BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
starcraft (original not 2) is better than warcraft (not world of warcraft)

Fun is not something that you can use as proof for one game being better than another. Fun is subjective so I'm not really sure how I could convince you warcraft is better. For this debate I assume you mean the original Warcraft: Orcs & Humans and not Warcraft 3: Reign of Chaos? Reasons why Warcraft is better than Starcraft. -Warcraft came first so it is more original than Starcraft. Developers took elements of Warcraft to create Starcraft. "In April 1998 Blizzard released StarCraft, an RTS with the concepts and mechanisms of Warcraft" http://en.wikipedia.org... -Without Warcraft your game wouldn't have been created. If the game had done poorly the company would not have made another RTS, it would have been foolish for them to create a similar product if Warcraft had failed. "Warcraft: Orcs & Humans became by far the company's greatest success to that date, and for the first time made the company's finances secure." http://en.wikipedia.org... Starcraft may have sold more copies but sales aren't the determining factor of a games greatness. If you meant to say starcraft was better than the whole warcraft RTS series then please state it in the next round. I believe I should be allowed to use Warcraft 2 as well since it was created before Starcraft.
Science Vs. God

Thank you for accepting! 1. In science everything is a possibility. When we look at science we see that almost everything is a theory. Take gravity for example, gravity has never once been proved wrong yet we still call it a theory. This is the beauty of science, it can always change! If one day we find something in the universe traveling faster than the speed of light, we can no longer believe that the speed of light is as fast as things can go and thus that theory is expelled(until proved right again). 2. The largest flaw in the theory that there is a god is simple, it cannot be tested or proved. This is clearly a huge problem with the theory since without proof your theory holds no weight. Lets go back to gravity, if I pick up my computer and drop it from my roof, I am 99.999999% sure that the computer will indeed fall to the earth. This can be tested time and time again, it has yet to fail. 3. Arguments have been made that there must be a god since miracles occur on earth. Some would say, My mother had cancer and the doctors told me she only had three more days left. I prayed and prayed and the next day the doctors were baffled to find that the cancer had completely vanished! This must be signs of god right? No. This is clearly not a sign of god, it's a sign of chance. For example if one thousand people are fatally ill and the doctor says to each patient, the chance of death is 99.9% theoretically, someone lives. This can be called a miracle if you want, but mathematically it's just chance. 4. The arguement that you presented prior to this was that, God is everything. There is nothing that is not god and thus he must exist. This is just mixed up termonology, it seems as the word you are looking for is energy. Energy is everything just in differant states. "God A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (sorry about my formatting, i'm currently on a phone.) Clearly this is only one of the many definitions of god, but it seems to be the most accepted one throughout relegion. Now if god is omnipitant, he should be bound by no laws such as, one cannot create or destroy matter. if their is a god he in all his greatness should break the laws of physics from time to time since he is omnipitant, and if not he isnt truly omnipitant at all.
Science Vs. God

BEFORE WE BEGIN LET ME GET SOME THINGS ON THE TABLE! I am not trying to hurt anyone's feelings and I do not believe anyone's personal beliefs are "wrong". I do not wish to personally attack anyone, I just want to have a fun, fair debate! Please do not be ignorant of any topic that happens to come up in this debate! I hope this is an exciting debate and remember, nothing stated in this debate is fact since there is always a possibility of change.
legalization of marijuana

The war on drugs has costed billions in tax payers' money, and for what? Gangs that control the drug market kill people every day and ruin the lives of families and communities. Doesn't it make more sense to legalize the drug so that the government and free market can get the money instead of drug lords? Legalizing will help put the money towards helping the economy, which could use all the help it can get, and not towards police raids and drug violence. 2)The government should not have a say in what people do so long as they are not directly hurting another person. Firstly, I am not an advocate of drug use. I do not believe it is something healthy people should do. That being said, we should leave it up to INDIVIDUALS to make the decision on what do put into their body. My personal views on using pot does NOT make it okay for me to impose this view upon the general public.
legalization of marijuana

1) Studies have shown that the use of marijuana over time can make it very hard for the person using the drug to quit. Also if you make marijuana legal wouldn't it make it a lot harder to help the people in jail quit if they know there will be little regret for taking the drug. 2)Even though a person has not die becuase of marijuana does not mean it is not dangerous, marijuana can cause: -rapid heart beat -increased blood pressure -paranoia -short-term memory loss -depression -and many,many more side effects If the government legalized the drug it is very unlikely they would make it more safe for the user. Take cigarettes for example, in the past they were actually not that unhealthy for you, but in order to make money the government made them cheaper and less healthy in order to make money. 3)I can't really debate on that point because I agree with you
legalization of marijuana

