BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion is not justifiable

Thank you for accepting this debate however I did state that round 1 was an acceptance round only. Though it is obviously too late now. On to your argument: Firstly, I am not sure where bomb threats comes into play here that is a different topic. I am focusing on satire aimed at the Islam religion. You say that most often, the most radical groups use satire as a means to justify there own agendas. Whether they do or they don't, that is still strong Muslim outrage relating to satire and I don't see the logic in justifying them if they are only justifying their own agenda. You say you have friends that strongly react to their prized religious figures being made fun of. I am sure that the vast majority of the Islam religion would be equally, if not more outraged too. What I want to know is why? Why is it only the Muslim religion that feel the need to react so strongly to satire. What gives them the right to riot over other religions, and people for that matter? Turn on the television on any given day and it will be filled with satirical jokes towards religions, politicians, celebrities etc. Why don't other religions riot on the streets because of this? Why do Muslims kick up such a storm but Christians or Jews can just take satire as satire? What is so special that only they need star treatment? You say that such incidences are committed by groups such as Al-Queda. Are you saying that all riots over satire only involve terrorist groups? It is very common that the majority of riots over this issue are caused and contain the common public. Even if what you are saying is true, that is not the purpose of my argument. The purpose of my argument is to try and show that such strong Muslim outrage cannot be justified. It is not valid to say that extremists don't count because they are not your average Muslim. I am not attacking you but who are you to say that these groups are not true Muslims. The majority of horrific behaviour in which they carry out is solely spawned from their religion. You say you support peaceful protest, as I'm sure most of us do. You say yourself that this is "strong outrage" towards unnaceptable behaviour. Well I feel it is unnaceptable protest to a very common behaviour. Why do they feel the need to protest when other religions can simply just leave it alone? I am an atheist but the majority of where I live is a Christian upbringing. If they saw a cartoon Jesus on South park they would just laugh it off. How is a satirical depiction of Jesus any less blunt than a satirical depiction of Muhammad? The answer is it isn't. Why do Muslims feel that they deserve the privilege over not having satire directed at them, over any other religion? Whether it's violent reactions or non-violent reactions either one is strong Muslim outrage and I don't see how it can be justified behaviour. There is no law that states that Muslims have the privilege of not getting their feelings hurt, unlike the rest of us.
Strong Muslim outrage over satire related to their religion is not justifiable

Ok, just to start, there is a large difference between Muslim outrage over satire to religion, and bomb threats and the like. Most often, the largely publicized attacks upon Embassies and Ambassadors, are not caused by singular Muslims rioting over just one satire over their religious figure. Most often, the most radical groups use these plays on their religion as a means to justify their own agendas (generally involving violence and other frowned upon methods). I have close friends who are Muslim, and they get more than a little butt-hurt when they see their prized religious figure being made fun of on South Park, or on Family Guy. I think they are justified in their anger, just as an employee would be mad at their co-worker for making a racist or sexist joke. However, this does not mean that all Muslims are peaceful in their protest! Some become violent, and very outspoken. However, you must realize that there really is no "Strong Muslim Outrage", because any of the horrific incidences you hear about on the news are not committed by your neighbor Muslim. They are generally committed by groups such as Al-Queda, who use religion as a means to justify their horrible agendas. They are not the true Muslims, they simply use religion as an excuse to do what they want and gain public backing. I support peaceful protest, because that within itself is "Strong Outrage" towards unacceptable behavior. If I was raised to believe that my entire life was devoted to a single God or being, and my head religious figure was made fun of on a constant basis, I would feel greatly offended. It's a lot like one bully picking on a small scrawny kid for having an imaginary friend. As adults, we would look at that situation and side with the small scrawny kid being picked on, and tell the bully off. But we seem to lose that mentality when we view it on a larger scale. Just because something is funny, doesn't mean it is right. When we are told in our job settings, that racial slurs or remarks are not acceptable, we don't do it for fear of losing our jobs. Why is it that we cannot do this when viewing problems on a larger scale? I don't ask that we stop all satire of all things, but it's acceptable in my opinion, for there to be a strong reaction to it. Agreed, it should NEVER be violent reactions, but a large peaceful protest can certainly be considered "Strong Muslim Outrage". If it was done is such a manner, I would most certainly consider it justifiable.
Festive extravaganza is vindicated

I think that this is an unreasonable idea. Festivals help bring a community together and bring in revenue to the state. According to tax documents, the five-day Bourbonnais Friendship Festival brought in $279,086 in 2012 North American festival revenues trebled started from $1.5 billion to a peak of $4.6 billion before receding a bit during the recession. Last year, festival revenues were $4.3 billion. You want to take that out of the u.s. economy? Plus the community strength it creates?
Please choose the topic...

