BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Roleplay makes me sick.

If you are not to make friends and have a fun experience, then what makes you want to roleplay? Online dating is relevant because of the amount of online dating I see during roleplay when I experimented with my sister and online roleplay games. If you can't meet people and create a new foundation of friends, then I do not see it as a social thing to be doing. I can see why people might enjoy roleplay, but I, however, don't. I can't understand the point, or why people do it. Playing such roleplay games develop nothing at all. I can't see the point, like I said earlier. If you try to roleplay/pretend to be Taylor Swift for say, then I don't see a reason. If you want to act like you're famous, then why not try to be? Why not just go out and actually do what you've wanted to do? Pretending isn't getting you anywhere. Wherever this argument goes, I want to thank you for putting up a good fight. -Em
Roleplay makes me sick.

Though I agree that roleplaying might not actually allow people to make friends in real life, I feel as though you aren't understanding the concept of roleplaying correctly. The goal of roleplaying, in my experience and many others', is not to make friends. Rather, it's for the sake of playing a character that is NOT who you are in real life. A person does NOT want to pretend to be themselves when they roleplay; that's the point of it. True friends are not gained from roleplay because personal traits are not showing and this is intentional. Furthermore, not all roleplaying is with your friends, even in real life. It could be with total strangers and in most cases is. My main point is that people don't intend to make friends that see them for who they are; when you roleplay, you don't want to be seen as who you are, and are playing a character for that purpose. In addition, I'm slightly confused as to why online dating is relevant to your argument and might like a more detailed explanation. However, in regards to what you mentioned about that, the article you shared deals with dating websites. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose of dating websites is so that people might acquire real-life relationships, and has nothing to do with roleplaying. Roleplaying does not occur very often on these websites either, I'd assume because that's not the purpose of those websites. As you mentioned earlier, people are playing fantasy characters; they're not being themselves. Therefore, online dating shouldn't be able to apply to roleplaying because roleplaying's purpose is not to act like yourself, so real relationships that most people have or think they have online aren't applicable to roleplaying. As for your curiosity with my claim that roleplaying helps depression, I merely meant it as an adjective to describe sadness or dissatisfaction with one's life. Roleplaying allows people to pretend to be someone they're not and allow them to ponder decisions in a different mindset than their own. Some people find a sort of freedom in this process that aids as a distraction for their real life, even if they cannot escape it inevitably.
Roleplay makes me sick.

Online roleplay, personally, doesn't increase personal experience or health. PERSONAL interaction would be shown as personally roleplaying, and even then that would be with your friends. This whole debate is around opinion, though. I don't think it stops depression in any way at all. I would like an example of a way it stops depression in the next round. Online dating is being prohibited in many states of the U.S as it says so in this article: http://www.ibls.com... When you roleplay, you're usually with your friend. If you're not, then you act like you're outside of your own body. Therefore not showing personal traits to make true friends.
Roleplay makes me sick.

Roleplaying to me is a healthy way to escape from the reality that often leaves people stressed or depressed. It promotes expression that many people cannot exhibit in their normal lives. Though it involves things like disease, forced marriage, love, or other experiences most people do not encounter, in a way it helps people to understand what being in that situation might feel for people actually in those positions and can lead to less ignorance and more empathism. My opponent seems to express concern for the bizarre fantasies or unrealistic circumstances people might put themselves in, but I feel the opposite about said circumstances because these days, expressed imagination is uncommon, and roleplaying allows people to step out of their comfort zones in order to think outside of the box they've made around themselves with technology and lack of social lives people seem to have. I have experience with roleplaying online as fantasy characters and this has no effects on me at all in life. In fact, roleplaying has seemed to benefit my creativity, understanding of human interaction, and my writing skills.
Roleplay makes me sick.

