BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Traditional Marriage (Man/Woman) and Same-Sex unions are not Equal. Convince me otherwise.

There are many many different kinds of relationships, And not all relationships are equal. One of the primary objectives of the State is to ensure the continuation of the State. If the State does not do what it can to ensure the continuation of it's Society, Then it's failing in one of it's primary duties. There is only 1 relationship that will ensure the continuation of State, And that is the Male/Female relationship. Without the Male/Female relationship, Society will not add new members and thus the State would not continue to exist. So, The State has a vested interest to promote, Encourage, And dare I say, Protect the Male/Female relationship above all others, Because it is the ONLY relationship that ensures it's continuation. Thus, Male/male relationship or a female/female relationship does not provide to the State what the Male/Female relationship provides, Or has the potential to provide. When the State promotes, Encourages, Provides benefits, And protects the Male/Female relationship, It is not discriminatory. Convince me otherwise.
Roblox is better then minecraft

Minecraft has frequent updates for the game, yes, but it's a lot more special instead of some minor thing that got changed that not really anybody noticed. Minecraft stays at the price once paid for, is never renewed and is permanent. Budget-wise Minecraft is more superior. There is no restrictions in Minecraft things are unlimited. if you start a survival world you can build anything with anything you have. Yeah you progress to get better materials create anything even logic controls automated almost anything and if you get tired of that then just switch mid-game into creative mode so you can do whatever you want. We have beautiful mini-games and even mod if you get tired of just being with Minecraft. Plus our community is so much better instead of Roblox's community of a bunch of 6 year olds thinking they are 16 while Minecraft is a lot more mature. There is a lot more to do in Minecraft with everything out there than in Roblox. You've obviously never played Minecraft correctly.
Roblox is better then minecraft

Maybe Minecraft is more creative and i used to play once but you always need to have to wait till next update and in ROBLOX you can always create your own game and make an update whenever you feel like and in roblox is more easier to create game and play multiplayer. if thats not true lets see whats more cheaper making a roblox account is free compare to minecraft getting more expensive every update and there are aren't unlimited things if you start a survival world you only can mine, chop down wood, fight and survive but in roblox there's unlimited things you can CREATE. thank you off to you con
Roblox is better then minecraft

I used to be an avid ROBLOX player myself, but it became extremely hard to quit. It was also hard to build in, script, and you'd find small children everywhere. The community was very immature, and it seemed that the same games got featured over and over. Also, the updates in Minecraft are relevant and refreshing, and make the game more fun to play. The forums listen to complaints you have about bugs and gameplay issues. Roblox turns a blind eye to bugs, and any changes made to the site are just about changing up the background. Hackers and ODs ruin the game. No offense, but I'm ashamed to say I used to play ROBLOX.
Roblox is better then minecraft

i thinks clearly that roblox is better then minecraft because in roblox theres more things to do then in minecraft were you just build and get bored fast (well not that fast but). In roblox you can create game or plugin much easier then minecraft you can make server and play with your friend much much easier, you can also make server without paying them and its even free to make and also making a roblox account is free and in roblox you dont get banned easly
Atheism is a false.

You suggested atheism is a belief yet it is usually because of a lack of belief in god people call themselves atheist. Just as a none belief in fairies and angels doesn't mean someone is A-fairiest, or an Anti Angelist, there are many things that have zero evidence to support their idea and god is just one of them. The faithful would feel less awkward if they didn't have to fall back onto jabbing a finger at an old book of questionable origin as all faiths have to revert to, and would feel less insulted if they didn't simply believe just because all their family do. After all there is no easy way to be told that all the people you grew up to respect including your parents have been wrong your whole life, that is often, I suspect why many shy away and feel offended when challenged by atheists.
Atheism is a false.

Atheism is the belief, at least for the purposes of this debate, that there is no God. I submit that there is no good reason to think that a belief in God is false, but there is good reason to think that belief in God is true. I propose, therefore, that atheism is a false belief. I cannot obviously evaluate reasons for not believing in God, until someone has stated them. The general atheistic explanation though, is that there is no evidence 'for God'. As such I plan to start my side of the argument by proposing reasons why a belief in God is rational. Please note this is my first debate on this forum, so please bear with my while I get the hang of everything on here....
Violent media causes people to be violent and should therefore be banned or censored.

