BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
CoD: WaW is better than CoD 4

obviously we are using the term "better than" to describe the gameplay of both games. my opponent's first counter point completely proves the fact that his point is an opinion. its like saying that if your good with a pistol and you use it a lot but everyone else sucks with it, they should just call you a noob and shun you forever. my opponent's second counter point is entirely based on his experiences and "assumptions" and not fact therefore it holds no power. my opponent stated: "I shall point out that they said "if you did the same for cod 4 you would realize that it too is educational. it teaches you about the mistakes that cause war and the ways of dealing with it." This is a fictional game, the clips before the missions only explained the back story/current objective, and you don't know how the British Secret Air Service (S.A.S.) or the Marines (OORAH) would deal with a situation. They were made as individual people that can change history, the reason I call WaW eduactional is because it deals with historical facts that can't be changed." if you can learn from something it is educational, therefore cod 4 is educational. you can learn much from it. extra point: my opponent stated: "the reason I call WaW eduactional is because it deals with historical facts that can't be changed." im sorry, i didnt realize nazi zombies was a historical fact that cant be changed.
CoD: WaW is better than CoD 4

1: my opponent stated: "while this may sound accurate, it is not. the call of duty franchise is based entirely on war, the tactics of war, and the weapons of war. so basically it is education to war." I did not say it was BASED on WWII, I said it ORIGINATED as WWII. now to my counter-points. 1: my opponent stated: "first of all this is an opinion. just because you don't like something different doesn't mean others don't. I for one like the idea of the new weapons and perks. I think its something new and although it may have some downsides they were just testing it out. I think you'll agree that they almost entirely fixed the problems in modern warfare 2. only a few people think the m16 or martyrdom is "noobish" but others can use it to their tactical success." What I'd like to point out is the fact that he said "I think its something new and although it may have some downsides they were just testing it out." This itself is an opinion. Also, he/she/it (don't say that fast) "only a few people think the m16 or martyrdom is "noobish" but others can use it to their tactical success." This is not an opinion, but a falsehood. If you are caught using the M16 or martyrdom and you are using "eavesdrop", you can hear the players calling you rather inappropriate words of description unless they don't have a mic, the mic is off, are in chat/party, or are using said weapon/perk. 2: my opponent stated: "one again that is an opinion and a stereotype. there may be a few people that get over-aggressive but that doesn't mean that all people who play cod 4 are aggressive. I find the overall cod 4 community to be friendly." Every time I tried to play CoD 4, the lobbys were filled with "anal-orephus'". This may have to deal with luck, but my overall assumption is that they are *unpleasant word* holes. 3: my opponent stated: "I agree that cod: waw is educational when you take a break from the killing and watch the clips before each mission. if you did the same for cod 4 you would realize that it too is educational. it teaches you about the mistakes that cause war and the ways of dealing with it. it is also called modern warfare because of all the modern technology. if you play modern warfare 2 it greatly extends the modern technology and uses either way you can learn a lot from playing." His/Her/It's first mistake was that they agreed with me. You never do that, ever. Second I shall point out that they said "if you did the same for cod 4 you would realize that it too is educational. it teaches you about the mistakes that cause war and the ways of dealing with it." This is a fictional game, the clips before the missions only explained the back story/current objective, and you don't know how the British Secret Air Service (S.A.S.) or the Marines (OORAH) would deal with a situation. They were made as individual people that can change history, the reason I call WaW eduactional is because it deals with historical facts that can't be changed.
Change.org Should Have a Way to See the Other Side of the Argument

Yes it's easier to just click the "sign" button, it's also easier to vote on this site without reading the debate. People who use the site seriously probably read the description for the petitions, and think if they should sign the petition or not. If you look at the "recent" tab in the browse section, a lot of the petitions concerning things people haven't heard about don't get as much signatures. These petitions don't concern real world events and problems and don't have a good description. I've read the story you had in your argument and it is heartwarming. The person who wrote it spent a great deal of time to describe the situation and why you should sign the petition. Can you imagine how many signatures they would get if they just wrote, "My husband's in jail, please help him get out." Stories that have to do or have a link to current events are usually the ones that get signatures, and the ones that don't but get lots of signatures have great causes and a great description. There is no reason to have a way to see the other side on Change.org, would you need to see the other side for the petitions for great causes? They probably describe the other side a bit. What about those other causes, the ones that people don't put a second thought into? Do they (or change.org) need to put in the time and effort to find someone to write the other side? Not just for the small petitions but for the big ones too. A lot of the big ones have to do with changing big organizations or businesses. Do the really need to spend a great deal of time trying to contact them and have them write something online? I believe that there is no reason to have a way to see the other side, change.org would see a significant decrease in petitions because in order to get petitions started they need to have someone else write the other side. It's just too much work for your average person, and it really won't make a difference in the end anyway. Thanks for the debate, pro, and thanks voters.
Change.org Should Have a Way to See the Other Side of the Argument

