BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Call of duty is a more casual game than battlefield

Now I personally don't think any of these games are necessarily competitive (Cs:go is my jam) but when it comes to Cod vs battlefield i'm gonna have to side with Cod. The main reason I think this is because when you're playing Cod you're in a much closer space. I find my self wondering around the map and just shooting things when I play battlefield however when I play Cod everything is very clear and concise even if it is fast paced. Tl;dr, I feel like the maps are too large in battlefield and makes it much more of a game about wondering around where as call of duty forces you to do gunplay at every corner.
Call of duty is a more casual game than battlefield

Only rule is that there will be no foul language, name calling, Personal experiences are allowed without proof but don't have to be taken as proof in any point. or moot points for example "call of duty is full of kids" This is my 1st debate, I look forward to seeing how this goes. I believe battlefield is less casual and more competitive that CoD. Call of duty is a fast paced FPS that is comprised of small maps, small teams which comes down to who can see who first with recoil for most guns not being too hardcore from my knowledge (before ghost) recoil and ADS also seem to not be a big deal in call of duty as you are able to quick scope in most every call of duty which is a weird concept being able to shoot without a cross-hair seconds after scoping in before the animation is done and having it be relatively accurate while that might take some skill to do, that leaves me to wonder how hard it really is to aim and shoot when there is little gun control needed to accurately shoot. I will leave a link to two burst fire weapons. One from call of duty and one from battlefield. Here we can see that recoil pasterns from battlefield are much harder to control and much less predictable. http://symthic.com... https://s3.amazonaws.com... And last is Kill streaks, Simply put you can do ok and get a 525 points for a hell-storm missile, you then use that to get a huge lead to your next kill streak say the Stealth chopper or the Warthog which leads to helping you get the Swarm or K9 unit and even then if you don't get to the next kill streak you can stay in 1 spot and wait for people to pass by and kill them till you get what you need. Having played this game at one point I can say this is what I have done many times.
Santa Claus is not Real

Saint Nicholas was in fact a real person and over a lot of time, mistranslations and mispronunciation a of his name got people to start pronouncing it Santa Claus. CloseJones, Charles W. (1978). Saint Nikolaos of Myra, Bari, and Manhattan: Biography of a Legend. University of Chicago Press. Santa Clause was born March 15, 270 and lived to December 6, 343. http://www.roca.org... Santa Clause was a Bishop in now what is known as Turkey. loyd, John; Mitchinson, John (December 2008). The book of general ignorance (Noticeably stouter edition). Faber and Faber. p. 318. Saint Nicholas had a reputation for secret gift giving. He would put coins in shoes people left out. Carus, Louise (1 October 2002). The Real St. Nicholas. Quest Books. p. 2. A tradition started as a result of this on the 6th of every December. Louise 2002, p.2 This is what later on got combined with a few other celebrations from different cultures and turned into Christmas. Where a modern day myth of Santa Clause grew out of.
Santa Claus is not Real

Sincerely sorry about the forfeit, I thought this was my final day. Anyways, let me make my points 1. Santa Claus could not possibly make it to every single house in one night if he was real. There are more than a hundred million houses that are "welcoming Santa" in just the US. He would have to hit every house in 1/1000 of a millisecond and travel over a million miles per hour. Traveling that speed would cause him to bend and change shape which would also cause him to die. http://www.quora.com... http://www.washingtontimes.com... 2. Let's face it; he would die of EXTREME blood sugar. Millions of cookies are put out every single night for him and after the first few, he would die. 3. There has never been any documented proof of Santa Claus. 4. I find it ironic that a kid receives presents based on how wealthy his/her family is. For example, poor children usually get nothing "from Santa Claus," while rich kids get everything they could possibly imagine. 5. If you want to find a short way to discover Santa is not real yourself, you could check your parents gift cards and/or credit cards. Weird how it went down $300 dollars in one day huh? 6. Another way is to check Norad Santa Tracker. This helps disprove Santa Claus even more. Check the website and it will show where Santa is in the whole world 7. Contradicts other religions and religious holidays. I swear if you answer back "Santa is magic and can do all these things with magic" I will flip out. Good Luck to you :)
Chocolate Milk: The Harmful Stuff