"Your eleven sources have proved this for me, by virtue of the fact that they prove that some of the violent people have watched violent media. Therefore it could either prove that media causes violence in people or that violent people seek violent media. Thank you for doing the work for me." My eleven sources do not prove that violent people seek violent media. In fact, it's just the opposite: My sources indicate that violent media makes people, who otherwise wouldn't be, violent. Your argument is exactly wrong. Did you read my sources? "You made no real claims you simply placed a series of sources with nothing pulling them together." I believe my thesis was clear: Violent media causes people to be violent and should therefore be banned, or at least censored. Where is the confusion? "Just because your sourced something it doesn't make it correct. People have painted from the dawn of time, I'm not going to do any serious research but there is plenty of evidence of cave painting here [1]. Painting has existed for a very long time, these 'paintings' you speak were derived from the primitive cave paintings." That is your flaw. You write that you are not willing to do research, and instead site Wikipedia. My source, an award winning documentary, shows that there was a large period of time when paintings didn't exist. I ask the audience to please weigh our two sources. And no, these paintings I speak of were not derived from primitive cave paintings, because these paintings WERE the primitive cave paintings. Next time, please use sources. "My opponent did not source, or even mention what the Senate Committee said so therefore it holds no relevance." Read my R1: "including one conducted by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary which wrote...". My argument still stands. "Media is based of off (sic) real life, (sic) it doesn't have to be an accurate depiction. My opponent did not prove that media was derived from an un-worldly source, so therefore the claim did not defeat any of my three arguments." I do not have to prove that media is derived from an un-worldly source. All I have to prove is that media is not solely based off major events. "A fair point (sic) however it was meant to prove that people are violent without media, so therefore taking away violent media won't stop the violence." Another fallacious argument. The topic of this debate is whether or not violent media causes people to be violent; it is not whether or not there are other contributing factors to violence. I believe I have successfully proven that violent media does cause people to be violent. Violent media must be banned, or at least censored. ----In closing---- I'd like to thank my opponent and the audience for reading this debate. VOTE CON!!!
Violent media causes people to be violent and should therefore be banned or censored.

[Rebuttal] Media is based of off people's experiences and is based of off the real world. There is no media which is based completely off fantasy, because this is not possible. Someone has to receive an idea from somewhere, and that has to be based in real life. My point being that these individuals who dream up the violence in Saw have to have based there movies on their own already violent minds. People who create and watch violent movies want to experience that kind of media. "Secondly, even if all of the media around us WAS entirely based on the real world, that does not negate the fact that most people do not comprehend ALL the horrific events that have taken place. I'm confused as what that refutes, I do not need to comprehend all the horrific events of the world to imitate what I see in the media. People may not be aware that more violence exists in the real world. But the topic of the debate was not if media was an accurate depiction of real life. I have not seen the exorcist, however I have seen many films from the 70's that I would consider to be just as graphic for example: El Topo, Dawn of the Dead, Cannibal Holocaust. The major flaw with your argument is that people seek things they are interested in, a violent person will seek out violence in the media. In the same way a person who enjoys fishing will watch programmes on fishing and read literature on fishing a person who has a violent disposition will be fascinated with violence in media. A person with a violent disposition is not likely to admit to themselves they are so inclined. -Argument- Here's is a simple point - If I play a game about tennis does it mean I am an adept tennis player or that I will play tennis outside of a video game? If I watch Indiana Jones will I become an architect or rob tombs? In the same way that I will not become an architect I will not go on a murderous rampage after playing Grand Theft Auto. Now let's look at a less economically developed country such as Columbia or areas of the Congo or just generally deprived area of the world. These places must have little or no access to violent media simply because of lack of funds, do these places have less violent crime? has the crime rate of the world significantly increased upon the release of a new Grand Theft Auto. Simply put people are violent, they will continue to be violent. Violent media is just a reflection on this. -- Thank you for your argument --
Violent media causes people to be violent and should therefore be banned or censored.

