BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My opponent has just lost the game.

Sorry for the rush, not sure what you mean by conceding to point 1 (still haven't read it, these darn time restrictions on my life). However, when concidering how to vote, I fully accept that by me not reading my opponent's arguements (though I read 1/2 of the round 2 and all of round 3), I showed poor conduct, and should be penalized, however, my opponent has called me a "she" at least 3 times (and that's only in the sections I read), which is also poor conduct, as seeing as I'm a man. When considering who won the arguments, we only need to ask the voters to read the resolution (which I still haven't) and see if Pro met the burden of proof of proving that resolution beyond doubt. I also remind people of what I pointed out in my first round, which my opponent (to the best of my knowledge) never objected to. To only vote on things said in this debate, and not consider anything said outside of it. Thank you.
My opponent has just lost the game.

Sorry, I'm a little short on time, so I just read your last argument. "By rebutting this statement, she agrees she has read this statement. If she does not rebut this statement, she concedes this point." I'f read that statement, but I cannot rebut the fact that I read it, because I did read your round 2 argument. Sorry, my lack of time means I still haven't read the title, nor the opening round. Was this argument 2 related to the resolution? If it was, then I probably lost, but if it wasn't, I don't see any issues with my response.
My opponent has just lost the game.

Thanks OreEle. Argument 1. It is not possible to not play the the game. The game is always being played without your consent. In fact, my opponent is playing the game right now (and so is everyone else.) Thus she can always lose the game. Argument 2. By rebutting this statement, she agrees she has read this statement. If she does not rebut this statement, she concedes this point.
My opponent has just lost the game.

I would like to remind about 1 rule. When voting on a debate, one should only consider what is said within the debate and nothing that is said outside of the debate. Thank you So I saw that Brainmaster had created another debate, though I'll have to admit, I didn't even both reading the title or his argument. I just had so much fun on the last one, that I figured that I would do another with him. I'm assuming that the first rounds are for introductions and so no need for an argument. Hopefully I'll have time to read his arguments for the next round. Thanks,
MIENCRAf is BETER then TEraRRIA

Alright first off, you type like a nine year old loser on call of duty somewhere, so I expect this to be an easy argument. Also, do note that I argue that both are good, but neither is better. However, my insults will stop there, as this is a clean fight. First: There are way more than two voxel-based sandbox games in this world. Shocking right? Second: Terraria was released several months before Minecraft, making it A: NOT a copycat, and B: Making it more original than Minecraft. That being said, Minecraft was being developed first. HOWEVER, Minecraft is not original by any means! Minecraft is based off of Dwarf Fortress, Infiminer, and many other games! So Minecraft is technically by your standards a "copycat!" Third: 3D is not always better than 2D. Both use the dimensions of the games to create a beautiful retrospective world for gamers to enjoy, and both have very fun yet differing game play. Minecraft is much less adventurous, but much more about expressing yourself. Minecraft is infinitely generated and also focused on BUILDING. Terraria, on the other hand, is all about EXPLORATION and DUNGEONEERING. These two very different games have very different focuses! Fourth: For the love of god, turn on spell check or let your mother type for you, because reading your argument was like watching a four year old draw on my wall in crayon! Finally: This all being said, I believe I have accurately represented my point that Minecraft is good, Terraria is good, and that is all that matters. Neither is better than the other.
MIENCRAf is BETER then TEraRRIA

Theirexist exactly two voxel-base sandboxx game in the world: Minecraft, TEH awesome and totally-original game that is objectively the best game EVAAR, and Terraria, a copycat worthless game. In this debate, I seek to prove that Minecraft is objectively sUPERIORr THEN Terraria in several ways. 1. GaMEPLAy11!1!11 Minecraft is beter then Terraria because it haz thr33 dimension. Three is bigger than the two, so a Minecraft is the better. 2. CreativiTy!!!111! Why do people keep on insisting that Super Smash Bros. is so good? Minecraft is way better since you can actually be creative in it. 3. ALL my opponent's arguements are false cuz I say so!!!!! My opponen wud probs say someting like "it's just a game! Why are you so passionate and illogical about this?" To that, I say "minecraf is lif minecraf is lov"!!!!!11
Village life is better than city life