Roleplay is making me more sick by the minute. How people roleplay just makes me wanna die or something. How come it always involves a disease, force marriage, or love in it always? I am not against love or anything like that, but how people pretend to be people they're not makes me just throw up. They may see them as a role model or something along those lines, but they shouldn't pretend to put themselves in the situations that they're "role model" goes through. They shouldn't pretend to date someone they can't, or pretend to date a fantasy character that doesn't exists. Eh, anyways. Fight me back on this, cause why not?
Master chief would beat up on noble team

I think you're underestimating Noble Team. See Jun would have Six as a support in the beginning with the two of them picking off the marines making it 6:14. The remaining 14 marines might countersnipe, but I doubt they can even touch Noble team when the members of Noble Team like Master Chief are equipped with the Mjolnir Mark V armor (which is complete with shields). Carter would fire up the M319 grenade launcher and kill 3 more marines while Jorge distracts Chief with a hail of bullets. Emile moves in with his Shotgun to eliminate 5 more marines before pulling back to Kat. Meanwhile Kat is busy hacking the UNSC network to isolate Noble's comms to prevent Cortana from predicting Noble's next move. Emile is then ordered by Carter to eliminate the remaining 6 marines before they reach Kat. Emile then runs out of ammo after killing 4 more marines before pulling out his kukri's to dice the remaining two marines, Jorge distracts the Chief, while Carter, six and Jun move into position. However, Cortana notices Jun's movement and directs the chief into an area where Jun can't snipe the Chief. Six then tackles the Chief and fights him in hand to hand combat, but Six is beaten back by Chief and is disarmed when Carter intervenes. Carter and Chief also fight hand to hand combat, and Carter is seriously wounded as a result. But, while Chief was battling Six and Carter, Jorge was slowly moving into a good position and mowes down Chief after Carter disables Chief's shield at the cost of being stabbed.
Master chief would beat up on noble team

For this lets just master chief went rouge with 20 marines. Your counterargument caught me of guard so kudos to you. The way I see it is this: Jun snipes at the marines, marines countersnipe and give the chief a distraction, the chief flanks and noble six and George move to intercept, cortana tracks there next move and the chief moves in, jorge turns, marine sees a opening and bam! Jorge is dead. Kat runs to help and the chief mows her down. Its now 11 to 4, and noble six and master chief engage in hand-to-hand. In this fight chief has the upper hand with cortana to predict what will happen, six lunges and chief sidesteps and stabs down. It is now 5 on 3. Jun gets engaged by the last few marines and doesn't see the chief. His throat gets slit. Emile takes two marines down but gets taken out by a lucky shot and a grenade. Carter kills the last two marines and its just him and master chief.... and that's based all on stats.
Master chief would beat up on noble team

Dude, they're both on the same side so they'll have hundreds of marines to back both Noble Team and Master Chief John-117. For readers unfamiliar with Noble Team, here's a brief description before I start. Noble Team is the main Spartan II/III team in the game HALO REACH. Noble Team consists of 5 Spartan IIIs and 1 Spartan II. Each member of Noble team specialized in a different tactic, with the exception of Noble six (the player character's Spartan III, Spartan-B312) who is comparable to the Master Chief. This is not an opinion since Doctor Halsey agrees with the following quote, "Noble Six. The team's most recent addition.... Hyper-lethal: there's only one other Spartan with that rating..."— Catherine Halsey. Spartan III Commander Carter-A259 designation Noble 1 is the leader of the Noble Team. Spartan III Lt. Commander Catherine-B320 designation Noble 2 is Noble Team's second in command and the intelligence specialist. Spartan III Warrant Officer Jun-A266 designation Noble 3 is Noble Team's sniper. Spartan III Warrant Officer Emile-A239 designation Noble 4 is Noble Team's assault specialist. Spartan II Jorge-052 designation Noble 5 is Noble Team's only Spartan II and is the heavy weapons specialist holding a custom modified heavy machine gun. Finally the player character Spartan III Lt. Spartan-B312 designation Noble Six, the hyper lethal vector of Noble Team. (by the way Noble six's gender can be chosen by the player). For further info just visit http://halo.wikia.com... it'll go in depth.If this fight was Noble team against the Master Chief it wouldn't be a fair fight.Carter and Kat would have Emile, Jorge, and Six beat Master chief while Jun snipes the Master Chief. Since Noble six is comparable to Chief it would be dead even between Master chief and six (regardless of gender). Kat and Carter are the brains of Noble team so the chief would be hard pressed to beat an unusually cohesive unit like Noble Team.
Killing Baby Girls Is Wrong, and by Extension, Abortion in General Is Also Wrong