This argument can not work. As, for one our beliefs are similar. Two I am having difficulty trying to understand what Pro is asking of me. Firstly Pro If the structure of the universe is God (which it is) then that would be it. As said " I am that I am" God is God end of that. Do not suggest any other possiblities on what God is. Apart from the sourse which hold the universe in place and the reason why we are here. I do not understand where the argument comes in. I do suggest desgusting what a hell or a heaven would be like. And voters can vote from what they agree what heaven and hell is like. Who goes there and for what reasons. I have not much to say here. And I would also say that this debate is a failure. Because I did not understand.
Please choose the topic...

Thanks to GodSands for presenting this debate. Because he has presented an ambiguous premise, and I am not an Atheist, I will alter it slightly. GodSands stated "the Universe has a structure, and that is God". In order to argue this, we will have to define God. As Pro I will be defending the statement. We will also have to define structure. For the purpose of this debate I will define God as "Ultimate Reality". This should take away any ambiguity regarding the existence of God. The existence of any personification of God can be denied, and never proven true or false. This would make for a debate based solely on opinion, and verbosity. Because I have defined God as Ultimate Reality, neither Atheists, Christians, Hindus, Muslims, etc. can deny his/it's/her existence. I assert that God is an acceptable proper name for Ultimate Reality. Ultimate Reality being that which we can never know in it's entirety, but exists nonetheless. Universe: 1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) This is the definition we shall use for Universe. From Merriam Webster, we shall use the following definition for structure: 4 a: the arrangement of particles or parts in a substance or body. In this case, the Universe. So the statement would read the Universe- all matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole- has a structure- an arrangement of particles or parts- and that is (from or by) God- Ultimate reality. I await my opponent's response. Thank you.
i think that having an arm for a d*ck is better than d*cks for arms

so u saying you rather not have abiliy to have sex?look here punk. i got downsyndrome n i never get sex. dont fortit ur penis an ur ability to have sex cus it aint sumthin u should take for granted. give me penis hands an i mite finily get laid but until then the closest im getting to possy is by licking my cats bed. i culd go around dick slappin people with my giant penis hands. plus that mean id have 3 penises so 3 orgasm right? i would jizz fantastic waves of seamen into the faces of my adversaries and they wouldnt retaliate for fear of me penatrating them with my double d!ck hands. life wuld finaly be gud for me :)
Free to play and Microtransactions

I never denied that there can be good games with microtransactions in them such as Coaster Crazy and many of the others you mentioned... Never denied that. But here's the thing. The bad points seem to outweigh the good. How many people play Candy Crush Saga? 93 million active users according to Gamespot. Compare that 93 million to 677117. Your point about Call of duty is a good point however. I'm against DLC and shovelware like that. The only good type of DLC is expansion packs. Most other types is just hiding features of the game behind paywalls when the game was already bought.Let's talk evil companies who love those evil microtransactions:Electronic Arts: Their mobile version of Bullfrog's Dungeon keeper is a prime example of abusing the free to play architecture and squeezing as much money out of those players as possible.King: Candy Crush Saga. A very popular app game on Facebook, iOS, and Android. I bet they had money in mind when they made this. You can tell how they hook players in then spike the difficulty to squeeze the money out. There's no way that this can be argued about. Stop sending me game requests!Atari: On iOS, Atari released Rollercoaster Tycoon 4 Mobile. A game which costs money to buy and has free to play architecture... Double dipping is bad.Zynga: Most known for making Farmville and many other games like this. Grindy games where competition persuades peope to buy credits to do stuff.All these companies are the epitome of microtransaction abuse. The amount of people who play these games is FAR greater than the amout who play the games you listed as good which really does suck to be honest... I believe that if you are going to make a game with microtransactions in it, just don't abuse the usage of them. Some games actually have alternatives to play. Just get yourself on GOG.com and buy the original Dungeon Keeper made by Bullfrog Productions and Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 made by Frontier for dirt cheap because they're older games which are way better than any of this free to play gumpf. Trust me, those games are masterpieces.Noting how you said there's a difference between Free to play and "Cow Clickers" isn't correct. A "cow clicker" is a type of free to play game. Think of it like this: All alligators are crocodiles but not all crocodiles are alligators. Alligators being the "cow clickers" and crocodiles being all F2P games. Your decision if that is a good analogy.
Free to play and Microtransactions

