BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Titan - fall best game of 2014

I accept. Now, I'm not going to say that Titanfall will not be the best game of 2014 just because it's not on PlayStation 4. So, don't get a**hurt because I'm hating on the game. I'm not technically hating the game. I'm giving it criticism on what should have been done right. Reason #1: It has A LOT OF COMPETITION! Dude, other games are coming out that are competing against Titanfall. And guess what? They sound more promising than what Titanfall is right now. Dark Souls II, Destiny, Watch Dogs, The Division, The Crew, Batman Arkham Knight, Wolfenstein: The New Order, and so much more. These games sound like they have more value and more features. Titanfall is just multiplayer-only. I get the concept of multiplayer only. But, what Respawn fails to deliver is to give us something to fully replace the singleplayer. Reason #2: It is DEFINITELY not the best game at all. Yes, Titanfall is a good game. But, it's just not a GREAT game. The only thing that Titanfall exceeds in is movement and most of it's gameplay elements. That's it. The story is interesting, but it's UNDERDEVELOPED. The story is easily neglected as you're fighting mechs and bots. You won't give a crap about the characters that die on screen like that guy. I don't even know his name. That's how underdeveloped the story is. This game is not worth $60. I would probably price it at $40 at most. How can they price it at $60 when we're only getting a certain portion of the game? My biggest gripe about Titanfall is Respawn has missed SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES! I was looking forward to the customizable titans. Nope, can't have that. IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE PRIVATE MATCHES? WHAT THE F****************!!!!! It feels that this game was rushed out. Overall, this game is saved by it's parkour elements and it's fun of the game. I can understand that this game isn't perfect because Respawn is made up of 75 people. And that's extremely small compared to a studio like Ubisoft which has over 9,000 employees. I just hope that the next Titanfall is 3x better than this one because the Respawn studio has probably gained a lot of employees this year. They probably 200+ right now. Reason #3: Destiny is coming out. This goes hand in hand with reason #1, but I felt that this should be a reason of it's own. Destiny looks even MORE AWESOME than Titanfall. It's made by the legendary Bungie, and it had more of a development time. I think it started ever since after the release of Halo ODST. Destiny will dominate this year of FPS games hands down. Plus, it will sell more because it is on more consoles. I'm disappointed that Destiny is not PC, but oh well. I'm not going to buy a PC for ONE GAME! I mean that's just stupid. My overall opinion: Now, just because I don't think that Titanfall will be the best game of 2014, doesn't mean it won't ever be. Maybe, all of the game I mentioned will turn out to be flops and fail. Maybe that could happen. Who knows? But, I really doubt it will be Game of the Year mainly because it has a lot of competition to go through. I wish you good luck on this debate my friend.
Titan - fall best game of 2014

I will continue my argument and provide more equitable reasons on why Titanfall will not be the best game of 2014. Reason #4: The story and atmosphere is bland and generic Yeah, people in a battlefield jumping around, riding in titans, and doing parkour sounds AWESOME. But, the whole story behind it is very generic. The story is so neglectable. Nobody knows what the **** is happening when you have titans destroying your team. Also, it's the same scenario when you go into the map every level. Dropship - Dropoff - Capture the Objective - You lose - Go to the pickup ship - Escape. Or, Dropship - Dropship - Capture the Objective - You win - Kill enemies before they escape - Dropship escapes. It's the same for every level except, for some levels, there's some minor differences. Reason 4.5: Whatever you do does not change the story This is a really valid point because I'm sick of losing when me and my team was absolutely dominating. My team were against noobs and we wrecked them HARD. But, we still lost because it was "part of the story." No matter what you do, you will either lose or win depending on what team you're in and that is not good. It feels cheap and lazy. It feels as if Respawn said **** it! Just add the story in just for the heck of it. Reason #5: The graphics aren't that great. This is not that valid because, first of all, graphics doesn't matter more than gameplay and Titanfall exceeds in gameplay. But, people take graphics in a sense where they think that every game has to look "realistic." Second of all, this game wasn't mean't to look "realistic." Even though, graphics aren't that important to me and you maybe, that doesn't mean that it's not important to everyone else. People will literally miss out on games that has amazing gameplay, features, story content, almost everything else except graphics. Reason #6: People are pissed off at this game (PlayStation fanboys) Yep, it's true. People are so pissed at the sheer fact that it's not on PlayStation 4. I mean, literally, this guy said he has a PC to buy Titanfall, but he said he's not going to buy it just because it's not on PS4. MORON! Reason #6.5: A lot of those people who had over the top high expectations for this game are "disappointed" I knew people were going to be disappointed. That wasn't even my fault. People were setting themselves up for disappointment and it's their fault. Every time a new game is coming out, people have these expectations that's nearly impossible to achieve and if that game doesn't exceed them (even though it's a good game in general) they will become disappointed.
Titan - fall best game of 2014

