BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Club Penguin is better than Poptropica.

Club penguin is more interactive that PoptropicaOn club penguin you can have more in depth conversations with people, as you can write your own messages instead of just picking one from a selection of three questions. Unless you're using safe-server chat, you can really write whatever you want with the exception of swearing. Being able to compose conversations using your own imagination is more stimulating, fun and realistic for kids. Kids will feel restricted if they can only pick what they want to say from a very narrow range, and even worse they only have a few answers to pick from, which means they can't answer honestly sometimes. Even on safe-server chat, the options for questions and answers are much wider than that on Poptropica. Club Penguin also offers the option to add someone as a buddy and send postcards, which is more interactive.Coins are better than credits.On Club Penguin you can earn coins whenever you need them, whereas on Poptropica you need to wait for a whole other island to be created before you can earn credits. This can take months, whereas on Club Penguin you can get coins whenever you want. This is better for kids who don't want to wait an entire month before they can buy new things for their character.On Club Penguin you have a better sense of "character".Besides customizing your character's appearance on Poptropica, you're character has very little identity at all.On Club Penguin:- You pick your character's name- You can pick a personality for your character (geeky, sporty, funny etc) and express these through the things you say.- By having an "igloo" you can create a home for your character, adding to it's individual personality.-On Club Penguin, you don't have to do the same as everyone else! On Club Penguin you could be someone who hangs out at the beach, or likes solving missions, or likes making friends or collects cool furniture! Everyone is doing something differentOn Poptropica:-You get given a name.-You can't really say what you like, so you can't create a personality for your character that others can see-Your character doesn't have a home or anything else that defines it's character-Every character has to do the exact same thing to solve an island. There is an exact "path" you have to follow to play Poptropica. It's more fun for kids to be able to pick what they want to do, and not do the same as everyone else.You can make proper friends on Club Penguin.By adding someone as your buddy, you can arrange another time to meet up on Club Penguin and go and do fun things together. Unless you know the person who is controlling a Poptropica character in real life, you could never meet up again on poptropica and create a friendshipThanks for reading!
Club Penguin is better than Poptropica.

When I say "better", I mean a more fun, stimulating combination of gaming and social networking for kids. Rules:1. Arguments which do not take into account the other side of the argument are invalid. For example, "Club Penguin is always growing and expanding" is an invalid comment, as Poptropica expands too. A valid argument would be "Club Penguin grows and expands more than Poptropica does". (In this case evidence should be given)2. Make sure you source any facts. For example, "Poptropica has more users per annum than Club Penguin" would be invalid unless a source stating this statistic was given.
Club Penguin is better than Poptropica.

Rebuttal: "Poptropica is meant to be educational" I agree that Poptropica is education, but Club Penguin is too! Although Club Penguin is as factual as Poptropica, it teaches kids a lot about money, spending and saving. Most of the things you mentioned, like learning about history and artists; kids will learn in school anyway! Not that many schools educate students about money and spending; so if kids are going to play an educational game- shouldn't it be one that doesn't only teach things they're going to learn anyway? Also, every year the Coins for Change programme allows kids to give their coins to charity, therefore teaching " human values like kindness, respect, and humility" as you claim Poptropica does. "Club Penguin only exists to permit its users to have fun" This isn't true. As I mentioned, it teaches kids a lot about earning, saving and spending money in a safe, friendly atmosphere. It also gets kids thinking logically, as they can take part in field ops and missions. These missions allow kids to get mental stimulation, by logically trying to figure out these puzzles. "While Poptropica helps teach children how to operate within a society" This is true, but unless you're breaking Rule 1, you're stating that CP doesn't do this. Club Penguin teaches kids how to operate in society, through communication, earning money, having a job, earning wages and buying items. Learning how to work in society is basically what Club Penguin is about. "Club Penguin does little to teach children about internet safety" Before I rebut this point with opinion and reason, I'd like to rebut it with cold hard fact. Club Penguin has won the Web Award for a children's game. One of the major judging points for picking a inner is internet safety, so unless you're saying that the entire Web Award judging system is incorrect, I'm pretty sure you'd change your opinion on this. "giving away private information on the internet" Club Penguin in no way allows children to give away any private information to eachother. Typing numbers and writing out the number (one, two, three etc) is not possible, so kids cant give out their phone numbers or addresses. Also, all the names of the states and most cities in the world are banned too, so kids cant even say roughly where they live. The only information you can give out on Club Penguin, is your gender and the country you live in. This is not really considered private info as it's impossible to find someone if all you know is that they are male and live in canada for example. You can't even give out your age. "I agree, but would like to note that this is not important because Poptropica is not attempting to promote exploration of identity." Just because the website you're defending isn't doing something doesn't make my claim invalid. After all, the debate is about which game is more stimulating (thats one point) and I have argued that as poptropica doesn't allow you to have much of an identity, it is less stimulating than Club Penguin. " Poptropica is not supposed to be a social network" This is why it is a less stimulating game. See my last point.
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS ARE AN ALL-TIME BETTER TEAM THAN THE OAKLAND RAIDERS ALL-TIME