With the recent surge of interest in ultra violent video games and violent cinema that is often deemed as 'Torture porn' there has also been in a increase in condemning of this violent media, suggesting that this type of media has a negative effect on the people of today (especially the youth) and causes people to imitate what they see portrayed in the media. I have 3 main arguments why this violent media is acceptable: 1. The majority of this media type is sought out by men, by their very nature men have an intrinsic violent predisposition. When you take away the need to hunt and the need to fight for a mate there is a pent up rage in men that needs to be released. This type of media is an extension of this and can become the catharsis needed for men to fuel their competitive drive(in the case of video games) and allow them to experience the violence in a safe environment. Which will in effect lessen the need for people to be violent in real life. 2. Wars and violence have always existed, the media can only be based on what has already happened. Therefore it cannot be this media that is causing people to be violent, people are not imitating this violence as the media is based on previous violent acts. 3. Media has contained violence for a long time, older generations do not imitate the three stooges and beat each other violently when something goes wrong. Why would younger generations change alter this trend? (Sorry if I am missing anything I should have, this is my first attempt at a debate)
Which is the best game in the world?? According to me it is fifa15

First of all, thank you for your advice. Well i think the transfer issue is upon you. In manager carrier mode, you transfer players from one club to another. And if you think that this is not the best game, then please tell me your opinion. Now you need the updates. Well as far as updates is concerned i think you are correct. But look at the popularity of football and if you get such a splendid game with so good graphics then what do you need. Well, EA is doing great progress in their work and i am waiting for fifa15. And thank you for your time in this debate with me. I really enjoyed and known your facts concerning fifa14 and fifa15. Thank you.
Which is the best game in the world?? According to me it is fifa15

You should count yourself lucky if you've never experienced these issues before (That's practically what EA is known for!). I really am not making this up! While, I agree that the graphics are decent, they are not totally realistic, even with a 1080p resolution on the PS4. I can already infer from your claim that all players are in their true form, that you are being biased as a FIFA fan. They still didn't update the appearances of football players, such as Fernando Torres, who still has his long hairstyle in the game. Not to mention, that you can only have legends in the xbox edition for Ultimate Team. Moreover, it took EA around 3 weeks to make the updates for players that transferred to different teams, like Juan Mata, who- unfortunately for me- transferred from Chelsea to Manchester United. I am not making anything up or trying to "give useless excuses just to win this". I would also appreciate it if you provide a better argument, rather than saying I'm wrong, with evidence and good grammar.
Which is the best game in the world?? According to me it is fifa15

While, I myself can't find the best game in the world, I strongly disagree that FIFA 15 is the best game in the world, I think it's a bit too soon to be judging a game that's not even out yet. If it's a typo and you mean FIFA 14, I must admit, I've had fun playing, but the company, who published FIFA- EA- took away the fun, by not fixing its bugs, such as: unhelpful glitches, being disconnected from matches and not being to access EA servers, not to mention the unfair underrating of good players and goalkeepers. However, I do agree that it is the best game in EA sports, just not in the world.
Organized sports is ALWAYS put before EVERYTHING ELSE in high school

Best friends since pre school Bob an John did every thing together, grew up in the same neighborhood, went to the same school, and even knew the same people. Bob's parents where always pushing him to excel in his academic studies because they knew that would make his life a whole lot easier in the future. Johns father pushed John hard in sports, every chance he got he would teach John how to throw the football or shoot the basketball. Bob was always on his high school honor roll and graduated head of his class. Meanwhile John was a getting less than average grades throughout highschool but man could he run around the football field and shot the basketball. At the end of there senior year in highschool Bob decided to accept a academic scholarship to the University of Florida and continue to push towards his college education. John however wasn't able to get that scholarship that he and his father had been praying for through athletics, so he had to start work immediately after highschool. Now ten years have passed an the best friends have reunited at a highschool reunion. Bob now has his college degree an has become a highly paid doctor. John is still searching for a stable job that can get him through his tough times. John tells Bob "Things would be a whole lot easier if I just had a college degree." Many parents stress to there children to further their education by going to college. The benefits of a college education are endless, However many people have been able to by pass a college degree and still maintain in today's society. While a college education increases ones chances of earning more money, its not the only way to a well paying and rewarding career. Thus brings the question why is a college education important in today's society? The main benefit of a college education is it betters your career opportunities. A college degree opens a variety of opportunities in the working force, giving a better chance for success.
God is not real.