Thank you for your arguments. To me, the arguments for living in a city clearly beat the arguments for living in the countryside. The most important thing in life for humans is generally to love and to be loved. The risk of not finding someone to share your life with is one of the biggest fears in human life. The city offers a wide range of people, and thus a greater chance to find the perfect match. The city also hosts a more diverse ways of leading a life. It is full of subcultures and niched people. To summarize " the odds of finding that special someone, and to discover just what kind of life one wants to have are far greater in the city. Another important aspect of human life is career. You want to find something meaningful, inspiring and fun to do for a living. Just stepping foot outside your apartment footstep in a big city offer great career paths. The labour market is bigger, wider and deeper. The chances of finding the job you dream about is incredibly bigger in a city compared to the country. In a city you find most things you need closed to your house. You won"t need a polluting car to get what you need, just take a quick walk. People like to do different stuff to be entertained. The supply of entertainment in a city can"t be compared to that in the country. I will now go through your arguments. The prices of housing are higher in a city. On the other hand people on the countryside will generally have to own a car, leading to big costs in fuel and maintenance. Most people living in the countryside are not farmers. Thus they do not grow their own crops and have animals to slaughter. They usually shop at regular stores that hosts brands from the same suppliers as the shops in a city. Your statement that the risk of car accidents is greater in a city is not true. An even greater argument - life in a city is safer than life in the countryside! - " But guns " whether used accidentally or with intent " are much less likely to be the cause of death than another tool: cars. And people drive more, drive longer, drive faster and drive drunker in rural areas than in urban ones, where they can walk or take public transit." Read this article and you will see that is is actually safer to live in a city compared to the countryside: http://science.time.com... You state that life is more simple in the countryside compared to the life in a city. Maybe that is appealing to some, but I think that most people are out to get more from life than just simplicity. People are complex. You want to find the love of your life, the perfect job, the perfect things to do or the perfect places to go to find the entertainment that suits you as the unique human you are. All these things are easier to find in a city. The simplicity you hold as an argument for the countryside might backlash and become a counter-argument for it. Most people will not be pleased with the simple life. You want to explore the world, and what it has to offer. The city is a big boiling pot of life, a great hub of different lifestyles and people. So let"s discover the world, and see what the city has to offer.
Village life is better than city life

I joined debate.org today and created this debate for test purpose. Thanks for your quick attention. I was not so seriour about this topic. But now however I will try my best to defend and I hope I can. This is my 1st debate. GOD bless. Living in town is not easy because life has become more expensive. You can"t live in town without money, but in village you can survive because life is relatively cheap. Meanwhile criminal activities are more likely to happen in town than in the village. In the village people eat fresh food, which they grow themselves. People in the village can also slaughter animals and get meat. They also enjoy lots of fruits. Hunger is forgotten in the village. Because of fewer vehicles in the village, people are safer and road accidents are minimised. The village also has clean air and the environment is very beautiful. Rural life is simple. Families stay close together and care more for each other. Also, natural resources such as rivers, hills, mountains are plenty in the village. People who are living in rural areas are very important to our economy because they are the producers of food.
Legality of Marijuana in the US

I am very sorry for your friend and I hope he can change for the better, but that hardly changes the fact that you did not address talking points 1, 3, 4, and 5. I graciously and politely extend those talking points to the next round in hopes that you will address them this time. To address your talking point, which is moving, but not very valid because it is an argument from personal experience, I would like to say that I am very aware that Cannabis and Marijuana are not even in the ballpark of Opiates, but as my sources cited, they are a gateway drug that usually leads to the usage of opiates and other much more dangerous drug. If we banned Marijuana federally and stressed more positive life choices among our youth, think about all the people that wouldn't be on opiates because they never got in to the gateway drug known as Cannabis/Marijuana! I agree that we (the US) are notoriously known for wasting our resources on symptom's of a problem and not the source, but I believe that Marijuana is one of the significant sources of our ever increasing problems with opiates. Thank you for reading, I am excited to see your reply and hope you address my extended arguments this time. -Adam
Legality of Marijuana in the US

A have a few base rules, you may add your own, but not take away from mine, since I am the instigator. - Opium can be compared to Marijuana (to an extent) - Neither opponent may use Ad Hominem to argue (PA to somehow legitimize your point) - No using unfair/unbalanced sources (Wiki allowed, forums not allowed) I politely ask voters to keep bias out of their decision and give a reasonable verbal explanation as to why they voted for someone, anyone who can not meet this criteria will not technically be counted in the official results.
should cigarettes be displayed for sale.

