BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Roblox sucks

Reason #1: Minecraft does not offer as much of this "relationship junk". On Roblox you come to find that half the time, relationships are being made on there. Cyber dating. That's the word for it. Nobody wants to see this crap. Reason #2: Minecraft may only have the survival part of it, but overall it's a fun game for all ages. In Roblox, you got the factors of having to make mods and watch tons of tutorials for stuff and such. On Minecraft, all you have to do is find the blocks you need and place them. Reason #3: Roblox has tons of the same stuff over and over again. Obbys and war games being the biggest. On Minecraft, at least you've got the Hunger Games, Survival, Creative, Skyblock, Skygrid, etc. Who wants the same old stuff?
Roblox sucks

Firstly, I would like to point out that Minecraft does in fact cost a fee as you said. Even though this is true, Minecraft only has that fee paid once. On Roblox, Builders Club is in fact an option. (Costing money as well.) But on Roblox, you only get the club type for a month, unless you pay the $60 fee for a year. Actually, make that fee (rounded) $130.00. On Minecraft, you ONLY pay ONCE. Therefore, you do NOT waste as much money as say you would on Roblox. Yes I realize that the Builder's Club membership is optional, but I also realize that on Roblox, if you want to buy certain types of stuff (clothes, decals, models, etc) you have to pay Robux for them. Robux is not something you get daily on Roblox, but you do get Tix. Basically, Minecraft won't include all this extra stuff costing more money if you want the full experience for the game. Secondly, I would like to mention to the Con side that Roblox is NOT a relaxing game. If anything, way more children/kids under the age of 12 play Roblox. There's in fact many other annoying sides to this such as: Fellow players annoying you in the game by never leaving you alone, saying mean/hurtful comments to you, etc. On Minecraft, you won't have all this drama, and you even have the relaxing feeling of being at home while you tend to your garden, go mining, or even just fish. It's like real life but on a computer/video game! Roblox offers the idea of say playing a racing game, and having "noobs" running into you with a car, stealing it or more. Minecraft's only con, is the fact of griefing; but many servers add plug-ins so that people can't "grief" your house. Griefing: The act of destroying someone/somethings home. Sources: http://www.roblox.com... http://www.roblox.com...
Diplomacy is running our world

It is getting ruined. War is beginning and all of that is because of diplomacy. We are just watching. For example, Palestine and Israel. Israel have chosen to declare war on Palestine as they knew that Palestine didn't have the enough power and now it is a disaster. On the other hand Palestine is not helping, they are just going down the street screaming. Some of the people in Palestine are just watching and the other half doesn't even want to discuss anything. They want to get back their lank u
Changing the school year to all year

"There are 6.2 million teachers..." While I agree it WOULD have an impact on the economy, what I'm arguing is that the impact would be negative. The money to pay these teachers has to come from either the Government or parents. Either way, the economy is worse-off. My opponent has also failed to acknowledge or rebut the other negative economical impacts I presented in Round 1. "Sooner or later, the students..." I agree, but I argue that later is better than sooner. School years are for schooling and setting one's life up by getting the best grades possible. They have 60 years after high school with which to learn to manage time between tasks. "I'm sorry that I have no evidence.." That's fine, but it's a point you can't use to make your case. My opponent didn't answer to my suggestion that if SOME teachers can manage the time effectively, ALL should be able to. My opponent has not answered to my evidence that year-long schooling has no impact on student performance.
Changing the school year to all year

"It would benefit teachers, not the economy." There are 6.2 million teachers in the United States. Saying that they have no impact on the economy is mere ignorance. As this large portion of consumers is paid more money, the more they will spend and buy, which in turn will boost our economy. And because school boards and governments on the community level refuse to raise the teacher's salary, the only way for teachers to make more money would be to work all school year. "Trying to do well in school. Students would, obviously, do worse overal if they had less time to spend on school-work." This may be true, but sooner or later, the students are going to need to learn how to balance responsibilities, and there is no better way to learn than from experience. Finally, I'm sorry that I have no evidence supporting the fact that teachers have a set criteria that they must teach their students, I just couldn't find any sources online with the detailed list.
Changing the school year to all year