Is chocolate milk okay to drink? I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn"t let your body absorb it. One reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed in schools is because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk has 20% more. For example if you take 25 and add 20%. You would have about 30 grams of sugar in one 7.5 ounce glass of chocolate milk. Also, when you drink chocolate milk all of the sugar that you get from it is really bad for your body. In addition, chocolate milk is drank a lot. So, if you drink a lot of chocolate milk then you are getting a lot of sugars, therefore wrecking your health. Another reason that chocolate milk should not be allowed at school is because most children don"t get chocolate milk except in school. "Many children only get to have chocolate milk at school"but they get to drink a lot of it there. Some children consume as many as 10 or even 15 cartons of chocolate milk in a week at school." Says Jonathan Smith, writer of Chocolate Milk: More Harmful Than Healthful. This is not a good thing! Because of this, kids might get... FAT! The final reason that schools should not allow chocolate milk is because yes, chocolate milk has calcium and other nutrients but all of the added sugar doesn"t let your organs absorb it. There is just so much sugar that all the good things in it will not be absorbed because of the sugar. Even if you drink fat free, you still get all the sugar and not enough nutrients. I strongly believe that schools should not allow chocolate milk because a 7.5 ounce can of Coke has 25 grams of sugar while chocolate milk can have up to 20% more, a 8 ounce glass of chocolate milk can have from 15-31 grams of sugar, and yes, chocolate milk may have calcium but all the added sugar doesn"t let your body absorb it. So please don"t let kids have chocolate milk at Mapleview.
i will not break a rule

again, i am not bound by these rules, seeing as the debate clarifies only that YOU will not break a rule. Therefor it is my place to argue that you will break a rule, but am unbound by them myself. Seeing as you have not followed my three simple rules, you should automatically lose. This is your own rule, rule three. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. Again i would like to remind you that i am free of the rules of this debate seeing as the debate round states "I will not break a rule" not pertaining to the opponent as well. Therefore,by not abiding by all rules, mine and yours, you have forfeited yourself to loss. kudos -fo-shizzle0854
i will not break a rule

i accept your challenge. however i would like to point out that the topic line of the debate says that "you" will not break a rule. Not that your opponent will be less efficient at it. Therefor i am freee of all your rules, meaning you yourself have to follow both yours and mine. Next time pay more attention to the headline. Other than that it was well thought out. So on with the rules! 1. the opponent must say " I lIkE mY wAfFlEs WiTh ChEeSe" in every round at any point. It also has to be in that same capitolized spelling. 2. You must admit that jessica simpson is hotter than jessica alba, in every round. 3. Say im a 'pretty princess' three times each round. kudos! :)
i will not break a rule

0. This debate poses off of another debate that I found. 1. Rules created hold power over all rules posted later, and no later rule can contradict an earlier rule. 2. Both players should still have the ability to post rules in their turn. 3. A violation of a rule that is not null and void will result in the rule-breaker losing this debate. 4. A player may only do something besides make rules to discuss whether one has broken a rule, or whether a rule is null. 5. Not counting these foundation rules, each player can only create 3 rules per turn. 6. Each player must produce 3 rules per round or they forfeit. 7. Rules cannot result in an auto-win. Breaking a rule cannot result in the victory of the rule-breaker. Each player should have an opportunity to not break each rule. 8. A voter must default all categories to the victor of the debate. 9. Rules must not restrict opponents ability to type in English (End Foundation Rules) 1. CON must use proper spelling and grammar 2. CON must not exceed 1 syllable per word 3. CON must admit that Guitar Hero Three is the best
i will not break a rule

(my opponent has broken rule 4 and i would like to point out that he is trying not to abide by foundation rule 0. even though it states "By accepting this debate, my opponent agrees to all the rules already posted. This debate poses off of another debate that I found.") (my opponent broke foundation rule 6) 1. CON must not forget to make rules every round, 3 per round to remind him 2. CON must not accept debates like these if he does not accept all the rules 3. CON must remember that unless he states "PRO" the rule that he made (unless rendered null) applies to him also.
Gay Marriage

Yes you get good gays and bad gays. Same as you get good mental people and bad mental people. It looks like a disease and it seems like it. They are not different in anything but what they do. For some strange reason they leave a happy and bully free life for a life where they must hide their feelings and when they come out they are ridiculed. Why chose it in the first place. If you were born with it you should try your uttermost best in reversing it and changing it. If you can't than just abstain from those unnatural acts. You don't have to get married. You can have a marriage free life
Gay Marriage

First things first don't refer homosexuality to mental disorder as being gay is not a disease. And the argument that medicine and psychological help is needed for a Gay person to become 'normal' is absolutely preposterous! first of all not everyone will become gay, nobody just becomes gay! that will never happen. Gay people are not that different from us and I understand that their sexuality is not the norm but that doesn't make them diseased or deformed they are simply ordinary people, you get go gay people and bad gay people, just as you get good and bad straight people. Homosexuality needs to become accepted until then we are never going to move forward and room for harassment and judgmental talk will always come about, they say to accept all, and that we are all equal. yet until some Humans have the capability to accept gay people as one, we are only going back in time!
Gay Marriage