Well lets get into your arguments first. 1) Studies show marijuana is not highly addictive; however, just like coffee or any other substance, people can become mentally addicted to it. Keeping weed illegal does NOT help those addicted, and we simply make criminals out of those who use the drug. We have over a million drug users in jail. We should help them stop using, not incriminate them. 2) Marijuana is not a highly dangerous substance. There have been no recorded medical deaths from people smoking weed. What DOES kill people is drug dealers that lace marijuana with harder drugs. By legalizing weed, the government could regulate the drug so that it is more safe for the user. Plus the projected billions of dollars in tax revenue and millions saved from the war on drugs would surpass any alleged "medical bills" 3) I agree that kids should not be doing drugs, but keeping marijuana illegal does nothing to stop this. Kids who want to do drugs will do them regardless of what the law says.
legalization of marijuana

I am also very new to this site but I love to debate so here is my argument. Marijuana should not be legalized for the following reasons: 1) Marijuana is a very addictive drug and if it was legalized more people would end up abusing it 2) The smoking of Marijuana can cause people to have a lot of health problems which will cause more people to end up in the hospital and in the long run end up costing the country more money in medical bills 3)If Marijuana is legalized it makes it easier for are children to obtain it and we don"t need to be adding items to the list of things that hijack the development of our children"s brains; that list is already long enough.
Lebron James should've signed with the New Jersey Nets

I take it PRO forfeits. Arguments extendedVoting Guide:Conduct-Forfeit from PRO gives me automatic pointArguments-Everything from PRO was refuted and based off of a "what if" stance, just read the debate and you will see that I shot down every point and mine still stands.Sources-PRO provided no sources while I supplied manySpelling and Grammar-Tied
weed

You tell me weed is a plant it might be but let me ask you a question would you go outside in your yard picking grass an then eating. I think not. So why will you roll up a joint an smoke it. Just cause its illegal dosent mean you should do it. Im over the legal age to own a gun an wich I dont own one so just cause its legal you shouldn't do it. People say it calms them down Im always stress an I can find 10000 ways to calm myself down, I dont have to roll a joint to calm my self, The end!
Abortion should be legally tolerated.

Resolved: Abortion should be legally tolerated. Abortion is defined as a termination of a pregnancy by the induced expulsion of a fetus by Webster's dictionary(1). Abortion is a safe medical procedure, that shouldn't be repealed because of the morals of certain religious groups. Unfortunately, often times this particular argument becomes a quarrel because it becomes a moral thing, and you can't debate morality. According to the National Abortion Federation (2), Abortion is very safe- 97% of abortions are effective and have no complications, only 3% of abortions have minor complications that are harmless. If abortion is a safe and isn't causing any harm-- why should we repeal a woman's choice to have it? Therefore, if abortion is safe, the federal government has no reason to repeal abortion laws. 1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2) http://www.prochoice.org...
Abortion should be legally tolerated.

Prominent embryologists uphold the notion that life begins at conception:"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.""The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." "Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."The question is not "does life begin at conception?". Rather, the question is, "is the life that begins at conception morally equivalent to you and me?". And, in response to that question, I will argue yes. I am morally equivalent to what I was when I was a fetus, because I was the same organism that was simply at a different stage of development. ---My opponent assumes that the moral views of the majority inherently produce justifiable laws. Predominant moral views shift. For example; most people view legalization of slavery as a mistake... and just because a majority of people supported it at the time does not mean that it was right to have it legalized. For this reason, the opponent's "70%" statistic is irrelevant. Moreover, my opponent's (already meaningless) statistic is not defended with a source, I will respond with my own statistic, for the sake of clarification: a May 2012 Gallup (an acclaimed, reputable polling company) Poll showed that Pro-Choicers constitute 41% of the population, while Pro-Lifers constitute 50%. ---[1] Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3[2] Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3[3] Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3[4] http://www.gallup.com...
Abortion should be legally tolerated.