There is a lot of difference between free to play games and cow clickers. All of the games that you have pointed out as a bad F2P models are cow clickers which you can't buy a boxed copy and there is not even really an alternative to playing it F2P. But let's talk about real games that include some real gameplay. Top 8 most played free to play games: 1Dota 2 - Purely cosmetic microtransactions 2Team fortress - purely cosmetic microtransactions 3Warframe - considered on of the fairest F2P models. 4War thunder - same as Warframe 5Ghost recon phantoms - All guns are bought pernament and can be bought with in game currency 6Path of exile - the whole game can be beat whitout paying a dime 7Neverwinter - Probbably the best example of the business model that I talked about in the first round of the debate 8Planetside 2 - Purely cosmetic microtransactions All theese games combined currently have 677117 players in game. So are you saying that 677117 are currently having their wallets scraped for every last dime? And if you want to talk about "big bad evil corporations" lets talk about Aliens colonial marines that completely missrepresented the entire game, or COD that makes worse and worse games every year for 60$ and releases another 60$ worth of DLC which are not actual DLC but map pacs. And even Watch Dogs was missrepresented and looked better on E3 2 years ago. All the people that are playing games like the new Dungeon keeper are playing that because they don't know better either because they have no aspiration to play better games or because they aren't informed and there are people willing to take and advantage of that, but companies that want money upfront also take advantage of consumers, don't they?
Free to play and Microtransactions

I think you're missing some of the points that I pointed out before. Free to play isn't about letting the player decide, it's about trying to hook the player in to scrape every last penny from them. Demos are about letting the player decide. For example, a new game comes out but you're unsure about it. You try out the demo or trial version to decide if you like it or not. Free to play is more about making money from stupid people who would buy this stuff."So in the end for paying the same amount of money you get the same experience in free to play as you get if you pay upfront and the only difference is that in case of free to play you can try the game before deciding if you want to spend money on it." Yeah right... which orifice are you talking out of here? Even if you do pay shedloads of money to enjoy the game as much as you can it's not like that game is a large game that will be enjoyed for years unlike many sandbox games like Minecraft which doesn't have any of this Free to Play crap. Free to play games aren't made to be good look at Dungeon Keeper. A game completely ruined by microtransactions and even if you paid for everything, it still would pail in comparison to the first game. Another example of microtranactions ruining games is the case of Rollercoaster Tycoon 4 Mobile. Free to play is nothing about being a friendly company that wants to give a taste about their games, free to play is about starting easy to get you addicted then throwing you into a massive difficulty curve to choke out your money to get past a stage. (Candy Crush Saga) Others get slower the further you progress into them. (Sims Social) and there's another type that gives you some premium currency (the one you have to pay for) off the bat so you can get started then when this runs out you are progressing at a snail's pace. (Dungeon Keeper)I prefer games that I can play without having to pay as I play. Just one fixed price to buy it and that's it. Non of this bull.
Free to play and Microtransactions

The idea that free to play and microtransactions are ruining video game industry as a whole is baseless and absurd because saying that one business model is ruining the whole industry is impossible. Free to play is leaving a lot of room for player to decide if they like the game or not before spending money on it, and it is so much better than the traditional way of paying 30-60$ on a game that you have no idea if it is going to be good, and you have to rely on the opinion of other people, and their opinion alone. On the other hand Free to play lets players decide if they will pay money to play the game, a lot of time you have the inferior experience if you do not give money to the developers and claiming that that is unfair is ridiculous because they have to pay their rent and in the case of most games you can play for a good couple of hours before starting to feel like you are having an inferior experience, and except a couple of pay to win games 30$ will get you a good experience, the same as you would get as if you bought the boxed copy of the game. So in the end for paying the same amount of money you get the same experience in free to play as you get if you pay upfront and the only difference is that in case of free to play you can try the game before deciding if you want to spend money on it.
Free to play and Microtransactions

