BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
destiny or call of duty bo2

I agree that there ARE much more details in the campaign of Destiny. But let's not just talk about the campaign of these games, let's talk about other things. In multiplayer, I seriously have to agree that there are so many people and tryhards who're like "OMG YOU SUCK YOU NOOB" just because you kill them once. But I got a solution for that. TURN OFF VOICECHAT!!! It's that easy, and I play Destiny too, and there are lots of people who call you "noob" for killing them in Destiny multiplayer. In multiplayer, BO2 has lots of more content than any other Destiny games. It has tons of killstreaks, attachments and guns. BO2 is also more realistic, while Destiny has no bullet drops, damage decrease when bullet penetrates walls, and lots of other real life factors, BO2 is so realistic, well, compared to Destiny. BO2 also has more game modes. The big part is that the fact that Destiny is pretty fast paced, but to play BO2, you gotta have real fast reflection time and skills. Now this sounds bad at first, especially for the people who just started playing it. Since you have to react fast because the maps are small and enemies are everywhere. But when you get used to it, it gets really, really fun. It actually helps your reflex time in real life, such as blocking a fast punch. I'm not saying that Destiny isn't fast paced, just not as fast paced as BO2. BO2 also has the zombie mode that everyone loves. You can play it with your friends or by yourself if you're an lone wolf. It's really challenging and fun, and millions of people just love it. I didn't play any other extra content like the CoD Zombies in Destiny unless you download a mod or something. So in that case, I think BO2 is better.
destiny or call of duty bo2

Yes that may be true, but with destiny it has a better campain with more detail and story behind it. You actually get to meet people in this game more often and maybe make some friends. In cod there are a lot more try hards that get mad at you and say you suck just for killing them. Cod is basically the same thing over and over. Im not saying destiny isnt a repeat but cod can be alot more. Destiny has came out with 3 expansions, each thing coming out with something new to do so it isnt the same thing over and over again. And so far i think it turned out great. Once youve gotten finished with everything i like to help out the peoole who just started. King of like a fresh start. Now cod is still one of my favorites but its the same campain same maps nothing to make it interesting or different. In other words fun.
The cost of job training should be the exclusive business of employers.

A number of quick responses to my opponent since I logged back in so late lol. 1) I do not posit that individuals are incapable of seeking jobs or training for their own benefit, I only state that it would be most beneficial to society if there were some sort of further financial incentive i.e. government subsidies or training programs into in demand jobs such as the declining skilled labor jobs my opponent ignored. 2) I argue that certainly private and public training should exist, those thousands of variables that pro speaks of can also readily be dealt with by a government entity, unfortunately opp conflates pure privatization with efficiency, this is simply not true and there are numerous examples from contemporary sources and history back to the gilded age of America that shows that taking an entirely laissez faire approach to business is detrimental to society and has in some cases lead to significant financial crises. A governmental agency which is set up to operate flexibly, will respond to situations flexibly. Therefore prop should approach the situation not from the perspective of complete privatization, but rather the perspective of streamlined and flexible government. 3) pro agrees with my contention wholeheartedly that subsidies have a positive effect on business profits and that point should flow to my side: "OF COURSE they improve profits, who wouldn't profit if the government is paying your operating expenses?". 4) Prop also has worries about politicians becoming too involved in determining the composition of a workforce, I say that this would be a negligible issue because determination of subsidies/ training programs would be determined by a panel of experts from both the public and private sector to determine where subsidies should go and how much, this is certainly more efficient and equitable than prop's advocacy for total privatization. 5) I agree with prop's final point, mainly because it supports my contention that individuals should get this job training in skilled labor such as machining, metalworking, electricians work, etc. a four year education is not suitable for everyone mainly because our society now has a significant demand for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) jobs and skilled labor as opposed to a less useful "liberal arts" education which typically leads to individuals who were English or humanities majors finding no jobs or getting jobs for which they are "overqualified".
The cost of job training should be the exclusive business of employers.