My opponent wrote: "',but we are debating in English' Then stop using the Latin term fetus, because it simply means "baby." Your use of that term is intellectually dishonest, and you are simply trying to draw attention away from the fact that this debate is about killing human babies, which is definitely morally wrong." It is true that Fetus is a Latin term, but it is also an English term, an English term that means a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. Therefore, this debate is about killing unborn children (fetuses), not babies, and well killing healthy babies that are conscious and feel pain may be wrong, that is not what an abortion is. "'Almost all babies born with anencephaly will die shortly after birth." You made that claim without any supporting evidence." Actually that was a quote from a reliable source, the CDC (Center for disease control), which is pretty much the best source for information like that, seeing as the people who run the website are professionals whose careers are based off studying these things. As for your statement "Science cannot prevent baby girls from feeling pain in the womb, actually." Yes, it can. Science allows for us to develop pain relieving drugs such as Acetaminophen (Tylenol). You claim that the fact that a fetus prior to 22 weeks from conception cannot feel pain is my faith-based religious belief, when in fact it is scientific. It has been proven by professionals. You claim that I failed to provide evidence that abortion is a constitutional right, when in fact i cited a reputable news source, and i will cite another: "In Roe v. Wade... the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child." (Justia US Law). This is about the most reliable source as for constitutional laws. It is not a faith based religious claim, it is fact. You claim that i have provided zero evidence for any of my claims, when in fact i have cited multiple sources and explained my reasoning. In fact, since your first post, you have not stated any new information, only refuting my points, and i will state again, your main argument in your first post is based off an if statement, making it invalid: "If the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers wombs is morally wrong..." You fail to provide any evidence proving that the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers wombs is morally wrong, which is the premise of the debate. Your claim is that abortion is morally wrong because killing babies is wrong, which again, doesn't make sense, abortion is not killing babies, it is killing fetuses, which invalidates your argument.
Killing Baby Girls Is Wrong, and by Extension, Abortion in General Is Also Wrong

My opponent wrote: "You claim that Abortion is morally wrong, but fail to provide any real evidence" I provided plenty of evidence, but you provided none for your claims, actually. "You claim that fetus is the Latin word for 'baby', which is true" Of course it is true. ", but we are debating in English" Then stop using the Latin term fetus, because it simply means "baby." Your use of that term is intellectually dishonest, and you are simply trying to draw attention away from the fact that this debate is about killing human babies, which is definitely morally wrong. "Almost all babies born with anencephaly will die shortly after birth." You made that claim without any supporting evidence. "As for your statement " What magickal process are you positing that prevents the same baby girl who feels pain after birth from feeling pain prior to her birth?", the 'magical process' is called science." Science cannot prevent baby girls from feeling pain in the womb, actually. "A fetus prior to 22 weeks from conception cannot feel pain," That is your faith-based religious belief, not observable science: You have no evidence for it. "'Abortion is a constitutional right that should be exercised when needed' No it isn't: You failed to provide any evidence for that faith-based religious belief of yours either. You provided zero evidence for any of your claims (all of which were demonic in nature), so I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Killing Baby Girls Is Wrong, and by Extension, Abortion in General Is Also Wrong

You claim that Abortion is morally wrong, but fail to provide any real evidence. "If the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers wombs..." You stated 'if the specific practice...' with out confirming or stating evidence that it is wrong, so your argument is based off an 'If' statement. You claim that fetus is the Latin word for 'baby', which is true, but we are debating in English, and the definition of fetus in English is "The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth." (Dictionary.com) You claim that no fetuses have conditions that will lead to almost certain death close after birth, but fail to state any evidence. "Anencephaly is a serious birth defect in which a baby is born without parts of the brain and skull... about 1,206 pregnancies are affected by these conditions each year in the United States... Anencephaly can be diagnosed during pregnancy... There is no known cure or standard treatment for anencephaly. Almost all babies born with anencephaly will die shortly after birth." (Center for disease control). As for your statement " What magickal process are you positing that prevents the same baby girl who feels pain after birth from feeling pain prior to her birth?", the 'magical process' is called science. You obviously have failed to do your research. A fetus prior to 22 weeks from conception cannot feel pain, but after that, they can feel some pain, so doctors are required by law to administer pain relief drugs before the abortion. "'Abortion is a constitutional right that should be exercised when needed' No it isn't." Again, you fail to provide any evidence. January of this year marked the "44th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a woman"s constitutional right to an abortion" (Alexandra DeSanctis, National Review). It is in fact a constitutional right. You used your entire argument on falsely refuting my arguments, rather than providing more evidence to support your claim.
Killing Baby Girls Is Wrong, and by Extension, Abortion in General Is Also Wrong