Second, I beg to disagree. Although Change. org is a petition site, it is often the only source of information on whatever topic is being petitioned. For instance, the reason I started this petition was for a story about a man serving life for robbery (. https://www.change.org...). Sure, it's a heartwarming story, and I somewhat agree with it, but to be sure that I want to put my name on it, I'd have to see what other people are saying on the subject. Another argument con made is that people already know and care about the topic. However, almost all petitions are about events that not many people know about. How could they already know about the topic if it does not occur nationally? Finally, con said that people can always search the topic and read about it. Sure, you could spend five minutes on google and look up whatever topic it was and you will probably find some okay sources. But wouldn't it be easier just to click the "sign" button? Our voters need to be educated about the topic they are voting on. Change. org does not offer a way to do that. That is why I believe that Change. org should have a system to show the other side of the argument. Thank you con and thank you voters.
Change.org Should Have a Way to See the Other Side of the Argument

We need to recognize that Change. org is a petition site, not a debate site. This is where people go to support causes that they should already know about and have basic knowledge about. There will be people who browse the petitions and support anything that looks "bad", this is unavoidable due to Change. org being a public site on the Internet. However people who use the site seriously would know about the topic and would support the cause because they strongly believe in it. People who want to find the other side of the story can always search the topic and read about it.
Change.org Should Have a Way to See the Other Side of the Argument

I used to be a large supporter of change.org when it first started up, but recently it has become a slew of one-sided stories. In most of them, if the other side of the argument could be viewed, most people would have enough knowledge to know not to support that petition. Do we want our citizens to become mindless drones which when they hear the words "animal cruelty" immediately throw their support into a cause? I think not. Good luck to my opponent, and I hope that this debate will prove interesting.
That Computers Dominate our Lives

Nico1234, I misread this debate. I thought I was con and you were pro. My mistake. Had a rather tough day in the real world. Please ignore my previous post.My arguments start now.Unfortunately, computers really can dominate our lives. Computer addiction is a serious health issue. Like with any serious addiction, it's tempting to blame the victim. To some extent, you can. "How can a tool dominate?" you ask. Indeed. How can a chemical substance, such as tobacco or heroin dominate? Yet they do. When it comes to real people and real problems, these abstract arguments are unhelpful. "Guns don't kill, people do," is the cry. Perhaps. At the same time, if there are no guns, nobody gets shot. You can't blame the small dish of white powder, you would say. It's the addict's choice. Yes. But, at the same time, to help an addict recover, the best place is somewhere where they have no access to drugs.Computers don't dominate everyone's life. But they do dominate some unfortunates. One of my friend's boyfriends took two years off work to play World of Warcraft. It was not his intention on quitting his job, of course. He was going to write his novel. Instead, the computer sucked him in. Two whole years. What a waste. It was only the birth of his first child and my friend's insistance that he go back to work that saved him. Another friend had a fiance who became a computer addict. He still worked, but he did nothing else and she ended up leaving him for another man. He was heart-broken, apparently, yet he couldn't give up the computer.Here's what Dr Maressa Hecht Orzack of Harvard Medical School has to say about computer addiction.Computer Addiction, Internet Addictive Disorder or Cyberaddiction...is a problem very similar to Pathological Gambling or Compulsive Shopping. Like other addictions, it affects other people -- family, friends, and co-workers. Spouses complain that their loved ones neglect them. Couples separate when one of the partners finds someone else on the Internet and leaves home. Like gamblers they compulsively keep investing time and money. They fantasize that the next connection they make will solve all their problems.http://www.computeraddiction.com...
That Computers Dominate our Lives

It is true that clothes and simple necessities are not dominating, however, computers are not dominating because they're tools and us humans use this for research and shopping etc. How can a tool dominate? Although people are addicted, it is there fault for not acting and not trying a new hobby. These people who are addicted are the people who let this computer 'take over' their daily life and therefore assume its the computers fault.
Islam is not a religion of terrorism