Jeez! Just 'cause i was busy and couldn't submit an argument, you think i don't care about this topic?!?!?!?!?!?!? Your argument you posted is subjective. I say the Shehawks are the best team because they won the superbowl two years ago. Plus joe montana has such good stats because when he was playing, reggie bush wasn't even in the nfl. if bush played against montana, he would have sacked that qb until joe turned into mush!
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS ARE AN ALL-TIME BETTER TEAM THAN THE OAKLAND RAIDERS ALL-TIME

49ERS HAVE MORE SUPER BOWL WINS THE 49ERS ARE 5-0 IN THE SUPER BOWL 49ERS HAVE MORE WINS ALL TIME (448) COMPARED TO THE RAIDERS (400) 49ERS ALL-TIME PASSING LEADER (JOE MONTANA) HAS MORE ALL-TIME PASSING YARDS (35124)THAN THE RAIDERS ALL TIME PASSING LEADER (KEN STABLER)(19078)YARDS
Abortion is wrong and should be criminalised

1. "The problem with this hypothetical analogy is that you are regarding the fetus as worth less than the mother" I was trying to get a realistic scenario, and by that didn't notice that the analogy didn't fit the circumstances of an abortion So I'm gonna change the example accordingly, which still should result in the same decision (shooting down the plane/abort): A plane with 200 people is hijacked by terrorists and is aiming for a stadium filled with 200 people. 2. I provided two approaches to the question "Is abortion morally wrong?" I'm assuming the next part of your round is referring to the approach "Killing humans is sometimes right and sometimes wrong" "To me the age, fact the pregnancy was a result of incest, and of sexual assault do not matter to the worth of the fetus. [...] So in my eyes the sickening specifics of the pregnancy are irrelevant to the value of the fetus." You convinced me in one point. An abortion is never clearly morally right or wrong but always 'in the gray area'/'between both', as there are always people who disagree, because moral is subjective. This means the first approach (Killing humans is sometimes right and sometimes wrong) is doesn't apply to abortion and is made invalid in this debate. Following that, there is only the other approach remaining: Killing humans is always wrong, but in a moral dilemma, it is the lesser of the various options available. And it seems that you now agree with me, that it is not the case, that every abortion is wrong/"abortion is wrong", as stated in the heading. It seems like that, because the last statements of the 3rd and 4th round conflict with each other. So although I neither consider myself nor you the clear 'winner' of this debate, I'm glad I could convince you to change your view by a bit.
Abortion is wrong and should be criminalised

I will rebut your answers as well, as I also have much left to say about the morality of abortion. 'Simplified: You sacrifice 200 innocent people (the fetus) to save <50.000 innocent people (the 11-year-old).' The problem with this hypothetical analogy is that you are regarding the fetus as worth less than the mother, as it is only worth 200 lives vs 50,000. I believe the fetus is worth equal to the mother. But that is partially irrelevant, as the main focus of your point is unsafe pregnancies. 'An 11-year-old in a medically dangerous pregnancy that resulted from incestuous rape. Looking at this morally, many people (not all as moral is subjective) will conclude that an abortion is 'clearly" a morally right decision.' To me the age, fact the pregnancy was a result of incest, and of sexual assault do not matter to the worth of the fetus. I feel that if you truly value the fetus then circumstances should not change whether it is a life or not, and this can be a problem with some pro-lifers. The disgusting and horrific circumstances of the pregnancy do not devalue the fetus in my opinion. I think it's illogical and wrong to make it okay to abort just based on the crimes of the child's father. Human life must always mean human life, regardless of the circumstances, otherwise what is human life worth? So in my eyes the sickening specifics of the pregnancy are irrelevant to the value of the fetus. In a situation where the mother's life is in danger, I believe that the correct steps should be taken to ensure the maximum life saved. Consultation with a medical professional is necessary in this scenario. I don't think that a fetus is worth any more than any other human, so like I said, anything to ensure maximum life at the end of the scenario is needed. This to me is my only logical standpoint, as I believe an unborn fetus is a human life, and I also believe that all human life is equal. 'You can't say that every abortion is right or that every abortion is wrong." (2nd round)' This I can agree with. I don't think the fetus deserves special rights just based on the fact it is unborn, and in my eyes every abortion is a human death, but it depends on the situation. Like I said before, I think the paramount reason for abortion should be saving human life, and not the circumstances which birth leaves the mother in.
Abortion is wrong and should be criminalised