I was just showing my sense on the topic. Plus, I was minimally disappointed because of how Respawn fails to deliver more content than parkour and mechs. Even though I dropped my expectations way down before release, I still didn't expect this little. Gameplay wise, this game is a 10/10. But, it lacks features, replayability, and story content. I think that Respawn put WAY TOO MUCH focus on their parkour mechanics and mechs.
Convert Me

"Nothing so much amuses me as this sign of the extent to which human beings have been carried away by fanaticism and stupidity; although the prodigious spectacle of folly we are facing here may be horrible, it is always interesting. Answer me honestly, and endeavor to set personal considerations aside: were I weak enough to fall victim to your silly theories concerning the fabulous existence of the being who renders religion necessary, under what form would you advise me to worship him? Would you have me adopt the daydreams of Confucius rather than the absurdities of Brahma, should I kneel before the great snake to which the blacks pray, invoke the Peruvian's sun or Moses' Lord of Hosts, to which Mohammedan sect should I rally, or which Christian heresy would be preferable in your view? Be careful how you reply." -The Divine Marquis The BOP of my opponent will be to show it is reasonable for me to accept a particular theistic religion (No Buddhism because that is not a real religion trollolol). I'd prefer one of the abrahamic religions because the audience will appreciate it more. But if you think you have an airtight case for hinduism, then go for it.
Skepsikyma is the most articulate member on ddo

1.My opponent is insinuating that there are things which YYW does not understand.This is objectively false.With this in mind, I have created an easy-to-understand chart, which even someone with as limited a mind as my opponent should be able to follow: 2.This is an irrelevant point and should be ignored. No one values this point. In conclusion, YYW has proven that Skepsikyma is the most articulate member on DDO. This is a fact.
Skepsikyma is the most articulate member on ddo

Rebuttal 1: TestimonyWhile it is true YYW said that, this was only because he did not understand the nature of Skepsikyma's opponent's verbal talents. But if we're taking this route, let's address Skep's thoughts. In the thread that spawned this debate, in which bossy claimed Skep to be the most articulate member [1], Skep's response was deleted. Fortunately, I had it screenshotted, and we can clearly see that Skep very inarticulately denied that he is the most articulate person on DDO [2].Rebuttal 2: Quality Over QuantityThe idea that official positions are worth anything, if ever taken seriously, lost all credibility during the 12th and 13th elections [3], when a known incompetent coward won. Also, I have on word from an objective source of truth that YYW's referendum was "the official thread" [4].In conclusion, Shab has neglected to bring forth anything even close to proof that Skep is a greater wordsmith than YYW, and his only citations are a single post from Skep, a broken profile link, Skep's profile, and a "deleted" thread that no one screenshotted. In fact, no such thread is even POSSIBLE, considering the presidency was abolished [5].1. http://www.debate.org...2. http://i.imgur.com...3. http://ddo.wikia.com...4. http://www.debate.org...5. http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma is the most articulate member on ddo

Testimony:YYW himself, who, as we know, is always objectively correct, said, in a live hangout (so it is known that it was not an imposter) that one could "make the argument" that Skepsikyma is, in fact, the most articulate person on DDO based on his posts in the "DDO Needs to be a Safe Space" thread (example: [1]). Quality Over Quantity:YYW has over 35,000 posts [2]. However, he has never been elected to DDO office. In fact, the closest he has gotten to being a serious political force was when he attempted to convince people that he had the power to hold a referendum on the presidency. We know that the referendum was a fraud. Skepsikyma, with just over 8,000 posts [3], has won a legitimate DDO election and is currently DDO President [4].It took YYW 35,000 posts to fail to remotely matter. Skepsikyma managed to actually matter, and he did it with 27,000 fewer posts.It is obvious that his posts must have a great deal of concentrated truth - after all, DDO members only elect those with the greatest degree of elegance and grace in language to the position of president. This is the definition of being articulate.I await my opponent's predictably inarticulate response.[1] http://www.debate.org...[2] http://www.debate.org...;[3] http://www.debate.org...[4] Airmax1227 unjustly removed the Official Election Voting Thread. The results, however, are widely accepted.
Skepsikyma is the most articulate member on ddo