This is another example of bad to counter-act very bad. If cigarettes are legal product the sale and advertisement of them should be legal as well. If they are a deadly drug that nobody should have: ban them outright. This nonsense where the first amendment is crimped and stretched (and other various free speech provisions) in order to prevent an extreme wrong we opt for other wrongs. Don't pussyfoot around, smoking is bad... ban it. Don't deny people their rights to display and offer legal goods for sale... don't keep them legal. If they kill hundreds of thousands of people and are bad things to do then don't let people do them. This sort of nonsense of beating around the bush with the number one preventable source of death if a joke. There have been moves to force an R rating on any moving with smoking or prohibit advertising here there or whereever and it's all a crock. If it weren't for the Tobacco lobby there wouldn't be one peep about this nonsense and how they can't show a product they sell... it would be illegal end of story.
should cigarettes be displayed for sale.

this house does not support cigarettes being displayed for sale. Read this . Do you want your society being polluted by the utter disturbance from cigarettes? well the display of cigarettes in shops definitely encourage this. In the United Kingdom, there have been talks about banning cigarette displays in a bid to reduce smoking and discourage children from starting, ministers are also proposing the removal of vending machines in pubs and restaurants. Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo said: "It's vital we get across the message to children that smoking is bad. If that means stripping out vending machines or removing cigarettes from behind the counter, I'm willing to do that." the fact of influencing children is another major for the ban of cigarettes being displayed. She added: "Children who smoke are putting their lives at risk and are more likely to die of cancer than people who start smoking later." Measures that make it easier to sell nicotine replacement gums and patches are also being considered. Children who are confronted with cigarettes in their local shops are more than likely to pick up the habit of this kind of behavior being ok, thus leading to youth smokers in our community. tell me do you want your child to suffer? than banning the display of cigarettes should be a major priority for the government.
Trump is a good president

With the Muslim ban, and the banning of transgenders in the military, I can say that those are some good actions by him. And this: " He has lied about Russia and his policies will lead to a nuclear war with North Korea." Trump does not want to go to war with the DPRK, nor will his policies provoke the North Koreans into starting a armed conflict. Yes he does not have political experience, but as of now, he is gaining knowledge of his power, and should be able to carry on his presidency for the next seven years. Trump also wants to bring back jobs, and he wants LEGAL immigration, he has in mind many things to better the country's current state.
Trump is a good president

"Trump's Muslim ban is not good because it discriminates against Muslims" It isn't discrimination against Muslims, it is intended to keep terrorist sympathizing refugees out of America. Yes we did have the terror attack in NYC, that was different, with Europe, there are many attacks because the countries do not put in place travel/migration restrictions on the refugee countries. "He has this crazy idea that he can build a big border wall and get Mexico to pay for it."The plan has changed, and I personally think that Mexico should help in building the wall, they do not take effective action in preventing illegals from crossing into the United States. In the following video, a Infowars reporter will cross into Mexican territory without any trouble: https://youtu.be... https://www.infowars.com... is why we need a better structure rather than using Czech hedgehogs and a filmsy fence to use as a border to mark the boundary line between the United States and Mexico. "It is really hard for Mexicans who want a better life to get accepted through the immigration process so they turn to illegal immigration" What excuse is this? Many Mexicans have gone through the means of attempting to obtain green cards or LEGAL immigration/resident documents. What is so hard for others to do the same? Here is a video of some LEGAL immigrants supporting Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign: ; Victims of illegal immigration: "and he is trying to make immigration harder." Provide evidence for your assertion. He wants and supports LEGAL IMMIGRATION. "He hasn't brought back any jobs and has no understanding of foreign relations." "He has not brought back any jobs" you say, and you have not put any evidence of that being true. "He has no understanding of foreign relations" I cannot even tell whether that is true or not.
Trump is a good president

Trump's Muslim ban is not good because it discriminates against Muslims and that has been proven multiple times by judges and it doesn't keep most of the terrorists out. He has this crazy idea that he can build a big border wall and get Mexico to pay for it. It is really hard for Mexicans who want a better life to get accepted through the immigration process so they turn to illegal immigration, and he is trying to make immigration harder. His tax reform lowers taxes for the rich and supports him. He hasn't brought back any jobs and has no understanding of foreign relations.
failure

Ladies and gents, we're all failiures in some things. Iðll even refrain from fixing my spelling errors this round because I know that I'll come back and learn from them, I'll fix them and I'll not do them again. The circle of life start in failure and ends in success. Failure isn't a bad thing, it's mearly a stone in the path to victory. And no stone that leads to greatness can ever be bad.
failure

Because failure is an important stepping stone in success arguing against it is quite absurd. Without failure, how will one ever learn? You gain experience by doing the wrong thing and fixing what went wrong. It may not be pleasant, it may not be nice, but it is still progress. Someone who never makes mistakes never improves himself and never gets any better. Being stuck at a stage you are perfect in might not result in disappointment, but it also means you'll never grow to your full potential.
failure