My opponent wrote: "Your argument is that abortion is wrong because it is the same as killing a baby." No, that isn't my argument: That is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. Please address my actual argument instead. "This doesn't make sense." No, your straw man doesn't make sense: Please address my actual argument instead. Fetus is simply the Latin word for "baby." Please communicate in English instead -- Latin is now a dead language. "You are saying that abortion is equivalent to murder," I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "you are stating that every opportunity to have a child should be exercised." That's your third straw man logical fallacy. You have yet to address my actual argument at all. "Some fetuses have conditions that will lead to almost certain death close after birth" No they don't. "Babies can feel pain after birth, so in some cases, it is wisest to have an abortion, so both the baby and the family suffer much less." What magickal process are you positing that prevents the same baby girl who feels pain after birth from feeling pain prior to her birth? "Abortion is a constitutional right that should be exercised when needed." No it isn't. You failed to address my actual argument at all, choosing instead to make some statements that I never made and argue against your own statements instead of addressing my actual statements. I won this debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Killing Baby Girls Is Wrong, and by Extension, Abortion in General Is Also Wrong

Your argument is that abortion is wrong because it is the same as killing a baby. This doesn't make sense. There is a significant difference between a fetus (Which, by definition, is an unborn mammal that is at least past two months from conception), and a baby. Although Fetuses have some level of consciousness, it is not to the level where they are capable of being aware. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not a baby. You are saying that abortion is equivalent to murder, murdering a child that has potential to grow up into a wonderful, unique person. The problem with this is that you are stating that every opportunity to have a child should be exercised. Therefore, Condoms and birth control should not be used, and girls should attempt to conceive every month so eggs/ possible life forms are not wasted. A 2013 study showed that women who are given abortions are much less likely to suffer mental health issues than women who are denied abortions. People suffering from mental health issues are most likely going to have a harder time parenting a child, as well as the fact that mental health is extremely important to maintain. Some fetuses have conditions that will lead to almost certain death close after birth (Conditions such as Anencephaly). Babies can feel pain after birth, so in some cases, it is wisest to have an abortion, so both the baby and the family suffer much less. Abortion is a constitutional right that should be exercised when needed. Sources: ProCon.org (http://abortion.procon.org...) merriam-webster.com (https://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Killing Baby Girls Is Wrong, and by Extension, Abortion in General Is Also Wrong

Preamble: Many babies are killed in the womb because of age bias or gender bias. Make every day International Women's Day " stop killing unborn women based on age bias and personal convenience. Protect women and girls of all ages. Babies have the same unique personal characteristics we have: Fingerprints, DNA, virtues and flaws, thoughts, pains and pleasures, emotions, and gender. Formal Argument: Abortion in general is morally wrong. P1: Female Feticide is the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers" wombs. P2: If the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers" wombs is morally wrong, then the specific practice of killing baby boys in their mothers" wombs must necessarily also be morally wrong. P3: The specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers" wombs (AKA Female Feticide) is morally wrong. P4: Therefore the specific practice of killing baby boys in their mothers" wombs must also be morally wrong. P5: If the specific practice of killing baby girls in their mothers" wombs is morally wrong, and the specific practice of killing baby boys in their mothers" wombs is also morally wrong, then killing babies in their mothers" wombs in general, without specific regard to their respective genders, is also morally wrong. P6: Abortion is the general practice of killing babies in their mothers" wombs without specific regard to their respective genders. Conclusion: Therefore abortion in general is morally wrong. QED Bonus video, included for clarity: