BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Minecraft is better that roblox

1. So you would make profound textures in Minecraft? Weird, I don't see any at all in planet minecraft or any other sites. Why would you even make one? It would just be confusing and you wouldn't know what is where. No one uses profound textures, and Minecraft only uses 8-bit textures, while Roblox gives you a choice of both HD, and textures that you can upload yourself. So, I think that Roblox has better textures, don't you?2. I used to be a frequent minecraft player, and I tried many times to set up a server, however I couldn't find out how. I used hamachi, I tried port forwarding, and other methods. None of them worked. It's very hard to set up a server, those were my arguments from before, however what does this have to do with white-listing one? Obviously it's easy if you already have one, but that's the problem.3. I see no obvious reasons why Minecraft is better, Isn't that why we are debating? Roblox has even better performance, such as HD textures, customizable blocks, and many others. Minecraft also costs 30 dollars. Unlike that, Roblox is free. You don't need to pay for anything, only if you want to. The benefits of the in-game membership are not needed to have a good playing style. Minecraft is almost 30 dollars, and you can try a demo for 100 minutes. 4. You can earn money off RobloxUsing DevEx, you can cash out ingame Robux for real life money. You can exchange for a maximum of $20,000. This is really good for any aspiring builder, as they can show off their creativity to the world, and get money in return. Minecraft, however, does not allow you to do this as it counts as "selling part of their game," and it violates their terms of service. You can turn Roblox into a fun job that rewards you for your creativity.Your arguments have lots of holes in them, two poorly constructed arguments does not make your point proven.
Minecraft is better that roblox

Minecraft there are custom textures to make each pixel of said "cubes" customizable. Just like roblox but better because there is a limit on profound texture in the game. Multiplayer servers are very easy to set up as a frequent minecraft player i know. It is literally in a click of a button to white-list a server for on certain people to be on it. Since minecraft is a way better game for obvious reasons isn't it worth hirty dollars? I would pay even more money for the great performance of the game. GG
the popes have an economic left bias

Bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion. Of this wealth, Italian stockholdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate. Read more: http://www.time.com...This is independant of Vatican Gold Reserves which which are held at The Vatican BankMr. Cipriani described the Vatican bank as a financially cautious organization that has €6 billion ($7.48 billion) in assets, including gold reserves at the U.S. Federal Reserve. The bank invests less than 5% of its portfolio in riskier securities like stocks, Mr. Cipriani said.http://online.wsj.com...The Pope is, quite possibly, the richest man in the world, and despite the rhetoric, they have a very right leaning bias.
the popes have an economic left bias

I've said nothing of the moral or ethical nature of popes other than to make note that in the area of wealth accumulation, they do not practice what they preach. My opponent stated that Popes have a bias toward the left (which I assume means liberal) regarding their economics. While I don't know what this means, exactly, I assume it would have something to do with following the words that my opponent has attributed (unsourced/undocumented) to "popes" (who knows which one/s?).As I have demonstrated, which this rhetoric put forth by the Catholic Church sounds wonderful, they almost own more proprety than God, Himself. Certainly, they are conservative in all their investment practices, which would be associated with the right, not left.My opponent has slopped a bunch of unsourced rhetoric on the screen and has mistaken that for an argument. I have demonstrated that his resolution is false.He has refuted nothing I have put forth. Clearly, I am the victor in this debate. I therefore encourage you to vote for my opponent. I don't need the actual win to know I won. Let the other guy have it.Good day.
the popes have an economic left bias

"I have demonstrated practice while my opponent has victim to rhetoric of a false nature." the only rhetoric is you spouting about crooked popes, common stereotypes etc. it's rhetoric cause it rants and doesnt address the point. yes you have clearly shown practice. if mom says eat your vegetables to everyone and i use quotes to demonstrate this, and she herself doesnt eat them, it's safe to say generally that mother is pro vegetables for people eating there vegs generally. you could split hairs about her being not pro vegetables simply because she herself doesnt do it, but it's missing the clear point, that what im referring to is her official position for the wider audience etc. not only has opponent engaged in useless rhetoric, opponent missed the obvious points here. if oppoenent leaves the debate it's only because her position is incoherent, without basis, indefensible.
Come up with funny answers.

Seems right up your alley, yay842. I'll pose a question, and yay842 will try to come up with a funny answer. He will then ask me a question, and I will try to come up with a funny answer. And so forth. No repeating a question that has already been asked. Funniest answer wins (Note singular: this is just the single funniest answer, not necessarily who was funniest in general). No behavioural expectations will be held, except that FFs are not allowed. How many roads must a man walk down, before you call him a man?
Come up with funny answers.