Yes we are all humans and they look human but they don't do human things like being in love with the opposite gender. From the outside they look identical but in real life they are very different. If we all became gay then we would stop reproducing and we would be extinct. Times are changing and here people support it but in poor countries people do not. The BIble is corrupt and wrong. I do not believe in the bible. I feel sorry for your friend. They are happy and should be while it lasts. Actually you could chose to do it. You could experiment with it and one day lay in bed thinking about it. It certainly works like that in many cases. Only in rare cases are people born Gay and usually it's cause the mother was drinking during pregnancy and the baby came out wrong. Sort of like how some kids are born with a disease.
Gay Marriage

Firstly we are all human, Gay, bi and straight. We all have a heart beat, eyes to see, ears to hear and a mouth to speak, we all have feelings, families and friends. The thought that Homosexuals are nonhuman is absolutely disgusting. Secondly Reproduction would never end, and human extinction will never be an out come of Homosexuality as whether or not Gay Marriage is legalised their will still always be Gay couples in the world. Thirdly You would find it rather alarming how much of the world actually supports gay marriage, as times have changed, and if we get the law or rule from the bible, the bible also states that we should stone our children if they disobey us. My Best friend is homosexual and is in an open relationship, they are one of the happiest couples I have ever seen and they love each other for who they are. Homosexuality is not a choice, you can't just go to bed straight and then wake up the next day Homosexual, it doesn't work like that.
Gay Marriage

1. Marriage is a union of love, not a union of genders. Nope it isn't. Marriage is to reproduce human offspring to allow our population to grow. Not all married couples bring children but a very mast majority of married couples have children or the desire to have children. I see marriage as love and reproduction combined. In other words its a win win situation. You get loved and you get children. 2. Homosexuality is a human characteristic, not a crime. It may not be a crime here but in many countries it is a crime. Where I come from you are executed for it. No one has ever been executed for being a homosexual in my country cause none exist. The law is in place to deter people from choosing to be one. 3. 'Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual priviledge.' Marriage is a human right. Of course it is. Though are Gays human or not. In many countries they are seen as inhuman so human rights wouldn't apply. 4. Homosexuals(nor anyone else) are not able to control their feelings or affect to who they fall in love with, so they shouldn't be punished for that. If they can't control it just go and see a doctor. Get medicine and it will be fixed 5. Many people are against Christian values and God, but it isn't illegal to believe in God. As well, many people are against gay rights, so it shouldn't be illegal for gays to get married. Yes but the amount of people who oppose Gay marriage world wide is a huge proportion compared to people who oppose god. 90% of people on earth are against Gay marriage. 50% of the world doesn't believe in one God. There is a huge difference. 6. If God doesn't exist, gays have been treated unequally for no reason. But God exists 7. Love is an emotion, justice and right, not a concept that can be controlled/denied by law or by an old book(bible). Yes everyone deserves to be loved. From parents, siblings, family, and spouse. 8. Would it really bother anyone, if two people could celebrate their love equally? No as long as one is Female and one is Male 9. Gays don't try to control straights' rights, so straights shouldn't try to control gays' rights. Well Gays don't make the majority. If they did then they would. 10. Christianity is a choice, and religion is something you were taught. Homosexuality is something you were born with. Yes Religion is a choice. Being Gay is a choice in some cases. Some people are born and I feel very sorry for them.
Gay Marriage

1. Marriage is a union of love, not a union of genders. 2. Homosexuality is a human characteristic, not a crime. 3. 'Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual priviledge.' 4. Homosexuals(nor anyone else) are not able to control their feelings or affect to who they fall in love with, so they shouldn't be punished for that. 5. Many people are against Christian values and God, but it isn't illegal to believe in God. As well, many people are against gay rights, so it shouldn't be illegal for gays to get married. 6. If God doesn't exist, gays have been treated unequally for no reason. 7. Love is an emotion, justice and right, not a concept that can be controlled/denied by law or by an old book(bible). 8. Would it really bother anyone, if two people could celebrate their love equally? 9. Gays don't try to control straights' rights, so straights shouldn't try to control gays' rights. 10. Christianity is a choice, and religion is something you were taught. Homosexuality is something you were born with.
The Factions/Races of Halo would defeat those of Mass Effect in War

I am a little disappointed at Quinoas' forfeit in round 3. At this point in the game, I was looking forward to having arguments presented against me, attacks on my own points, and so on. I would go on to elaborate on weapon technology for Halo, their expected performance against Mass Effect defense technology, and most importantly, space combat (Wars on a galactic-scale are almost solely won on space-combat alone, as ground forces are irrelevant when opposition controls all ways in and out and can continuously bomb them from orbit). Seeing as my production capacity arguments, as well as my manpower arguments have gone completely uncontested, I deem moving onto weapon technology a little superfluous (I don't wish to just bury Quinoas to the point where he can't realistically respond). === Hopefully, Con can present an actual argument in Round 4, coupled with attempts to rebuttal what I have already discussed.
The Factions/Races of Halo would defeat those of Mass Effect in War