"An embryo is a human being". Interesting my opponent might say this because there is no evidence regarding that life does begin at conception making it murder. That is a claim only morally supported, hence they're making a moral debate based on opinions that don't apply to every person in the nation. I suggest they take a more altruistic approach and think of people who don't necessarily share their view. According to a national poll, about 70% of people believe that abortion should be legal and many of them believe that life begins at birth. I actually do concede that morals did formulate some of the current laws, but it is the morals of citizens-- the nation's conscience of which most believe in that abortion should be available. It is "we the people of the United States," therefore if legal decisions are based on the morals of citizens who agree with abortion than there is no debate-- it is already decided.
Abortion should be legally tolerated.

"Unfortunately, often times [sic] this particular argument becomes a quarrel because it becomes a moral thing, and you can't debate morality."Interesting. Has Pro considered that all laws are founded on moral principles? The only way to justify the illegality of murder is to affirm the immoral nature of the act; how else would outlawing murder be justified? Moreover, stealing is illegal, because we put a high moral value on the right to keep possessions. If Pro is against the incorporation of moral standards in law, then he is against the existence of all present laws. This would certainly broaden the scope of this debate, but if the opponent holds this anarchist view, then I will be more than glad to argue against it. "Abortion is very safe"This is irrelevant to the argument I will be making, which is that abortion obstructs one's right to life. I'm sure murder is very safe; 100% of murder victims don't retaliate... Nonetheless, it is illegal and justifiably so.---We will be building off of the axiom that murder is morally wrong. If the opponent wishes to contest this, then we will debate it; otherwise, it will be a given.An embryo is a human being at an early stage of development and is morally equivalent to a human being at any other stage of life. A baby is different from an adult based on size, dependence, and development--yet, in our culture, we value it equally to an adult, since it is a human with the potential to live onward and develop further. We cannot murder others, because it is not our right to preclude another individual from experiencing his/her future. And the mid-life termination of a human (which is a continuous state of development) is, in general, morally and legally impermissible... with the exception of abortion. This is, of course, unjustifiable and wrong.
Religions are the sources of moral values

Argument I : 1.Morals have objective physical basis and not religious. this is because there are evidences that suggest so. ( For example , developmental psychologists have discovered that the intuitive jurisprudence of young children is complex and exhibits many characteristics of a well-developed legal code. For example, 3"4-year-old children use intent or purpose to distinguish two acts that have the same result. They also distinguish "genuine" moral violations (e.g. battery or theft) from violations of social conventions (e.g. wearing pajamas to school). 4"5-year olds use a proportionality principle to determine the correct level of punishment for principals and accessories. 5"6-year olds use false factual beliefs but not false moral beliefs to exculpate) 2 Religions themselves are unreliable and mostly self contradictory, based half on fiction , half on metaphysical claims which are actually irrelevant. 2.1 metaphysical claims are based on common sense. 2.2 common sense is only meant to help us survive. we can see it in case of complex systems, large numerical values , quantum scale. 2.3 these examples bear no analogy to any religion. but analogy is only a poetic thing. here the point is that common sense is irrelevant. 2.4. Therefore something abstract and exists only in imaginations can't be the basis of something that is objectively true and not a pure abstraction. 3. Religion might affect the details, but so do other social and political conditions. 4. the scope of moral values is determined biologically(genetically). for example, we are genetically predetermined to grow legs and hands, not wings. 5. this also suggests that there is no moral relativism. Argument II : 1. the realization of our common moral basis is also seen in the fact that the more we are beginning to think about them with an open mind, we are reaching common conclusions. Argument III : There is also a tendency to use unthinkable terms like non-physical . Some argue that there is something called objective moral and something called as subjective moral. These claims are baseless as in order to define non physical one has to understand what physical means. but it just so happens that there is no definition of physical. there was one ancient concept, materialistic definition, which was given up by the scientists in the early 20th century. Physical is just anything that we understand. (for example, time is a physical quantity. we can't feel it that way but it does get affected by matter). To understand what subjective means one needs to understand what is consciousness. but we don't have a clue what it is. but we do know that it is affected by concrete objective things . so this otherworldly claim of subjective experiences and thoughts as something non physical entities is a poorly defined embarrassing idea.
cigarette equals

Most smokers start from a young age. The reasons are usually either to look mature, to act like someone they admire, or to experiment. Once they begin, it is hard for them to stop. They receive admiration from their friends, they get the rush that comes with doing something that they know they shouldn't do; they even get addicted to the relaxing feeling that smoking can bring. Another reason that people of all ages smoke is to lose weight. Smoking reduces your appetite, along with the potency of many other urges. That is why many ex-smokers gain a lot of weight over short amount of time soon after they quit smoking - food becomes much more appealing to them! However, your claim simply isn't true. For some people, a cigarette is appalling. In today's society, most of the educated frown upon smoking. It is no longer a "mask of beauty" beyond the mischievous, young ages. It is something that the desperate do to relieve a bit of stress; it is never worth it.
cigarette equals