Well, since the position in a motion diagram chart of a air-laden swallow is a straightforward line across the x-axis, it would be increasing in velocity, which is also the average speed velocity in delta X. Therefore, initial X would be at 0 if the swallow started from rest. So I would need to find final X, or the change in X since initial X is basically 0 because delta X is final X minus initial X. Then I can use integrals if I knew the acceleration of the speed of the swallow, since acceleration is the derivative of velocity, but then I can just use anti-derivatives to derive velocity, but since I have position, I find the derivative of the position which is velocity. But I'm calculating the average speed velocity. So I can find final speed velocity and add it to initial speed velocity; then, I would divide the sum of initial and final velocity, divide it by 2, and I would get the average speed velocity of the air-laden swallow. Since the swallow would be starting at rest, which is why initial X is 0, the initial velocity is also 0, since the swallow is at rest. Then, I need to know the given information of the final distance, or delta X, to calculate the change in velocity by using the kinematic equation: final velocity squared = initial velocity squared + 2 times the acceleration times delta X, since I don't have time; however, I'm not given the final distance either, so I don't have delta X, so I can't find final velocity of the sparrow, so I can't find the average speed velocity of an air-laden sparrow; therefore, the answer is: not enough given information. (Also, I'm taking a physics class and doing poorly right now, so don't judge on if I messed up on the calculations/kinematic equations). 2. What is the third derivative of: "9x squared minus the radical of the log of sin 2 pi beta all divided by the difference between 96x to the power of four minus 21x cubed times the 7x squared plus 69?
Best Cartoon

If we're talking ratings, then Rick and Morty wins 7 times over, The Simpsons has a high rating of 8.8 on IMDb and 74% rotten tomatoes, but Rick and Morty absolutely crushes The Simpsons with a extremely high rating of 9.3 on IMDb, making it the highest rating animated show on IMDb, and a perfect score of 100% on rotten tomatoes. Now, I don't think run time has anything to do with the quality of the show, The Simpsons has over 150 episodes under the rating of 7.0 and not one episode over the rating of 9.2, while Rick and Morty has several episodes over 9.2, despite it's short run time. In my opinion, quality trumps quantity.
Best Cartoon

I'll challenge you. First debate btw so forgive me if I do something wrong :p Based on ratings, run time, the writers the show has staffed, and the cultural impact the show has had, the best cartoon ever is The Simpsons. It has a run time of 20+ years, the writers are highly educated, often having degrees from Ivy League schools, and have consistently put out good content for the longest running cartoon series to date. The show has the money the staff the best people and the characters are easily recognizable, whereas Rick and Morty is fairly obscure and only a sliver of a generation would really know who they are. It might be a good show, but is it the best? Not when compaired against the giants like the Simpsons
Mexican-American border

While it's true it may open up jobs for Americans, there are far more projects that are better worth out time that could also open up jobs, such as building safe houses for Syrian refugees. Our country already has a lot of debt, I don't think we should add to it just to build a wall that may or may not keep out illegal immigrants. And the drones are the same problem - too much money, not enough benefit. I also doubt that our people living near the border would enjoy having drones circling around their towns, and they would cost a lot to keep up and running.
Mexican-American border

No, America should NOT build a wall to keep illegal Mexican immigrants out. It's very irrational. First of all, it will cost a LOT. I know that we're somehow planning to magically make Mexico pay for it, but how exactly is that going to work? Secondly, I really doubt it would be very effective. Walls, like fences, can be climbed over in the dead of night with the right tools. Sure, we could get security guards patrolling every square inch of it, but that seems like a waste of resources. And lastly, we have far more important things to worry about. Such as ISIS.
A rapist, even after time was served, shouldn't be sympathized

There are signs that, even if the illness isn't revealed until after the crime is committed, demonstrate that something is wrong with the individual. The difference with people that rob and steal is that those are material necessities/desires that are taken. During a rape, a person becomes victimized, exposed to psychological problems, trauma, and horrid flashbacks. A person's dignity is ripped away from them without an ultimate reason. Stealing provides the person with an object that they needed or wanted. Satisfaction through rape has a higher risk of post problems than a robbery, thus why the sentencing is greater.
A rapist, even after time was served, shouldn't be sympathized