"With the extra time that teachers would have to work, the more they would get paid." Yes, but as I said in Round 1, that money has to come from somewhere. It would benefit teachers, not the economy. Besides, if teachers are really deserving of a pay-rise, it should come without having to extend the school year, for the reasons I've provided. "What is stopping these students from getting a job during the school year?" Trying to do well in school. Students would, obviously, do worse overall if they had less time to spend on school-work. This is a bad thing. "And I'm sorry, but the most evidence I can provide for you is that I myself am a 11th grade teacher. I know it sounds illegitimate, but true." This is not "evidence" at all. Also, my opponent stated in Round 1 that teachers "often" struggle to get through the material in a traditional school-year. I would ask why some teachers manage to get through it while others don't. Seems some teachers need to try harder.
Changing the school year to all year

My opponent is only pointing out the negative economic impacts that the year-round school year would have on the economy. With the extra time that teachers would have to work, the more they would get paid. Teachers tend to be middle-class consumers, which means that they are members of a class that keeps the economy afloat by spending. Saying that a higher income for this group of people to use will not benefit the economy is mere ignorance. My opponent states that student like to get Summer jobs to get extra money which will help our economy. What is stopping these students from getting a job during the school year? Balancing job and school will not only bring in extra cash for the student, but it will also teach them how to balance responsibilities. And I'm sorry, but the most evidence I can provide for you is that I myself am a 11th grade teacher. I know it sounds illegitimate, but true.
Changing the school year to all year

Dang, just realized I've only got 1000 characters. :( "Therefore, there is no economic incentive..." Here are a couple: - Every extra minute the school is open, extra costs include electricity, insurance, paying teachers, etc. These costs can only get passed on to parents or the Government. - Kids like to get Summer jobs to earn a bit of extra cash, which also boosts the economy. "...educational benefits for students..." It's simply not true that students at year-round schools learn more or perform better than others. A study was conducted by a statistician named Paul von Hippel which showed that there is no academic advantage to year-round schools over normal ones. A discussion can be found here: http://www.scienceblog.com... "Teachers are given a criteria..." My opponent has provided no evidence to show that teachers struggle to get through the material. I would ask that he does in the next round please.
Changing the school year to all year

When it comes to making the school year last throughout the entire year, I would have to support the movement to do so. In colonial times, the only reason students did not have to atten school during the Summer was so that they could help their family with the farm. Now that our entire country runs off of industry, virtually none of our students still live on a farm. Therefore, there is no economic incentive to keep the Summer break. Not to mention the educational benefits for students and opportunities for teachers. Teachers are given a criteria that they must teach their students by the end of the year. Often they struggle to teach it all if they ever do. So giving teachers this extra time to present and teach the students the information would highly benefit everyone and our future generations.
Banning all firearms in the US would be detrimental to society

In this debate (my first one!), I will be arguing that the banning of all firearms will hinder society more than it helps it, based on facts from many sources. Here are a few 1) Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith. Just Facts, September 13, 2010. Revised 2/7/15. http://justfacts.com... 2) http://www.frontpagemag.com... (the article is the script of the video on the webpage) 3) http://www.forbes.com... Let's exchange views and see each others side of the debate.
Resolved: Religion is not fake

My opponent must clarify his statement. No educated person will make the case that religion is "fake." Whether specific religions are divinely inspired or not, on the other hand, is and has always been a subject of fierce debate. You cannot demand a counter premise from an opponent when you have not given him a premise yourself. From what you have given me, all I can tell you is that A) Everybody, unless you live in a cave and have yet to come into contact with human civilization, holds that there are different religions that different people worship. B) That being said, though, not everybody in the world believes in one same, correct religion. By correct, I mean divinely inspired, or that it came from God. There are certain people that believe that Christianity is correct. The same goes for Judaism, Islam, (those are the three major Abrahamic religions) and others. One cannot possibly believe in/ practice more than one of those religions at the same time. It is impossible for all of the major religions of the world to be divinely inspired. Only one of them can be, or none at all. If you wish to make the case that a specific religion is divinely inspired, then so be it. You must be more specific first.
resolved; black history month ought to be abolished in America.

