, the Walmart is a death trap. Given that there will be many zombified persons in the surrounding area, once you go in, there really isn't any going out. Those bandits I mentioned before are likely to bring or become our undead friends which will mean the store will be quickly surrounded. Even if you fortify the doors to withstand the horde strength of a thousand brain-hungry zombies, you're basically waiting until you run out of drinking water (likely the first to go) or food (distant second). Congrats, you just died at Walmart, which is the last phrase I want on my tombstone. What you really want is a fort out in the wilderness. Someplace with an area for crops, tactically sound defensive positions, plenty of surrounding wildlife, and most importantly, seclusion. Basically, the prison was about as good as it gets (solid walls would have made it better). Just don't piss off a cyclops. To survive long-term, your primary goal should be to avoid predators. Every encounter just adds to the probability of your demise. When a confrontation does occur, do what EVERY self-defense discipline teaches: RUN. Day 1: If you're at Walmart, grab heavy duty backpacks. You'll need food, so grab butter (best weight to calorie ratio). You'll want some water-holding objects. The problem here is water weighs a lot so it's essential to have continuous access. Get a .22 rifle (Ruger 10/22 or SW MP22). The ammo is very portable, so get plenty. There are other items to get: knives, medkits, rope, tools, blankets....whatever you can carry EASILY. You have a great headstart. Leave for the boonies and never come back.
The Guardians of Childhood books are better than the movie, Rise of The Guardians

The books are much better, because of the other characters involved, the richer storyline, and others. In the books, we see the backstories of all of the characters in the movie, as well as why they are the way they are. There are no blankspots or questions. The characters aare also more developed and have more feeling(directly speaking of Pitch). Therefore, the books are better.
The Guardians of Childhood books are better than the movie, Rise of The Guardians

yes you should a lot of the kids who watch the movie are little kids who just want to see a movie about something fun not about the history of the characters and how they became jack frost or sandman. kids just want to see a movie. a lot of movies that are based off the books leave a lot of stuff out for an example the hunger games when a Tribute dies, the cannon sounds immediately and in swoops a hovercraft. But the cannon seemed inconsistent and the crafts never arrived. Read more: http://www.teen.com...
The Guardians of Childhood books are better than the movie, Rise of The Guardians

That is undeniably a good reason, but there are so many characters missing and many plot aspects absent, that though it is a good movie,it is hard to look past it once you reach a certain age. You want to know more about the gaurdians and pitch and where they came from. It leaves too many holes, but are able to bypass that because of the attention-span of a child.
The Legend of Zelda is Nintendo's greatest property

Though you bring up great points about longest running and most valuable properties, many of those Mario titles are cheap cash trap spinoffs such as Mario Party 5-now, Mario tennis games, Mario golf, and virtually every other sport in existence. Some of these games are good, but many are mediocre to terrible. Pokemon is a very powerful driving force for Nintendo. It is of their most profitable franchises, and for good reason. It provides simple, graspable RPGs and a similarly functioning TCG. It is accessible, and fun. However, neither franchise stands up to the Legend of Zelda. The Legend of Zelda series is a timeless group of powerful games that revolutionized a genre. While Mario was released parallel to Megaman, and there were hundreds of RPG's by the time Pok"mon arrived, the Legend of Zelda was the first true adventure game. Then Ocarina of Time invented z-targeting and created the first true 3D adventure game. The Legend of Zelda series constantly pushes the envelope of what a non FPS action adventure title is. Zelda turns 30 this August in America, and already has in Japan. According to Zelda Indormer, which cited Nintendo financial releases, it has sold 70 million copies of video games for a huge amount of money, not including merchandise. Though Mario and Pokemon are iconic, mainstream, and forever more popular for their accessibility, the Zelda fan base is massive, and the games are revolutionary.
The Legend of Zelda is Nintendo's greatest property

I do not believe legend of Zelda is Nintendo's greatest property because Mario is Nintendo's longest running franchise (source listverse) Mario has appeared in other 200 games. Pokemon is also a very important piece of intellectual property for Nintendo because not only are the games hugely successful but so are the trading cards. Pokemon may be designed by game freak but Nintendo does own Pokemon. so therefore i do not believe the legend of Zelda is Nintendo greatest property.