"As the topic proclaims, this will be a galactic-scale war between the various races/factions of the Halo and Mass Effect universes. I will be supporting Halo."I was hoping to get Halo but I will find info on "Mass effect 3" although I have never played it I will challenge myself to this debate with you ay the best man win."The Setting:This will take place in a combined galaxy, where each star systems are still in the same relative position to one another as they would be in their respective universe. For cases where both Halo and Mass Effect have the same system, for example, Sol, there will be one for each, again, in the same relative position that they would have been in their own universe."I like that idea and am happy to know my opponent is a logical thinker. That would be a fair scenario I also recommend that we use the combat simulator off of "Deadliest warrior" And here is a video you should see.www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtUfzb7LOcMI don't know how it is have not seen it but it just fit the theme.
The Factions/Races of Halo would defeat those of Mass Effect in War

As the topic proclaims, this will be a galactic-scale war between the various races/factions of the Halo and Mass Effect universes. I will be supporting Halo. The Setting:This will take place in a combined galaxy, where each star systems are still in the same relative position to one another as they would be in their respective universe. For cases where both Halo and Mass Effect have the same system, for example, Sol, there will be one for each, again, in the same relative position that they would have been in their own universe. The Factions:Each faction/race will be in an undisputed alliance with the other factions of their universe. They will not attempt to attack each other under any circumstances, so the Reapers will not try to harvest the population of Mass Effect factions, while the Flood will not try to assimilate the factions of Halo. In addition, factions that have very little relevant information on them will be excluded, for the most part. For example, Precursors, Leviathans, Protheans, and the ancient Forerunners will not be counted. In the case of the Leviathans and the Forerunners, certain exemptions will be made. The Leviathans that are still alive as of Mass Effect 3 Leviathan DLC will be present, and the Forerunners will still have their structures (Shield worlds, Halo Rings, and such), Sentinels/Drone defense/maintenance units, and Promethean forces. Factions will start off at different time periods to make sure no faction is handicapped through events that may have occurred in their own timeline (wars primarily). For Halo, the following factions will be represented with their starting point: The Flood, circa Halo 2 The Covenant, circa Halo:Reach The Forerunners, circa the end of Halo 4 The UNSC, circa the end of Halo 4 I will also provide one for Mass Effect, though it can be contested. The Citadel Races (Council races and those with "membership"), Just prior to the Reaper Invasion Terminus Systems (Mercenary groups, and the like), circa Mass Effect 2 The Batarians, right before the Arrival DLC The Quarians, circa Mass Effect 2 The Geth, circa Mass Effect 3 The Reapers/Collectors, just prior to the Collector base destruction The Krogans, post-genophage cure Feel free to contest those, as well as add any groups that may have been left out (Within reason, there is little known about the Protheans, so they were excluded short of Javik) First round is acceptance, and the debate will last over the rest of the rounds. I encourage that arguments be extended past the character limit, to make sure that there is a very thorough analysis, and due to the fact that there are many factors to debate. Only official canon is to to be used (Games, novelizations, and other media released by the developers and/or with official acknowledgement of canon by the developers, so no fanfictions and other things of that sort). You may also propose any other rules that you may deem appropriate.
The Great Depression

The Great Depression's main beginnings was not in fact out of the governments control. The federal reserve, a government agency, failed by increasing interest rates on government loans (1)Secondly the depression was worsened by government involvement by Hoover under the creation of the Hawley Smoot tarriff which reversed the slight recovery of 9.6 percent unemployment to 8 percent unemployment and expanded unemployment to double digits (2)According to Milton Friedman, the bank holdiays of FDR were not a success rather a failure!"FDR was inaugurated on March 4, 1933, and two days later he declared a “bank holiday,” allowing banks legally to refuse withdrawals by depositors; it lasted ten days. With his famous phrase, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” he intended to dissuade depositors from running on their banks, but by then it was far too late. In 1929 there were a total of 25,000 banks in the United States. As the bank holiday ended, only 12,000 banks were operating (though another 3,000 were to reopen eventually). The effect on the money supply was equally dramatic. From 1929 to 1933 it fell by 27 percent—for every $3 in circulation in 1929 (whether in currency or deposits), only $2 was left in 1933. Such a drastic fall in the money supply inevitably led to a massive decrease in aggregate demand. People’s savings were wiped out so their natural response was to save more to compensate, leading to plummeting consumption spending. Naturally, total economic output also fell dramatically: GDP was 29 percent lower in 1933 than in 1929. And the unemployment rate hit its historic high of 25 percent in 1933." (1)My opponent seems to say that the if the federal reserve did its job then it would have been okay, but this is still an example of government incompetence! In fact commerical banks did the job of the federal reserve and succedded in mitigating panics! (1)Again government involvement in terms of creating "public works programs" that made seemingly useless jobs and costs exceeding tax revenue drove us into more debt, less growth and less wealthSources:(1):https://fee.org...;(2): https://www.britannica.com...