Failure is not more important than success, it IS success. Nobody has gotten anywhere without failing again and again. James Cameron said: “if you set your goals ridiculously high and its a failure, you will fail above everyone elses success” He is one of the many that has hit his head against the stone. J.K Rowling was rejected numerous times before publishing HP, the Beatles where rejected 7 times. Failure is good, it keeps us going read this: success.com/article/why-failure-is-good-for-success
failure

no, i dont think failure is more important than success because failure is a negative thing and if you stay in the negative you will never get anywhere in life and if you focus more on your success you will get futher in life . failure is not the way of life success is , sucess is far more important than failure because failure. will get you no where is a very negative to think about who wants to think about failing? or, being a failure no one does its depressing as a person to think about that.
which animal is the best dog or cat

Sure, if you're not going to attempt to ditch the debate again, I would love to have another serious or troll debate on a topic that we may disagree on. It would be my pleasure to have an opportunity to debate you if you at least give me time to post my arguments before you concede. Tl;dr VOTE PRO: Conduct: Con attempts to regain footing after conceding to me, confusing voters, while I stay consistent throughout the debate. Conduct goes to me. S&G: Con uses "best" in the resolution when the proper term should be "better." He also does not use proper capitalization or punctuation, while I do. S&G go to me. Arguments: Con concedes. This goes to me as well. Sources: I have multiple sources backing up all of my claims while Con does not have any. Sources go to me. -~-==0==-~- Vote Pro and have a nice day! http://media.giphy.com...
which animal is the best dog or cat

this is going to be because everybody knows that dogs are a mans best friend but people always mistreat catz ( <----------- on purposes ) ok for catz they actually know how you are feeling but dogs sit around and when you are crying dogs stay on the ground laying down but my cat comes to me and rubs its body on my led and on my neck but were is my 3 year old dog oh just laying down on the floor
Teachers Should Be Paid A Lot!

-Her fact about getting paid 100 dollars a month, is impossible under law. We have a minimum wage in place. Everyone must get paid a certain amount per month. It is well over $1000, not to mention $100.-Athlete's health care is funded through the franchise and the hospital they have is not an upscale place. The hospitals they use are usually the same ones you and I use, with some more expensive treatment that they pay for.-Going back to your first argument, how do teachers save lives exactly?
Teachers Should Be Paid A Lot!

Hello, My name is Cray-cray as you see. I think they should get paid $100 each month because they give us a lot of education, happiness and funny times. Even though athletes are the problem, they get $130,000,000 just to give us entertainment. Teachers give us education and get paid way lower than that. So do doctors, fire fighters and polices, they work there butts off saving lives and they get paid less then athletes. Do athletes save lives and give education to us. NO! So,Love It or Argue It!
Gay Marriage

You are committing the Slippery Slope Fallacy. This is because you state that gay marriage will indirectly cause unsavory behavior, while failing to provide a plausible mechanism for the above. This is a fallacy. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Also, I shall provide my argument. Being LGBT is not a choice. (It's hard to argue with the APA.) [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Therefore, it would be a civil rights issue to disallow their marriage. I patiently await your pseudological rebuttal. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... (Wikipedia) [2] http://www.nizkor.org... [3] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com... [4] http://www.fallacyfiles.org... [5] http://www.logicalfallacies.info... [6] http://www.slate.com... (Slate magazine) [7] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk... [8] http://www.apa.org... (The American Psychological Association) [9] http://www.cnn.com... (CNN) [10] http://communities.washingtontimes.com... I clicked on your links and first of all, none of those people lived in America, and probably were only doing it for fame and publicity. To quote one of them, '"There's nothing sexual," he told the AFP, noting that the event was simply a lighthearted way to celebrate with friends. "You can't actually marry a dog"'. He admitted the marriage wasn't even that serious! Second, society won't make pedophilia okay because we do have moral standards. There is nothing wrong with being gay, so that isn't against them. And if you want to say being gay isn't natural, neither are glasses, polyester, air-conditioning, the internet, cars, books, medicine, etc. And according to these articles, it is. http://www.exposingthetruth.co... More than 1,500 different animal species, including chimpanzees, koalas, dolphins and apes engage in homosexual and bisexual acts, so you can't say it isn't the least bit natural. If we were also to argue that the sole natural purpose of sex is to reproduce, then are masturbation and oral sex also unnatural? Should we demonize condom use just as much? We could also argue, using another theory, that homosexuality and asexuality are natural methods of population control.