First I must criticize my own proposition. It seemed to imply that the individual has no responsibility for his or her own education and training. In fact, no one in the world has a greater incentive to go out and pay for education and training to obtain a better paying job. By contrast, you have no interest in paying for my job training. Next you have argued that government supplied job training CAN co-exist with private activities and that business will profit from government supplied job training. Of course private and public training CAN co-exist; the main issue is whether they should co-exist. Private training like McDonalds University adjusts its training program according to the economy, growth in the industry, the need for additional managers, and probably a thousand other variables. The results of their efforts means close to 100% success for employment of the trainees. Even if you can find examples of government and business partnerships to provide employee training, there is hardly ever the same success rate nor the ability to modulate the program in accordance with the constantly changing world. I completely reject your argument that subsidies improve profits. OF COURSE they improve profits, who wouldn't profit if the government is paying your operating expenses? The smartest people in the world spend immense effort trying to allocate where their money should be invested for the greatest possible return and still they fail much of the time. I certainly don't want a bunch of politicians trying to decide which companies should get government money even if it is for the allegedly worthy purpose of "job training." Your next point suggested that job training in Germany was working well. I looked at your article and it seemed to support my side. Each individual who joined the education program was required to "apply" to private companies who provided the student with both the training and a salary! For my final point I would like to distinguish between the role of education in society and job training. We as a society may possibly benefit from an educated population. The reasoning is that individuals would be better able to participate in the decision making required by a Democracy. However the level of that education is limited to the ability to read and write. Beyond that, society does not benefit from any individual receiving a higher education. Almost all of the benefit of advanced training and education goes to the pocket book of the individual receiving that training.
The cost of job training should be the exclusive business of employers.

Hello and thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate, I'd like to jump right in by addressing what seems to be your two main points contention which are 1) It should be the sole responsibility of a business to provide training to potential employees And 2) Government funding of job training necessarily constitutes crony capitalism. My response is: 1) I do not believe that it should be the sole responsibility of employers to provide job training for a number of reasons. The first is that government subsidies for particular types of job training are not mutually exclusive of, and therefore can be done in conjunction with, private occupational training of individuals. Secondly, Government subsidies of job training allows companies to make a better profit, as some of the spending which would otherwise go to training can instead be recouped and used to help the company expand or pay other operating expenses. 2) Although I am sure there are some examples of ill distributed government spending, on the whole I believe that "crony capitalism" has been kept relatively low here in the US. To the contrary, government spending on training individuals for particular sectors presents a potentially effective salve to unemployment and skills shortages facing America today, jobs such as electricians and metal workers who are baby boomers circulating out of the workforce and into retirement. Germany is a particularly useful example of how government spending on vocational training can be and continues to be effective and warranted. 1. http://www.wsj.com... 2. http://www.make-it-in-germany.com...
"Third Wave" Feminism

I propose that Third Wave Feminism is a load of sexist misandry. Many, if not all, modern feminist are only focused of women's issues and laugh at the idea that men have issues as well. I have personally witnessed to modern feminist laugh at a men who have been abused and raped just because they believe men cannot be abuse and/or raped. Also, modern feminism has placed women as the "more important and dominant" sex; however, this in itself is sexist. With this note, I end my proposal.
"Third Wave" Feminism

Thank you Con for starting this debate. I myself am a Radical feminsit, so this should be fun ;) I will use this round as acceptance, and define some terms. Third-Wave Feminism- Feminism portal. Third-wave feminism refers to several diverse strains of feminist activity and study, whose exact boundaries in the history of feminism are a subject of debate, but are generally marked as beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to the present. (https://www.google.com...) Feminism- the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. (https://www.google.com...) Con's claims are based off of assumptions, and personal evaluations. They claim that "I have personally witnessed to modern feminist laugh at a men who have been abused and raped just because they believe men cannot be abuse and/or raped." Because of this claim, Con makes it seems as if *every feminist* thinks its fine for a man to be raped. In order for Con to win the debate, they must prove that *every feminist* belives in in-humane morals and actions such as rape. I look foward to their case!
Resolved: Vaccination is Beneficial