This debate is a challenge to Microsuck. Microsuck and I have agreed to have a re-debate on this topic, because Microsuck was on vacation last time and could therefore not finish the whole debate. I would like to remind Microsuck that he cannot use he argument that just because some Muslims have done this and that, Islam must be a religion of terrorism. We will use the foundation of Islam in this debate, which is the Quran and sayings of prophet Muhammed (Peace be upon him).RulesRound 1 is acceptance only. Round 2 are arguments only. Round 3 are for rebutting the opponents arguments at round 2. Round 4 is more rebuttal and closing arguments.DefinitionsIslam: The religious faith of Muslims, based on the words and religious system founded by the prophet Muhammad and taught by the Koran, the basic principle of which is absolute submission to a unique and personal god, Allah. [1]Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. [2]References[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Restricting social network services in the Middle East is a desirable policy

I think that it is a good policy to stop social network services. Many people get bullied over the internet, which is called cyber bullying. Personally, I don't see the point of social media anyway. I think that the only point of it is to watch people fail, take a video and make it viral so that everyone in the world can see what is happening and can laugh at it without anyone knowing about it. Also with social media, it is just another place where bullies and hackers can hang out and stalk people. Also, social media can result in more people going to prison for saying something about the king or queen or just someone with a lot of power. just a couple of weeks ago a man was jailed for 35 years!! that's right, he was banned just for saying something mean about the royal family in Thailand. he got sentenced in 10 courts and was originally going to be jailed for 70 years, but they reduced it in half because he confessed about it. so overall I think that these people in the middle east made the right decision to ban social networks. read this article for more information about the man being jailed for 35 years https://kiwikidsnews.co.nz...
Restricting social network services in the Middle East is a desirable policy

Many countries in the Middle East are stopping social network services such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. These countries are prohibiting communication sites such as the Internet for political or religious reasons. I think it is not a good policy to stop social network services. This is a violation of freedom of expression, one of the universal rights that people will pursue. Also, the reason for prohibiting social network services is to prevent spreading the thoughts of corrupt government's atrocities or religious skepticism. But this is a case of violating the principle of freedom of religion as well as being deprived of the right to know as a citizen. Therefore, I think it is not a good policy to stop social network services.
Adoption by same sex couples

What should be done to change the law of adoption by same sex couple? This Nation once stood for One Nation Under God. America has definitely fallen far away from that statement. If we were still living and operating under that statement there would never be a issue concerning same sex marriage or adoption because it would never happen. According to a CNN report Russia is in full effect of banning all same sex adoption and stated that it will not take place in their country. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has signed a decree banning foreign same-sex couples -- as well as single people from countries where same-sex marriages are legal -- from adopting Russian children. The move comes about a year after Russian lawmakers passed a bill banning adoptions to the United States. The move was widely seen as retaliation for a law the United States passed in 2012 on human rights abusers in Russia. It just goes to show that when you stand for what is right you will be criticized, that's why in order to promote change you have to set the law and stand behind it even if you have to stand alone.
Adoption by same sex couples

What should be done in order to change adoption policies in the United States to included same-sex couples? While many states have already conformed to the norms of today's lifestyles, there are still some states (like Utah and Mississippi) who have outlawed homosexual couples from adopting. The best way to fix this is to make sure the screening process isn't gender biased. For example, it shouldn't matter if it is a heterosexual couple trying to apply or a homosexual couple. As long as the couple has a stable environment for the child and can pass the regular screening process they should be able to adopt children who are looking for a family. Many children nowadays don't even see the problem with having parents who are the same sex, as long as they feel like they are loved and cared for!
Adoption by same sex couples

According to a article by David Hogberg the objection to gay marriage is that it represents a major change in family structure. It means, quite simply, that families will again expand beyond the traditional structure in which a family is headed by a man and a woman, to now include families being headed by two men or two women. This is potentially harmful for the children involved in gay adoption. There is the very real possibility that such children will develop emotional problems, sexual-identity confusion, and depression. Again, this is not because gays and lesbians are naturally bad parents. It is due to the fact that children are unlikely to adjust as well to being raised by same-sex couples as opposed to heterosexual ones. It is possible that the children involved in gay adoption would suffer no noticeable long-term negative effects. But it is not worth the risk. Given what we know about the results of one major change in family structure, our society should be, at the very least, reluctant to tolerate another one. The experience of single-parent families demonstrates that children are generally much better off in a household headed by a man and a woman. Since gay adoption deviates from that, it should be banned. It really amazing the everything this country once stood for everyone now wants to do the complete opposite.
Adoption by same sex couples