I do not quite understand why you posted this; however... Cigarette smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Nearly one in five deaths are caused by their use. More than 10 times as many U.S. citizens have died prematurely from cigarette smoking than have died in all the wars fought by the United States during its history. Studies show that smokers are more likely to be plagued by any disease than non-smokers. One in three cancer deaths are caused by cigarette use. Smoking can also affect a pregnant woman's child before and after birth. Fun facts! Source: https://www.cdc.gov...
Richard Wolff's talk on worker coops

I realize I may be asking for quite a bit of my opponent, but I want to try a different style of debate. I would like to ask my opponent to watch this talk about worker coops by Richard Wolff and we will debate over it.Here is part 1 of the talk: Here is part 2: You may want to watch this talk by Harriet Fraad first, but I won't require it, Wolff Just refers to this talk a little bit in the talk but you won't miss much by skipping this: I will be taking the pro position, which means I am in favor of what Richard Wolff is talking about: expanding the worker coop sector.Rules of debate:1) No ad hominem, insults, personal attacks2) The total number of rounds minus one should be used for debate since I am not using round 1 for debate and this is to make things even between us. 3) The first round of argument should not be rebuttals. The last round of argument should not have any new arguments. New information and facts can be brought up, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments
the UK should remain part of the EU

Firstly I shall begin with the economic benefits of the UK remaining in the EU. The European Union is a group that provides a free market for the UK. This allows us to build up our wealth without being swallowed by commercial giants like the USA and Japan. Between 1992 and 2006 the GDP of the UK rose by "25 billion pounds as a result of increasing wealth within the EU. It is very important, as over half the UK's trade is within the EU, with less than 15% with America. The business department of the UK estimates around 3.5 million jobs are linked, directly or indirectly, to the EU. We also get FDI (foreign direct investment) as a result. Now for the personal benefits, you are, as a result of the EU, free to travel, live, retire, work and study anywhere within the EU. Also, the EHIC is a good example of a personal benefit to the average person. It gives you the right to free healthcare and insurance anywhere within the EU. Also, many people will of course benefit from the money and jobs shown above. And finally, political and humanitarian advantages. If business doesn't impress you and you're not too fussed on travelling abroad, then know that the EU is a major driver in improving the lives of people in countries that aren't as advanced within Europe, helping the poorer countries who otherwise would not be able to cope with the modern world. They provide a free market, and use money from the richer countries to help build infrastructure in the poorer ones. Also, the EU is important in stopping criminals who would escape a single country's grasp. It also works against global warming, and is one of the world's leading organisations in the stopping of global warming. It has a political advantage too. The EU is a massive power block, and combined with things like NATO and the UN, it can be used for bringing countries together, and fighting any countries that try to do things which are not acceptable know a days. All in all, the EU has such massive benefits for the UK, and so few disadvantages, that it is a wonder that people cannot use common sense and still vote for UKIP, and politicians are still trying to get out. Things will only get worse if they do.
the UK should remain part of the EU

I feel that I should win this debate. PRO has forfeited 2 rounds now after his first argument was immediately rebutted. I think my arguments against are stronger and make more sense to what is in the best interest of the UK. I should also get the points for references because PRO has provided none to support his arguments. Conduct I feel should go to me because of the two forfeited rounds. The better thing would be to admit defeat and concede to get this to voting quicker rather than the action (non-action) he took. I"d like to thank PRO however for bringing up a very important topic and debating it with me. Thank you to the voters for taking the time to read the debate.
the UK should remain part of the EU

It's a shame that PRO has forfeited this round but it is not surprising. Once the best arguments of pro Europeans are shown to have enormous holes in them there really isn't much left to say. I've not even talked about immigration, EU law or the public's disengagement from politics yet....and I don't feel I need to because in my opinion a forfeited round is the same as forfeiting the entire debate. There is simply no response available to the anti democratic nature of the EU....in fact if the European Union tried to join itself it would be disqualified for not being a democracy. No answer to the cost of the EU for the UK or to the shown flaws in his own arguments. Because of this I won't waste the voters time in reading long arguments that further the reasoning to my position. There is no need after a forfeited debate. I'll just leave you with a humorous video that illustrates my point. Enjoy.