My opponent has recognised his failure and is flailing wildly to steady his fall. Let's give him a push. First, you don't get to decide what constitutes plagiarism and automatic losses. You are not the debate arbiter. I supplied my sources in accordence with intellectual honesty. An error occured in the hyperlinkage, which I then corrected. This does not constitute plagiarism. Second, I did refute your arbitrary statement, and explicitly stated that I do not agree to those terms. I suggest you scroll back up and have another read. Thirdly, nice try in your concession attempt but I think that our readers are far more intelligent than you give them credit for. Don't insult our audience by pretending that they'll listen to your innane attack. Fourth, I accuse you of resorting to ad hominem and semantics because you can't win the debate by establishing that vaccination is harmful. Fifth, you did provide a source, which I soundly refuted and provided counter-evidence for. I suggest you give your lonely source some assistance. It is clear that my opponent has no way of demonstrating that vaccinations aren't, on balance, beneficial to the vast majority of people to whom they are issued. Unfortunely, this debate has degenerated into a very poor attempt at a semantic mutiny, which fails not only on that basis, but also on the basis that my opponent cannot argue his case. Manipulation of semantics does not constitute an automatic win, no matter how much you wish it would. Look, two can play at that game! I assert that if in the next round you don't retract your source written by the physicist, you concede automatic defeat for citing a source that has no credibility. Further, I assert that if my opponent's moniker is 'Domr', then he concedes automatic defeat. See? It doesn't work like that.
Resolved: Vaccination is Beneficial

I previously stated: "Since every argument relies on these sources, they are all deemed inadequate and should be stricken from Round 1. (If Pro wishes these to remain, they are considered plagarism and would be considered an automatic loss.)"This point when unrefuted meaning Pro has agreed to these terms. Pro went on to state "As he has made no point of refuting any of points, so they stand"Pro has agreed to the terms, by lack of refuting them, and has thus given himself a loss by allowing his intially plagarised material to be part of this debate.Side Notes:Premise: "Vaccination is a critical public health measure and is both beneficial and safe."Safe: free from hurt, injury, danger, or risk: http://dictionary.reference.com...Pro(R2): "My opponent claims that vaccines cause the diseases they prevent."When i reality my claim was: "however, vaccines are not safe as they can cause the disease they are trying to prevent."My source in round 1 states how vaccines have the ability to cause disease.
Resolved: Vaccination is Beneficial

I accept. Pro has made a large number of arguments, all of which do not apply. He has incorrectly sources this material. By adding ..] to the end of all of his sources they only take you to the homepage of the website listed. There are no articles, no videos, and no graphs available for view of his arguments. Since every argument relies on these sources, they are all deemed inadequate and should be stricken from Round 1. (If Pro wishes these to remain, they are considered plagarism and would be considered an automatic loss.) The only viable point in Round 1 by Pro is his contention: "My contention is that Vaccination is a critical public health measure and is both beneficial and safe." This is his argument and burden of proof. This contention deems vaccinations are beneficial and safe. However, vaccines are not safe as they can cause the disease they are trying to prevent. [1] [1] http://www.rifeenergymedicine.com...
Resolved: There is no such thing as reality

Just because something does not follow the rules of general physics does not mean that thing is an 'illusion.' How are these things deceiving us? It would be our fixed notions of how things should act that are deceiving us. That gold atom is not deceiving us. General physics is deceiving us when it says the gold atom should act like a bullet in a double slit experiment. The gold atom is still as real as ever. The things we are made up of do have a factual existence. 'Probabalistic existence' as my opponent puts it, is still factual existence. He has not shown that these things do not exist as a matter of fact. Therefore, reality exists. The things we are made up of are not illusory or deceptive. They are not telling us any lies, they are not telling us anything. It is the view that only general physics ever applies - that is where the deception is. Probabalistic existence does not conflict with actual existence. Something can _actually_ exist probabalistically.
Resolved: There is no such thing as reality

If reality is an illusion, then it isn't real, again by common usage. Using dictionary.com, I looked up illusion: 2.the state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension. 3.an instance of being deceived. In fact, I've shown that the very things my opponent calls real are illusory in nature, or deceitful in nature. Since the entire known universe is composed of these things that are fundamentally deceptive and illusory, the things made of them must also be illusory. "Real" 1.true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act. 2.existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious 3.being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary The things that make us up do not have objective existence, they have probabilistic existence, and are deceptive in nature. If the things that we are made of are illusory and deceptive, so are we. To argue otherwise leads to logical contradiction.
Resolved: There is no such thing as reality

My opponent has not bothered to define reality, either. We are therefore talking about what is 'real' as common usage would suggest. Common usage of the word is on my side. We are real, gold is real, etc. To not be real, something must not exist. This is by default definitions - common usage - and my opponent did not give us an alternative definition.To be real simply means to exist. If my opponent thinks the common usage definition is different than that, he is free to disagree next round. Our senses give us evidence that things around us actually exist. While we cannot philosophically prove that anything exists, I do not have to prove my position, but simply show it as likely. Everything we sense seems to indicate reality, and therefore indicate that I am correct. Even if the world is an illusion, we exist for certain. Like I said last round, "I think, therefore I am." If we exist, then we are part of reality. My opponent has given no evidence for reality not existing.
Resolved: There is no such thing as reality