I am not the best at debating but here I go..Black History month in America is simply to remember the accomplishments of Black Americans throughout history. Everyone has a different history. African-American history is different from American history. In American history, Blacks were property, and then peasants of lower intellect and less worth. In African-American History they are seen as a strong people who endured many struggles and eventually overcame them through hard work and determination. Black History Month is meant to emphasize this rather separate it from American history. In a country where Blacks have been prejudiced throughout a majority of it’s history, it is remembered that those people struggled for acceptance, for the “American dream” that was so close, yet still so far away.It is not only slavery and prejudice that is remembered in Black History Month, but also Black inventors, scientists, doctors etc. It goes beyond remembering the struggles of Black Americans, but to recognizing their ongoing accomplishments. It’s remembering a group of people separate from the country’s history. If we view Black History Month as remembering slavery then we don’t truly understand it’s purpose. Remembering a group of people is preserving traditions, achievements, struggles, pride.. history. If Blacks lost a sense of where they came from then what would they be today? If the past is forgotten it can repeat itself. Remembering the struggles and accomplishments pushes everyone, not only blacks, to accomplish more.Regardless of Black History Month, African-American history will still exist, just like German-American, Irish-American, British-American history etc. will exist. Black History Month, again I say, is only to emphasize the struggles and accomplishments rather separate it from American history. America is a combination of many different cultures put together into one country. Black History Month is recognized over all because Blacks endured the most struggles in American history, rather than being the only ones to struggles. We can take the time to remember the struggles of the Irish, Chinese railroad workers, Native Americans etc., but none were on a scale as large as Black Americans. The Black struggle was so difficult it nearly drove the country to separation. A month to remember that Blacks, who endured struggles on the largest scale in American history, is not much to ask. Taking Black History Month away is not the proper solution rather making it clear the intention of emphasizing the history of a people who played a huge role in the development of the country, while not separating it from the its history. Saying we no longer recognize Black History Month is the same as saying you do not recognize the history of this group of people.
resolved; black history month ought to be abolished in America.

I will finish refutation this round. Con obviously concedes to his contradictions then continues to purport some. For instance, him saying blacks endured struggles on the largest scale.That statement is so very wrong and in is the result of the racism that BHM breeds, the entitlement as well. All I need to do to defeat this contention is mention the Native Americans we just about exterminated, The Indians were slaved and killed while the AF were enslaved.Also I'm not speaking about before abolition I'm talking about Americas history in its entirety. No race can say I struggled most in this nations history across all of its time of existing. That is ludicrous. con moves on to say he doesn't want to dispute many parts of my case. Therefore he concedes to those parts.My opponent says other cultures have a month and provides a bad source. Everyone knows that wikipedia alone is not a reliable or credible source by itself since anyone can add what they want. I want to add that even if other cultures had a official month recognized by the American government, that does not mean it is ok. That would be following the logic of the bandwagon fallacy.Here's a false assumption con makes about me, "My opponent agrees Black History Month was created to teach about the history of blacks in America. So what is this debate about?"BHM was intended to educate America of the contributions African Americans had in American society, I don't agree it was meant to teach the history of blacks in America because if your talking about a AF while referring to one as black you sir are making a racist remark do to the fact that most African Americans do not match the color black on their skin. He also seems to be confused on what this resolution is. I encourage him to look next to resolved at the top of this debate in orange letters.How does BHM promote racism you ask?Well, lets see during BHM African Americans see themselves as separate from America, which con agrees with because he said so earlier.( so really he has proven the racism himself) if you ask a African American should there be a white history month during BHM they will say no because they hate that we talk about it all year (they only see it that way because Caucasian contributions to American history isn't separate like AF considers themselves).ophttp://thoughtcatalog.com... When you read this article it screams hatred towards caucasians to me.Equality means, "of the same value" by allowing a month to be dedicated to any race is not congruent to any ideals of equality. We've allowed to become biased. The bias says, for this month any other culture that's built America isn't important as AF history. That is racial inequality promoted by BHM. AF may not see it that way but the rest of America sees the racism and entitlement. It needs to stop for the sake of equality in America.I believe this refutation is sufficient since con concedes most of his case and I have have addressed the rest of his concerns last round and will summarize any others next round. Let me remind con that next round is the summarization which means no new contentions.
"Stand Your Ground" Laws Create More Problems Than They Solve & Encourage Vigilantism

I thank my gracious opponent for beginning this debate, and I have no doubt it will be engaging and interesting.My resolution states: Stand Your Ground Laws as applied in states like Florida, while not flawless, are far superior to any alternatives, including Duty to Retreat.I will argue that the requirement of non-engagmenet of the SYG laws invalidates the claim that the laws encourage vigilante. I will further intone that "Duty to Retreat" asks the defendant in a trial not only to prove their own innocence, violating the most sacred tenant of the legal system, but demands they do so by proving a negative; namely, that there was no path by which to escape. To more specifically define SYG, here are the contentions of the system and what they imply for its justice or lack thereof.1. Defendant must not begin the engagementAs I alluded to above, to properly use the SYG law, the shooter must for one, not initiated the conflict, but also must not have been searching for the deceased or "looking for trouble". This is why the law does not in an way condone vigilante justice, as to do so would be to violate the requirements of the law, and render the defense untenable. 2. Defendant's life must be facing an immediate threatIn order to justify shooting an attacker, the shooter must be facing an imminent threat, or show that they believed they were facing death or extreme bodily harm. This further challenges the idea of vigilante justice, because a vigilante does not face harm, but instead threatens it, and such a person would most likely be convicted of the crime accused.3. Excessive Force Cannot Be AdministeredShould a threat be neutralized, such as a non-fatal shot, a defendant may absolutely not cause further injury or execute the wounded person. It the prosecution in a case can prove that the accused did utilize excessive response, then the defense will not stand.The only substantial difference between SYG and Duty to Retreat is that someone whose life is threatened need not worry about whether they have sufficiently retreated to satisfy the needs of a jury who was not there, and whose lives were not in danger. SYG saves lives of good people, Duty to Retreat puts them at risk, then punishes them should they survive,This will be my gambit. Best of luck to my opponent.(1) http://criminal.findlaw.com...
"Stand Your Ground" Laws Create More Problems Than They Solve & Encourage Vigilantism

This is the question that I'm posing:Are "Stand Your Ground" Laws in the U.S. effective at establishing law and order or do they condone violence & vigilantism (sometimes against innocent people) and create more problems than they solve?This is the resolution that I will be defending as Pro: "Stand Your Ground" Laws create more problems than they solve & encourage vigilantism.I will be defending this position using actual court cases and reported examples where "Stand Your Ground" Laws were used against an alleged law-breaking perpetrator. I will show that these Laws frequently infringe on the legal rights of the accused and make a mess of standing common & civil laws.I will effectively show that "Stand Your Ground" Laws invite more problems than they solve, by legally permitting people to bypass the police and take matters into their own hands. Rather than urging people to seek out immediate safety during a possible criminal act, these laws condone citizen vigilantism and increase the likelihood of gratuitous injury and death, for both the victim and the alleged criminal.Important Distinction: "Stand Your Ground" Laws should not be confused with "U.S. Castle Doctrine", which states a person has no duty to retreat when his home is under attack. "Stand Your Ground" Laws go futher, by stating that a person has no duty or requirement to abandon any location he has a right to be, to give up ground to an assailant [1].In other words, such laws do not place responsibility and priority to get to safety on a potential victim, but permits him to stand his ground and fight during a possible criminal act; they also provide the victim with immunity from prosecution if the alleged criminal should be injured or killed during an act of self-defense [1]."Stand Your Ground" Laws are therefore opposed to "Duty to Retreat" Laws, which state "a person must retreat from a situation if he feels threatened; the use of deadly force against a perpetrator is only justified as a last resort option" [2].My opponent will oppose the resolution and show that "Stand Your Ground" Laws are primarily beneficial.In ROUND 1 my opponent will accept the debate and briefly explain what his goals are in defending his position.List of important terms:"Stand Your Ground" Laws"Castle Doctrine""Duty to Retreat" Laws[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)[2] (http://criminal.findlaw.com...)
Water being wet

My opponent's first argument seems to essentially be that water isn't wet because it is not measurable. .. "you throw water on water. .. There's no change. .. Nothing to measure. " . .. While this may be true in such that there is a difference between his example of a wet carpet, and water itself, this in no way can lead to the conclusion, that water isn't wet. Since my opponent did not refute my initial argument, nor disagree with our usage of the definition I provided, I will simply reiterate my opening argument to rebut his argument. Since "wet" can be defined, as I previously stated, as "In a liquid form or state", then water most certainly is "wet", as water is in a liquid form or state. Therefore water is wet. Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's next round.
Water being wet

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. For the sake of this debate we will be defining "Wet" as: "In a liquid form or state" [1] Water is in a 'liquid form or state' and therefore is 'wet'. (Like in "wet paint") I'd once again like to thank my opponent, and look forward to his response. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...