I will argue that the user known as YYW is a far more articulate user. YYW's use of language is so rich and powerful, he can make intellectual discussion occur anywhere he chooses, even on subjects or forums that normally devolve into flame wars (e.g. Donald Trump, the Religion Forum) [1] [2]. His typing skills are so admired, approximately ten people have attempted to emulate it as of May 6, 2016, and we can only assume that number's gotten higher [3]. Of course, anyone can say that everyone's trying to copy them, but can it be proven? Well, yes, actually. With regard to thread titles, YYW's influence can clearly be seen in the user thett3 approximately 6 months ago [4] [5]. As for longer posts, YYW's eloquence can be seen injecting itself into users - whether consciously or subconsciously - like a measles vaccines injects babies with autism. One such user, in fact, is Skepsikyma himself. According to a recent study, some of YYW's most frequently uttered word of all time is "because". In just two posts, posted within hours of each other, we saw Skep say "because" FOUR times [7] [8]. Coincidence? Not very likely. It is clear that any reputation Skep has gathered for his so-called articulateness is mere byproduct of his attempts at copying YYW. Sources 1. http://www.debate.org... 2. http://www.debate.org... 3. http://www.debate.org... 4. http://www.debate.org... 5. http://www.debate.org... 6. http://www.debate.org... 7. http://www.debate.org... 8. http://www.debate.org...
funny stories

Two drunk men are walking out of a bar. One guy barfs all over his shirt. Guy: Oh, my wife's going to kill me for barfing on my shirt. other guy: no she's not. here's 10$. Tell her some other guy barfed on your shirt and gave you that 10 to get it dry cleaned. Guy goes home. Wife shouts at him Wife: Why the hell did you barf all over yourself you drunk piece of crap?!? Guy: Easy woman. Some other guy barfed on my shirt, and then he gave me this 10 to get it dry cleaned. Wife: (Looks at dollar bill) But this is a $20? Guy: Oh yeah he crapped my pants too.....
Democracy is a Violent Religion.

I guess Freeman has proven me wrong on that democracy is a religion I should have changed it to democracy is violent or oppressive but it is now useless to continue on. VOTE FOR CON! Though democracy has some aspects of religion such as belief in false claims about democracy that it is rule by the majority etc. Also is ignorant and intolerant of other view points and will use violence to maintain or spread its power. "But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."_Lysander Spooner http://mises.org...
Democracy is a Violent Religion.

My opponent has created a rather long irrelevant argument. Moreover, he has done nothing to show why democracy is a violent religion. *Case Con: Rebuttals* "The religious ideology of the state is not a monotheism but it is still a religion based on false claims and blind faith in support of the state and the mythology of the constitution." Democracy is quite clearly not a religion. All you need to do is refer back to my original definitions of religion. Once again, my opponent is simply conflating definitions. ======= Conclusion ======= FallofEmpire888, if you wanted to argue that democracy is oppressive then you should have made that your resolution. Calling democracy a religion simply makes your arguments seem needlessly obtuse.
Democracy is a Violent Religion.

I am simply here to try to open peoples views on society and personally winning this debate is irrelevant. Freeman's democracy is very typical of most people who believe in democracy. Lets first look at his definition of democracy: 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. "Government by the people" The main problem with this definition other than it is simply untrue, is that it implies that people have control in the decision making process of there state who claims a monopoly over decision making. Also when have I meet and signed a contract with my representatives to express my views. Where is my power other than the tyranny of the ballot? 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power Even if all the people in the world consented to the state this would not justify it's power over such people. The state can simply indoctrinate the masses and use violence at the margins to keep there power they would not to be consented to by the people of a free society. The dictates of the people and the rulers is not a justification in itself over the individual freedom. 4. Majority rule. The people do not rule under democracy they are simply indoctrinated to choose over an arbitrary ruler which is thrown at them from the rulers. They are enslaved to the ballot forced to pick an arbitrary side in hopes of saving there freedom. The minority rules over the people through political indoctrination and violence. If the mafia came to you an told you that you have a choice over which one would steal from you would this actually be a choice? No of course not because you wouldn't have chosen it in the first place because it is not voluntary. The people are manipulated by state semi owned corporations and special interest groups, bribing lobbyist etc. I could continue the list on and on but the core of my counter argument is that "the people" do not have control over the rulers. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community Social Equality? Do you think the rulers are viewed as equal to us nonsense. After the manipulation and exploitation is initiated do you think that they actually care and respect us no the state uses us as a tool for there own self interested power over us. In conclusion the state uses the fantasy of a so called "government" that will work for the people respect the people and help the people. This ideology is coercive and forces people to accept and not realize what is going on. The religious ideology of the state is not a monotheism but it is still a religion based on false claims and blind faith in support of the state and the mythology of the constitution. States formed from religious institution just look at Egyptian Empire Greek, Roman and Earlier ones they claimed they where gods or related to gods. After the Enlightenment the states had to secularized so they created secular religions not justified by gods but by other means of propaganda and manipulation. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://fringeelements.ning.com... . http://fringeelements.ning.com...
Democracy is a Violent Religion.