Now that homosexuality and bisexuality are becoming more widely accepted, it is important to acknowledge that other issues tend to follow suit that don't necessarily follow the current law. Issues such as adoption are one of the most important to address since kids are such an important aspect of a person's life. When a same-sex couple gets married, and is recognized as such legally, they should be allowed to adopt children just like any other couple. We wouldn't tell a heterosexual couple that only one of them is allowed to adopt the child--they come as a parental unit and therefore should be seen as such. According to Beatrice Bourges, "To give same-sex couples the opportunity to adopt is discriminating against the child, because the mother or father is withheld deliberately. To decide that a child will have two fathers means that it will grow up without a mother. Is the hug of a father the same as that of a mother? I do not think so. Let"s face it: men and women are different and a child needs both" (1). Unfortunately this argument is discriminatory against so much more than just homosexual couples, it also speaks against single or divorced parents. The fact of the matter is that kids who are up for adoption have either been given up by their biological parents or have lost their parents, so why not give them a chance to be loved by two people rather than grow up thinking that they were not wanted. I wouldn't go as far to say that being able to adopt is a right, however I believe that same-sex couples should be given the same screening as other adoptive parents do regardless of their sexual orientation. 1. http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com...
Adoption by same sex couples

According to the Associated Press of CRUX in Montgomery, Alabama, A House Committee voted Wednesday for a bill that would allow private adoption agencies to turn away gay couples on religious grounds the House State Government Committee approved the bill Wednesday. It now moves to the House floor.The bill says groups could not be forced to participate in adoptions and foster care placements that violate their religious beliefs. It would prohibit the state from refusing to license, or contract with, agencies and children"s homes that refuse the services on religious grounds(AP, 2015). These religious backgrounds should be respected. This will only cause confusion for the child. To have a stability you have to have a father and mother in the child's life. A woman cannot teach or train a boy how to be a man, and a man cannot teach or train a girl how to be a woman. The two just do not mix.
Adoption by same sex couples

Adoption laws vary widely from state to state. According to the Human Rights Campaign, laws vary from allowing adoption by gay couples, allowing gay individuals to adopt as a single parent, or straight out being banned. Currently, there are only two states that do not allow same sex couples to adopt--Utah and Mississippi (1). Parenting rights are usually made on a case-by-case basis, however there are no federal laws in place denying same sex couples to adopt. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, therefore an individuals sexual orientation should not be taken into account when dealing with adoption laws (2). 1. http://www.hrc.org... 2. http://rhrealitycheck.org...
Cinderella is by far the best Disney Princess!

I disagree , Cinderella met the Prince once and had once dance. I think she was more in love with the Prince because he was a Prince. Where as Belle truly loved the Prince, she spent time with him , she had no idea of his status when she fell in love with him. She stayed true to herself and gave up love to find her father. Although she loved the Beast she knew she had to find the Beast , just as she endangered herself to go back and help the Beast so that Gaston and his evil entourage wouldn't harm the Beast. She had so much knowledge so she was the whole package , brains and beauty. Although I like Cinderella , I believe Belle is a more complex Princess. I believe what Belle had with the Beast was true love. They fell in love with each other for other stuff besides appearances and status. They conversed and spent time together. Also you just can't beat a singing candle and clock and adorable little cup and teapot. Don't forget a talking wardrobe.
Cinderella is by far the best Disney Princess!

Cinderella has a fairy godmother who turned a pumpkin into a coach, mice into horses, a rat in to a coachman, lizards into footmen and Cinderella's rags into a beautiful gown, complete with a delicate pair of glass slippers. When she had to leave the ball abruptly the prince tried to find. Her charm attracted him because once he found out that she was practically a housemaid, he still loved her. Cinderella shows that beauty is a treasure, but graciousness is priceless. Without it nothing is possible; with it, one can do anything. That is why Cinderella is that best Disney Princess
Cinderella is by far the best Disney Princess!

No way Belle is the coolest Princess. She had to protect her dad , who everyone in town thought was crazy. She had the sexist pig of the town after her ... and she fell in love with the Prince even though he looked like a Beast. She looked beyond beauty and found the true kindness in the beast and fell in love anyway. Also she was super smart and reads lots of books all whiole looking beautiful. She is what all girls should strive to be. Her friends were the best. I would prefer Mrs. Potts, Chip, Lumiere, and Coggsworth to the animals. She even has a wardrobe that talks to her. Beauty and Brains all wrapped in one package and she puts the sexist pig in his place and falls for a man without knowing he had money or looks , only knowing she loved who he was.