You say that that the rapist should have been treated before hand but how are they to be treated when a rapist can in fact look to be the average joe. There are some people that walk around wearing suits but at night rape woman etc. the disorder don't usually reveal themselves until the person is exposed. So one can not treat what is they are unaware of. True there are people with stable minds that commit that crime. There are also people who rob and steal to support their families but are they judged, sick and wrong? A stable mind means nothing. We are humans/ animals and do what may have been taught to is as what is right
A rapist, even after time was served, shouldn't be sympathized

It is true that some of these sex offenders may have some kind of mental disorder but then it lies upon the family of that individual to make sure that person is treated and taken care of. Nowadays it is almost a form of neglect if someone isn't treated for such illness. They, the rapist, are still then at fault for committing such crime. It takes some kind of premeditation in order for a rape to carry out, meaning a victim must be chosen, captured and the crime committed. If during or before that time frame, the person was never treated then another problem becomes present. But drawing away from mental illnesses, there are people with stable minds that just are sick enough to want to have sexual intercourse with a child or younger individual. It is very evident then that it was their fault and they deserve all the blame, no sympathy, nor respect.
A rapist, even after time was served, shouldn't be sympathized

I'm going to play devil's advocate. Yes a rapist committed a horrible crime but what we forget to look at is the person that committed the crime. Some people that are sex offenders have social developments that hinder them from seeing what's morally correct in society. On top of that the rapist could be suffering from something mentally that made them commit the crime. I bet if someone else that was suffering openly from social developments or mental issues committed a crime people would have some type of sympathy.
A rapist, even after time was served, shouldn't be sympathized

The rapist whether he serves life or 10 years in jail still stripped away the dignity of another individual. Their humanity was lost during the act so why should we, as a people, dig in deep into our humanity, and feel some kind of sympathy for them? It could've been a family member, our mother, our daughter, our son. Yes, they are humans and mistakes are made, but did they care about the person they raped? No.
In Star Wars Neither the Republic or the Empire are Good or Bad

I must agree with my opponent on this, This debate is proving to be very interesting and I am very much enjoying it!(I continue to be pressed for time with "Obligations" But I will make room as best I can for this)(I almost forgot about posting my debate... very busy...)My opponent has claimed that because the System of the republic didnt really work and a lot of the members of the government were in fact corrupt many were not. Many times they struggled to get anything done resulting in many deaths.. But many times they saved lifes by quick action... Many time there system did not work. But many times when it REALLY needed to it did.(I want to kinda retract my earlier statement that the republic was like the USA... They are in ways a like but Im not going to even bother going there as it would be pointless)But we are not talking about specificly the System of the republics government.. We are talking about the REPUBLIC as a WHOLE.The republic was a place where many species could gather and not fire a blaster at eatchothers heads. They did prevent a lot of wars. And a lot of the people were very nice. With some senate members being corrupt others not some members of the republic wanting war others not some citizens of the republic being good people others bing scum.... It was a interesting system. But you cant say the Republic was Bad just because the system at many time didnt work.But you cant say it was good as many of the corrupt actions of the government acts of the citizens and species that where members Started wars and where greedy resulting in MANY MANY MANY MANY Deaths... But they also Saved Many deaths.....The republic and the Empire where two different kinds of systems with Great Ideas! and bad ones. Both systems were very imperfect but they still managed to get a lot done! As my last Debate post.I would like to thank my opponent so much for this wonderful debate!I would like to thank everyone that put up with my grammar trouble and I hope to have improved on it for my next debate!Vote PRO! And Live long and pros-.... wait.... umm.... Try... yeah umm... yeah thats it.. All ways try your best err... umm... Oh right... ILL BE BACK!... Yeah thats it right? *Whispers* Its not?.... oh.... *Whisper* ... Ah forget it heres a wonderful link of famous Star tre-... *Whisper* galacti- *Whisper* Star wars! Quotes! May the force be with you!http://www.starwarsquotes.net...
In Star Wars Neither the Republic or the Empire are Good or Bad

As an avid Star Wars fan I am very much looking forward to this debate (plus this is also my first debate here so we're evenly matched in that regard). Taking the con side of the argument I understand that my task will be to convince you that one or both of The Empire or The Republic is either good or bad. I will assume that by supplying multiple definitions that any or all of those definitions for good and bad may be referenced throughout the subsequent arguments. I will also assume that 'Star Wars' refers to the entire expanded Star Wars universe and not merely the 6 movies. 'The Republic' will refer to the Galactic Republic that is prevalent in the prequel series and 'The Empire' will refer to the Galactic Empire founded by Supreme Chancellor, and later Emperor Palpatine after the fall of The Republic. May The Force Be With You
In Star Wars Neither the Republic or the Empire are Good or Bad