My opponent has failed to define religion, so I will do this for him- with good intentions of course. It would be an understatement to say that defining religion is a very difficult. Consequently, I will give three very reasonable definitions of religion. ---Defining Religion--- "Religion: A general term used. .. to designate all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns. " —Penguin Dictionary of Religions (1997). "Religion: Relation of human beings to God or the gods or to whatever they consider sacred or, in some cases, merely supernatural. " —Britannica Concise Encyclopedia (online, 2006) "Religion: Human beings' relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, spiritual, or divine. " —Encyclopï¿½dia Britannica (online, 2006) ï¿½ï¿½ [1] ---Defining Democracy--- Democracy: 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. [2] Contention 1: Democracy is not a religion at all. My opponents contentions are not only completely unfounded, they simply miss the point. Even if they were true they would not show that democracy was a religion. Furthermore, given my definitions of religion and democracy, it is quite easy to see that my opponent's resolution commits the fallacy of equivocation. [3] Attempting to broaden and mold the definition of religion so much that it includes democracy is simply nonsensical. (Resolution negated) ---References--- [1] Definitions of religion # 1-3 . http://www.religionfacts.com... [2] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Democracy is a Violent Religion.

I believe that democracy is a violent religion. Reasons: 1) People who believe and advocate democracy believe in the constitution that gives them there "rights". 2) They believe that democracy is the only acceptable form of social organization. 3) Claim that democracy is synonymous with freedom 4) That states are justified and is the "will of the people" 5) That people control the state 6) Democracy maintains it's ideology through ignorance and scorns people who questions it's legitimacy 7) Promoting imperialism and nation building to stop "terrorism" hypocrisy because states inflict and cause terrorism. 8) The myth that so called "public goods" and services can only be provided by the state. While ignoring historical evidence. In conclusion I think that democracy is a religion and the religious institution the state indoctrinates people who criticizes it's legitimacy. People blindly follow the propaganda of democracy and believe that it is or leads to "freedom", while ignoring the arguments against and alternative voluntary solutions. Just like the states which preceded it, it has been perpetuated through religion. The violence of democracy is hidden by the "patriotism", flags and banners and most importantly the ideology itself.
Television Series Affect Children Negatively

I'm so glad you agree with me, it makes this process a lot easier for me. I'm going to utilise this round to rebutt your previous argument.What do you mean we have no-one to rely on but ourselves? Children have parents, and if not then some form of carer or guardian. If a child's viewing time is not moderated then it's the not the television program's fault, it's the carer's fault for letting them sit square-eyed for too long. Fruit will make you sick if you eat too much of it, but if it's moderated and you stick to the recommened daily amount, then it is extremely nutritious. Objectively, even if it is addictive to some children, the television can and does have positive educational impacts on many children, and if you can present any evidence. You have presented no evidence to support your claims and therfore have not fulfilled your burden of proof.
Television Series Affect Children Negatively

I agree with you on the stance that with moderation, television viewing might do some amount of good to children. But let me ask you, in this fast moving world, where our livelihood has become our prime concern and with no other people to rely on but yourself, who can strike the right balance? Will it really be understood by the little ones? Am not quite sure. As television series becomes addictive, no amount of forceful restrictions can prevent a child from getting his/her mind from it. If the TV is shut down authoritatively, he/she becomes infuriated and adamant not to heed elders' advice. Thereby, even though the detrimental television shows are kept at arms length, there is still no constructive work taking place, indirectly due to TV itself. It is of human nature, especially that of children that the informative shows airing are not of great interest to them. Who can blame them? How would you feel like watching about the evolution of the galaxy if you are a 15 year old?