Before you claim that God doesn't exist, do some soul searching. Open you heart the possibility of God, and how you may benefit from God. To an atheist, it may seem far fetched. However, we should always keep our minds open to new things. Of course there are things that logical thinking may not need to even ponder on, but the existence is God shouldn't be just thrown away because of what the Bible says or what science says. Get in touch with nature. Take a hike, get surrounded by nature for awhile. Talk to nature, and open you heart to God. You may find more than you were looking for.
God is not real.

My friend, did you even read my argument? I said that man created religion, not God. Where, in my post, did I say that I was a Christian? So first off, quit making assumptions about me. Did I also not say that there are many religions and philosophies of the world? You are focusing on one religion as your argument, and not religion as a whole as your argument. There are many monotheistic religions of the world who believe in God, not just Christianity. Faith is defined as - complete trust or confidence in someone or something I have faith that God exists. You have faith that God doesn't exist. The way we come to believe, or not believe in God, is through one's own perception of the universe, and creation. To say that God doesn't exist because there is no evidence for Him, is the exact same as me saying that God does exist because there is no evidence to refute Him. The argument it's self could go on forever, and no one would win. Your headline says that God is not real. This is merely a belief. Nothing more, nothing less.
God is not real.

Yeah i totally agree with the last paragraph, if that was the case. Religion has caused so many to kill hurt discriminate, for no other reason other than their religion. Then they use their religion to say it's ok because god told them to. Plus your statement that god never kills or hurts people is incorrect. Genesis 6:9-9:17 is about how god flooded the earth because they did not believe in him, and he saved a drunk and his family. My first problem with that is that he commits genocide of many different races, secondly he does it because he has not given evidence for himself. Exodus 7:14-11:10 is about the plagues of Egypt, 2 of which stand out to me, the first is the 8th plague where god sends locust to destroy all the crops of Egypt therefore leaving the people to starve. The second is the 10th were god orders all first born sons (some of which would have been under the ages of 10) to be murdered. You may say that it is because he wanted the slaves to be freed but murdering innocent children is evil beyond comparison. Also sending someone to hell, for not believing in a God without proof, to burn for eternity is really harsh. I guess you are right there is no evidence for or against god so people can believe in what they want. The argument should really be that God is evil and causes destruction and was only made up so that we could justify the horrible things we do.
God is not real.

Your argument here, is complete fallacy. Fallacy - A mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument You claim that God doesn't exist, because there is no evidence to support Him. This is fallacy, because I can make the same, yet opposite claim. God is real, because there is no evidence to refute Him. Your argument is based solely on opinion, and not fact. There are no facts that say that God doesn't exist. Not one scientific equation says that God doesn't exist. Science seems to negate the story of creation in the Bible, but that really isn't the case. However, that's a much deeper argument, and for now, I'm going to keep it simple. God is good. If He weren't, you, I, or anyone else would be here. Why would you think that God is evil? God doesn't go around killing people, hurting people, letting people starve, etc.. People do. Not God, people. We must understand that God and religion, are no means the same thing. Man created religion, not God. Since the dawn of intelligent thinking, man has felt something greater than himself in the universe. It's man's interpretation of God that we have religion. Through this, we have come to have many religions and philosophies across the planet. Even some scientists, who don't believe in God, are coming to believe in intelligent design. I have Faith in God and His existence. You have faith that God doesn't exist. These are simply beliefs with no evidence to prove either way. We will not know the truth until our time is up on this beautiful planet. Which is why we should just sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. Telling someone they are wrong, or trying to prove someone wrong when there is no evidence to prove so, is wasting time. Why can't we just accept everyone's right to their own beliefs? If they aren't hurting anyone, then what is the problem?
God is not real.

Well my problem with God is that there is no real evidence. No one has proven him to me, and the facts show that he is impossible. Even if he were real he is evil and horrible, which is one of the reasons i believe he cannot exist. The contradiction in the bible is that God is all good, were as he goes around and murders people which (at least in my opinion, and hopefully most others) is not good. My big question though is why did he choose to only "reveal" himself to the a sector of the middle east, on 1 of 8 planets around the sun to one sun in the galaxy to one galaxy in the universe. It seems odd that he'd not choose to at least reveal himself to the whole world not just a few people. Watch darkmatter's video for a more in depth argument about this: .