My opponent invokes the sense of touch, and cognitive ability as evidence of reality, but they are neither. Consider that humans will likely one day have the ability to stimulate nerves in such a way that it fools the brain into thinking a computer generated object is real. Would simulation itself be real? When you, "touch," gold, to the best of our knowledge, what happens is that a force field between tiny energy balls repel your finger, keeping your finger from passing through the gold. Just ask any quantum physicist. They'd also tell you that where you perceive gold, there's actually hardly anything at all there but empty space. The minuscule amount that is, "there," is merely energy, that provably can be in two places at once, and can't even be pinned down to a location and a speed or rotation. My opponent so far can't even define reality in any way that makes sense. If it can't be defined, then it doesn't exist. This is an obvious tautology. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Resolved: There is no such thing as reality

My opponent suggests that because real things, like gold atoms, act in a confusing way in a double slit experiment, they must not be real. This is simply false. It simply means that the most intuitive answer to how they would behave is wrong. The behavior of real objects is governed by physics. In this case, quantum physics plays a large role, causing behavior we might not immediately expect using general physics. This does not stop gold atoms, or anything else, from being real. Even if my opponent did show that gold atoms are not real, which he did not, that would not stop other things from being real, such as you or me. "I think, therefore I am." Anyway, there is much evidence that supports gold atoms being real. We can see gold atoms. We can touch gold atoms. We can shoot gold atoms at slits. Gold atoms are affected by forces like gravity. This is all in favor of gold atoms being real. If gold atoms are real, reality exists. [In fact, if anything is real, reality exists].
Resolved: There is no such thing as reality

A very famous experiment in physics is known as the double slit experiment. Two tiny slits are made in a very thin sheet of metal. Particles are fired at the sheet of metal, and a sensitive plate sits behind the apparatus, to see where the particles end up. If you performed this experiment with bullets and 2 slats cut into a door, with a brick wall behind it, and a machine gun firing at the door, you would find slat shaped marks in the brick wall when you were done firing. The occasional ricochet might cause a stray mark here and there, but overall, the bullets would just hit the wall behind the slats. Not so with the double slit experiment. Even when supposed "real" particles such as gold atoms are fired at the slit, a circular pattern is formed all over the photographic plate. This suggests that the particle passes through both slits, neither, and all three possibilities at the same time, an impossibility. If the atoms that make up reality are not real, nothing is.
Greeks wrote parts of the New Testament... before Jesus was born.

Acts 17:23 describes what Paul saw in Athens. So, he tells the Athenians "What you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you" and proceeds to tell them about the true God. Titus 1:2 is about the hope we have of everlasting life because God, who cannot lie, has promised this. And surely you can see the difference between Philippians 1:21 and what Socrates wrote! Conclusion - There is no evidence that Greeks wrote parts of the New Testament before Jesus was born.
Greeks wrote parts of the New Testament... before Jesus was born.

Acts 17:23. For as I passed by I beheld your devotions, I found an altar "with this inscription..." TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Was written by an anonymous Greek. Acts 17:28. FOR. WE ARE HIS OFFSPRING. Was written by Aratus around 200 BC. Acts 17:28 FOR IN HIM WE LIVE, AND AND MOVE, AND HAVE OUR BEING. Was written by Epimenides around 600 BC. Titus 1:2. One of themselves, even A PROPHET of their own, said, THE CRETIANS ARE ALWAYS LIARS,... Was written by Epimenides around 600 BC. And Philippians 1:21. For me to live is Christ TO DIE IS GAIN. Was said by Socrates, and written by Aristotle in The Apology of Socrates, around 399 BC.
Greeks wrote parts of the New Testament... before Jesus was born.

I don't understand your argument. Among the Athenians there were meny different schools of thought like the Epicureans and the Stoics, each with their own ideas about the gods. But when the apostle Paul visited Athens at around the year 50 C.E., he presented to them a completely different point of view. That's what Acts 17:22-28 is, what the apostle Paul told to the Athenians during his visit. Nowhere is it suggested that Greeks wrote part of the New Testament before Jesus was born.