Microtransactions are ruining the gaming universe as a whole. Usually they are done in the most pathetic of ways to make gaming more grindy and shitty for everyone who doesn't give money to these capitalistic tossers. Have microtransactions ever done anything good for the community? I don't think so. Back in the day companies would wait for the buzz of their game to die down and then they'd release expansion packs to keep it up and get people interested in the game again. Those were the good times of extra content in games. Now however companies make games that are "free" to download and play but they always seem to follow the same algorithm which is something like this: Make a game that progresses fast through the first five minutes to get people addicted then slam on the brakes and get people to pay to keep up the gameplay speed. At first you may think microtransactions are optional to take and in a way you're right. What's inexcusable is how companies make their games complete grind fests just to con people into paying into their games. This is basically hindering somebody's gameplay experience because they aren't paying to play a free game... Yeah. Free to play is a con game. It's not being a friendly company saying "We love you customers! Here' have a game for free!" It's about getting more people to play the game but then stabbing them in the back with a massive grind fest. which brings in more money than just making the game cost money to buy. If you want this crap to stop, all you have to do is refuse to pay for any of these microtransactions. if you don't, companies will have no choice but to stop because they'd be losing money.Here's a list of cons for Microtransactions: Slower and more grindy games to get people to pay up to get the gameplay back to the level it was previously. Praying on people's addictions, hooking them in and then throwing them curveball and getting them to pay up to get past the level they're stuck on. Advantages to people who buy microtransactions in an effort to get more people to buy the objects that give these advantages.
Grading systems in middle school should be abolished.

Grading systems provide a standardized way of communicating and determining how much a student has learned or knows. Grades are based upon factors such as scores on tests or completion of homework, and therefore grades can be used as qualifications for entrance into particular classes or as an admission requirement for college. Colleges tend to use GPA as a factor in admission, and the greater the average GPA of admitted students at a college is, the lower the percent of applications that are accepted is[1]. Having a grading system in middle school prepares students for the grading systems in high school, which are an important part in college acceptance. Grades motivate students. According to a paper written by the University of Southern California, extrinsic motivation, or motivation that comes from the external environment, is "quite helpful in furthering student learning." Extrinsic motivation comes "with the anticipation of rewards - grades... or some other incentive."[2]. Therefore, grades act as a motivation for students to work harder. Grades give students feedback about their progress and achievement, because if a student knows their current grade, they have a factor that they can use to judge their improvement. The purpose of a report card or a progress report is to allow a student to see how much they've progressed, and how much more there is to accomplish and improve in. Grading gives students this opportunity. Grades provide guidance for teachers for instructional planning. If teachers look at grades of their students and can see them struggling, the teacher can then make modifications to the way they teach in order to maximize student performance. For these preceding reasons, grading systems in middle school are good and should not be abolished. [1] http://www.petersons.com... [2] http://cet.usc.edu...
Grading systems in middle school should be abolished.

I negate "Grading systems in middle school should be abolished. " Round 1 will be for acceptance and definitions, debate will begin in Round 2. I define "grading systems" as "standardized measures of varying levels of comprehension within a subject area". "Middle school" is defined as "the levels of schooling in grades 6, 7, and 8". "Abolished" is defined as "formally put an end to. "
HUMANITY IMMORAL/DESTINED to Hell at BIRTH

Do you think you are bad? Am I bad? Maybe, maybe not... I feel good though!http://www.youtube.com...Okay, I had sections and nicely laid out my debate but apparently this is a violation of rules?Wrong.I can lay it out nicely as I like and it doesn't mean it's baseless opinion. It's completely based on opinion and the readers can see the illogical methodology with which you've drawn your conclusions because I lay out crystal-clear the Bible verses that prove you wrong on each and every point you raise, yes indeed!This is very simple.I forgot to mention that a quote after John 2:1-2 was John 3:5.I conclude that Pro has totally failed to uphold their BoP and has resorted to baselessly accuse me of breaking debate rules and using 'I' too much instead of actually addressing a single one of my Round 2 points in any coherent manner (let alone my Round 1 where he rebutted by stating irrelevant verses to the debate).I really don't see a single thing I need to add here and this is why I stalled posting the Round 3 for so long. I was shocked that I had absolutely nothing to reiterate or defend, my opponent truly lost his mind in Round 3 and went on some manic rant that had nothing at all to do with the debate. He doesn't like my style of debating, that's fine but not reason to tell me I broke any rules.