I will be taking the Pro side proving that Neither the Empire or the Republic in Star Wars are Good or Bad (This is my first debate so I'm pretty much doing it for fun and to get noob sniped :p) (Definition) of Good [1] 1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man. 2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health. 3. of high quality; excellent. 4. right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good. (Definition) Bad [2] Bad 1. not good in any manner or degree. 2. having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible: There is no such thing as a bad boy. 3. of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient: a bad diamond; a bad spark plug. 4. inadequate or below standard; not satisfactory for use: bad heating; Living conditions in some areas are very bad. 5. inaccurate, incorrect, or faulty: a bad guess. 1-. http://dictionary.reference.com...2-http://dictionary.reference.com...
WE should act now to stop bullying

Hello everyone, it's very nice to see you again. Well, last round we're talking about we should act now to stop bullying. And my point is that we don't need to stop a bullying. Going to in my argument is, first often bullying can be viewed as child¢&s; and just a normal part of growing up. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact teachers and adults in general who think about bullying in these terms really didin't didn't a clue about this epidemic that is affecting children today in schools and in the communities in which they live. In order to fully understand this nationwide epidemic parents and teachers need to be better informed about the problem, then take steps to create an environment in school, in the home and in the community where bullying is not tolerated. So, if we started to make a campaign to stop bullying, it's same that we are stopping children to grow up and stopping them to become wise. Second point, often the bully comes from a home where there are serious problems. Bullies often come from homes where violence or abuse is present, where there is poor parental supervision or very little parental supervision, where neglect is apparent, or where parents or siblings exhibit bullying behaviors to each other. Home environments such as these can create anger and rage in a child that can transform him/her into the school yard bully. I meant we don't need to think always that bullies are just bad because they have bad characteristics. In fact, we need to think that they have seen a bad things at home. So before doing a campaign, we need to think a solution to stop teenagers to stop looking at violence actions in home and hearing horrible noise actually. For this kind of reason, I think we should not act to stop bullying in schools. Thank you.:)
WE should act now to stop bullying

While many people think of bullying as some kind of harassment, it's more than that. The effects of bullying can be serious and even fatal. There is a growing body of research which indicates that individuals, whether child or adult who are suffering from bullying and harassment are at risk of stress related illness which can sometimes lead to suicide. Victims of bullying can suffer from long term emotional and behavioral problems. Bullying can cause loneliness, depression, anxiety, lead to low self-esteem and increased probability of illness. The fight or flight mechanism, or stress response, is designed for responding to physical danger such being about to be attacked by a saber-toothed tiger but today is more likely to be activated by a psychological danger such as bullying at work, harassment, stalking, abuse for which it was not designed. The stress response can also be activated by anticipation of low-probability or long-term or non-life-threatening events such as financial problems (clinching the next big deal, how to pay the mortgage next month, motorway traffic jams, job security, picking up a parking ticket for a car park overstay, etc.) Different people respond with different degrees of stress to different stressors, a fact which has dogged research. Now, there is the worst scenario, suicide. We know that at least sixteen children in the UK kill themselves each year because of bullying at school. Each of these deaths is foreseeable, preventable and unnecessary. The true total could be as high as 80 or more. The bullying can last a long period of time until the anger starts building up in the victim. In some cases the victim could turn into a bully. A study said that 50% of the victims who got bullied turned into bullies themselves so that they can prevent from being bullied. In the news, there were talks about some school shooting. School shootings had received an enormous amount of media attention. The Virginia tech massacre is the deadliest school shooting in US history. A Korean student had killed 34 people and wounding many more, before committing suicide. The police found the dead bodies and more than 200rounds of bullets. Today, bullying is becoming more and more serious than ever. I personally believe that a school should be a sanctuary for kids that protect them from the outside world, but, because of the bullying, the sanctuary is no longer a safe place to be in.
WE should act now to stop bullying

Now a days, people said we must stop bullying in school. But I think it's wrong idea. If students get bullied, why can't think about a problem with students who get bullied? According to www.nabss.org students who get bullied always have a problem. Such as, they are too sensitive, they refuse someone to be friend, or they are acting kind. And if we start working to stop bullying, they trust us and starting to act strangely and do something they did not done before we started to do this kind of campaign. I think we should not act to stop bullying because we can make student behave bad just because they think we can protect them in anyway.