I'm just gonna rebut your arguments as I don't have much to add in the moral standpoint on abortion. "However this moral ambiguity cannot be applied to the fetus" Let's apply both answers, which I provided, of the question "is abortion morally wrong?". 1. Killing humans is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Let's get an extreme example: An 11-year-old in a medically dangerous pregnancy that resulted from incestuous rape. Looking at this morally, many people (not all as moral is subjective) will conclude that an abortion is 'clearly" a morally right decision. Just for the completeness, here also is an example on which many people will say, that abortion is 'clearly' morally wrong: Married parents in their late twenties abort, because they wanted a boy instead of a girl. 2. Killing humans is always wrong, but in a moral dilemma, it is the lesser of the various options available. Let's use the first example again: Aborting the fetus is morally less wrong than for the girl to die or commit suicide trying to bring a baby that will have no support. You already said in your 3rd round that the fetus is innocent and therefore shouldn't be aborted, so I'm gonna assume that you are still opposed to this. So let's get another example which is not related to abortion, that could convince you, that in this case it doesn't matter/matters less, that the child is innocent, as it is a moral dilemma. Let's assume a plane with 200 people is hijacked by terrorists and is aiming for a stadium filled with 50.000 people. You are flying a jet fighter to stop the plane by destroying it. Simplified: You sacrifice 200 innocent people (the fetus) to save <50.000 innocent people (the 11-year-old). Of course the 200 people are innocent but the value of the 50.000 people is higher as their deaths are preventable. I will relate to your statement and conclude what I've just said (and also said in the 2nd round) " I can say every abortion is wrong, as every unborn child is 100% innocent, and therefore doesn't deserve death in any circumstance." "every unborn child is 100% innocent, and therefore doesn't deserve death in any circumstance." This is absolutely right. Still this doesn't conclude to your point, that every abortion is wrong. You can't generalize every abortion, as the morality surrounding any given abortion has to do with the specific circumstances of that abortion, not the procedure itself. Or in other words "Abortion is still a very difficult decision. You can't say that every abortion is right or that every abortion is wrong." (2nd round)
Abortion is wrong and should be criminalised

I see now I wasn't specific enough. For simplicity's sake, let's just focus on the morality of abortion, and not the legality. 'Killing humans is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. This means that abortion is sometimes morally right, sometimes morally wrong, and often, it's somewhere in the gray area/between both.' I agree with the first part of your statement. I believe killing a human should only be done to prevent the killing of other humans, for example a terrorist is about to blow up a building (with people inside it), so do you shoot him dead before he pushes the button? I would say yes. However this moral ambiguity cannot be applied to the fetus. An unborn child is the purest form of innocence that exists in this world. Of course, we do not know for sure as they do not have the capacity at that stage in life for committing evil or good, but we must assume they are innocent as our justice system is innocent until proven guilty. 'Both ways abortion is still a very difficult decision. You can't say that every abortion is right or that every abortion is wrong.' I can say every abortion is wrong, as every unborn child is 100% innocent, and therefore doesn't deserve death in any circumstance.
Abortion is wrong and should be criminalised

Before I begin, I think I need to clarify one thing. The Question 'What is life' is complicated, but a fetus definitely is 'life'. This doesn't mean that I exactly agree with your view. Is abortion morally wrong? There are two answers. 1. Killing humans is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. This means that abortion is sometimes morally right, sometimes morally wrong, and often, it's somewhere in the gray area/between both. 2. Killing humans is always wrong, but in a moral dilemma, it is the lesser of the various options available. This means abortion is always wrong, but sometimes it is less wrong than the other options Both ways abortion is still a very difficult decision. You can't say that every abortion is right or that every abortion is wrong. Whether abortion should be illegal is another topic, as it isn't the same argument as the ethical of whether or not it's right to have one. Lots of things that are morally wrong are and should be legal. If you want to argue about this as well, you can just post your argument for it additionally in the next round, as I'm really bad at starting debates.
Abortion is wrong and should be criminalised

Abortion is morally wrong for a number of reasons, and even certain circumstances do not legitimise it in my view. We have to start with the question, is human life after birth worth anything? If the answer is no, than abortion is not a concern to you, and you wouldn't care either way. If it is, and you are pro abortion, then you must reach a point either in development or circumstance where the destruction of the fetus is justified. For example, if you consider an unborn fetus not worthy of life at all, then what about premature births? If the fetus is delivered prematurely, it is considered human if it survives, but during the same stage in development, and it is unborn, it could be susceptible for abortion. Of course, this may not be your view, in which there are only two options remaining. 1. You believe human life begins at conception, and therefore agree with my view. 2. There is a cut-off point in terms of development as to what constitutes human life, and what is worthy of human rights. If your answer is 2, there is a fundamental error in your reasoning. The only way to instate a law regarding development is to base it on a set time period on when abortions can occur, and anything after that point is murder. This is the problem with this solution: In a hypothetical scenario, a fetus is close to it's termination deadline. Let's say it's April 8th. At 23:59 on April 7th, destroying that fetus is no more legal or morally wrong than plucking a hair from your head, as that fetus isn't recognised as a human life. So you could get the abortion on April 7th at 23:59, no problem. How is it right then, that exactly one minute later, that would be murder? How can one minute decide the legitimacy of human life? In that split second between 23:59 and 00:00, the entire moral and legal standing of that fetus goes from morally worthless to the highest value ever issued in our communities and legal system. Nothing special happens in that split second, nothing drastically changes withing the fetus that somehow makes it eligible for human life. So, if it is valued at 00:00 and then onwards forever, but is worthless before hand, it must also be valued before that, at conception at least. The problem is with the whole 23:59 --> 00:00 scenario is that it is illogical to attribute worth to something over a millisecond where nothing changes.
The Christian God is personal and not merely philosophical

The argumentation presented go in the following form: that (1) God cannot be proven empirically, and (2) it is divine relevation that can prove God. This inconsistency with the pure ontological views of both major schools of the study of philosophical knowledge (rationalism and empiricism) are quite disgusting in my opinion. I shall briefly provide comments and define the terms in the resolution at hand, and after this, I shall provide brief comments upon the unjustified nature of this resolution.Definition:1. By the Christian God, we can exclude the possibilities of the Jewish God or the Pantheist God; the Christian God is exclusively human-like, as was proven in Genesis, and includes the following attributes: omnipotence, omnivolence, and omniscience.2. By personal, if we were to infer from the opposition's opening statements, it shall be said that personal would be what one experiences, but not another.3. By philosophy, it would be the study of reality and the nature of it. Note: Here, it has already been proven that the proposition "the personal is not philosophical" is analytically contradictory, for philosophy is the study of reality; if personal reality is the reality in which "God exists" then "God exists philosophically" is a true statement. Let this be the driving point of this debate.Preliminary Discussion:On the Anselm's OntologicalIt must henceforth be said that it was through divine revelation that Anselm first formulated his argumentation; possibly the first ontological argumentation ever proposed in the history of Christianity. This ontological is simple; if non-existence is the limitation of perfection, then analytically, God must exist, for God is maximally good. This argumentation has been repeated in a modal logical form, validified by Alvin Platinga. The main field, and possibly the most convinving argumentation for God's existence, lies in a "divine revelation" which has been further exemplified into logically valid argumentations via the weapons of philosophy.However, let it be affirmed that the Burden of Proof lies upon the opposition, for he is making this claim.With this said, GL and HF! I look foward to defending the honor and dignity of philosophy in the face of such absurd propositions :D
Halo better than Call of Duty

Considering the two games are in 2 separate 'war' eras, 'futuristic and present', you can not compare them fully. It all depends on your taste. If you like modern day warfare games such as Call of Duty, Battlefield, Medal of Honor etc. you will most likely not like futuristic FPS games such as Halo. Regardless of the era where the game is placed, whether is it on planet Earth or some other planet and the time gap between the games. Personally, I think Call of Duty has the best campaign missions, whereas Battlefield has the best multiplayer. If you truly want to compare both games you should play both of them for a quite long time and decide which one you like better. It's mostly about the taste and what kind of battles you prefer. Some prefer FPS games from, for example, the French Revolution (an abstract example) or 'FPS' without the Shooter when playing RPG games from the medieval era. It's all about the personal preference. I can't emphasize that enough!
If a creator and an opposition force (example: Satan) existed then we should not follow the bible.

I'm going to condense my argument quickly because I do not have much time. If we were to accept the premise that an opposition force to a creator exists and we are also the accept that the creator has created only one religion then it is apparent that it is more likely that Satan has created the bible. Thus we should not follow the bible. Have fun. P.s, apparently I can only challenge you to one debate at a time so I am temporarily canceling the other one while I think about it.
If God does not exist, life has no ultimate objective purpose value or meaning.

My position is that if God does not exist, then human life is devoid of ultimate objective meaning value or purpose, regardless of our subjective opinions to the contrary. Important points to note: 1. I am not stating that all atheists are bland and depressing nihilists who live as if there lives have no meaning. Indeed it is impossible for someone to live without meaning or purpose, even if these are just subjective illusions without God. 2. If you somehow show that even if God exists our lives are still somehow devoid of ultimate value meaning and purpose, this does not prove that that our lives would have any purpose without God. My opponents burden is to show that Life does have purpose even if God does not exist.
If God does not exist, life has no ultimate objective purpose value or meaning.

Ultimately I do agree with you, based on that last argument. Really I don't think this is something that can even be argued about :3 If you ask a Scientologist this question, I'm sure they'd give you a reason why we objectively have purpose, as for an atheist such as myself I just don' see it. You win I guess, but I thought I was arguing against a religious position in the beginning, it may turn out that I'm not then?