BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cod isnt good anymore

The youtubers for example Ali-a will tell you to buy cod and mislead the call of duty community. I will tell you the reason cod isn't thriving is lag, hit detection, and microtransactions. Which is not included in the videos of most Reviews of cod misleading the average consumer to buy the game. My evidence that cod is going down is that Mw2 made 1 billion dollars and the "newest" call of duty black ops 3 made 250 million dollars. . Activision has a money desire because there a business and I'll tell you. Micotransions in Advance warefare were hated but push the call of duty new worth over 10 billion dollars. Tell me why the would bring in back to the next cod? "That's like saying critics ruin art"-by you true but what if I told you that youtubers aren't critics there brid to say call of duty is a good game buy it. I'll tell you how there are brid. They get to play the game early before other youtubers and they sometimes get ps4s and more(youtuber who got ps4 Driftor for no reason). How does getting early content them money. Views from youtube. When black ops 3 wasn't out there was videos about it and they got money from views from youtube there is no direct money but an indirect flow of cash. If a journaler was reviewing an iphone and had a direct partnership with Apple should there review be question? I'll tell you now if you what call of duty to thrive get rid of the liaing youtubers and the main problems lag, hit detection, and microtransactions. I hope Activision will realize they're losing money and microtransactions will not make up the decrease of cells after 3 more years. Souces http://www.gamasutra.com... http://www.technobuffalo.com...
Cod isnt good anymore

Rebuttals:"My arguments is that youtuber and Activision's despie for money is ruining cod."This argument has no source, and we dismiss this as a bare assertion.[1] Pro has not shown how youtuber and Activision's despie are ruining Cod. We simply do not have enough evidence to conclude that Cod is not good anymore. Evidence that youtuber(s) and Activision's despie are not ruining Cod.Activision publishes Cod. It doesn't destroy it. I don't think Activision has a despie. Acording to the only source I could find on the subject, a despie is a "female roleplaying character that concerns herself only with obtaining a boyfriend, by any means necessary."[2] Pro must mean something else.Also, how do youtubers ruin games? That's like saying critics ruin art, or viewers ruin TV. Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://www.urbandictionary.com...
David Beckham did a good thing when he came to the U.S. to play soccer

>I will start with some definitions: Good: of high quality; excellent Thing: an action, deed, event, or performance >The stipulation of the resolution "David Beckham did a good thing when he came to the U. S. to play soccer" is unclear. For this reason I will separate it into three separate parts. Whichever side (PRO or CON) wins more of these three should win this debate: 1. David Beckham did a good thing FOR SOCCER when he came to the U. S. to play soccer 2. David Beckham did a good thing FOR FANS when he came to the U. S. to play soccer 3. David Beckham did a good thing FOR HIMSELF when he came to the U. S. to play soccer I hope that my opponent will agree with this much. I will now commence in explaining each. *1. David Beckham did a good thing FOR SOCCER when he came to the U. S. to play soccer >David Beckham did not do anything substantial for soccer by playing it in the United States. Soccer is and always has been a European sport. The United States soccer has always been both inferior and pathetic in comparison to the same sport in England, Spain, Italy, Germany, and France. Beckham was renowned as an icon during his playing days for Manchester United and Real Madrid. He made a move from being an iconic representation of the sport to being just another player for the LA Galaxy. In this he weakened and ultimately did nothing good for soccer, he simply relocated. This was not "an action of high quality. " *2. David Beckham did a good thing FOR FANS when he came to the U. S. to play soccer >This is undoubtedly the most one-sided point in my entire argument. According to . http://www.prnewswire.co.uk... Manchester United and Real Madrid, the last clubs Beckham had played at, are first and fourth in the world respectively in terms of fan base. By leaving to play for the LA Galaxy Beckham certainly disappointed more fans than he "did a good thing" for. *3. David Beckham did a good thing FOR HIMSELF when he came to the U. S. to play soccer >As previously stated, when Beckham came to the US to play soccer he lost his iconic status. He also lost potential earnings. This can be deduced from simple math: According to . http://www.independent.co.uk... Beckham's salary at Real Madrid was ï¿½17million. According to . http://articles.latimes.com... Beckham's current salary is $5.5million. The current ration of pounds to dollars (. http://www.google.com...) is approximately 1 Pound to 1.4817 US Dollars. Due to this, the following simple math is: $5,500,000/1.4817 = ï¿½3,711,952.49 (. http://www.google.com...) ï¿½3,711,952.49/ï¿½17,000,000 = 0.218350146% (. http://www.google.com...) This means that Beckham's salary is currently about 21.84% of what it was at Real Madrid. This cannot in any way be classified as a "good thing" for Beckham. >There you have it. All three possibilities go CON. I eagerly await my opponent's response.
David Beckham did a good thing when he came to the U.S. to play soccer

>I thank RNG for his response. >RNG's last round consisted of: "i refuse to do this debate with him because his picture shows the manchester united seal and clearly he likes the team. So any argument he makes he will make it with a bias decision so i refuse to debate this with him." His statements make no sense. Granted, I am a Manchester United fan and a proud one at that. This does not make my arguments in any way invalid. First, my opponent has DROPPED ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS, so saying that I am biased is actually invalid from him given the drop. Next, all information which I gave was based upon fact. I provided six IRREFUTABLE SOURCES in addition to reasons for all of my conclusions. Additionally, David Beckham went from REAL MADRID to the LA Galaxy. Just because Beckham played for the Red Devils (Manchester United) at one point in his career does not mean that I have any bias towards him. Lastly, my opponent should have put a warning like the following on his debate: < > Since he did not do this, his argument is even less valid. >I thank my opponent for his one response and I thank you, reader, for reading this. I urge a vote for CON. Thank you.
The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants.

While illegal immigration does inevitably add to issues caused by overpopulation, an immediate repatriation effort wouldn't solve these issues. According to the CIA's World Factbook, the total population growth for the United States for 2011 is projected to be about 3 million people. The projected number of all immigrants to the US (both legal and illegal) was projected to be about 1.3 million (1). Even if all immigration was to be blocked, and the illegal immigrants removed from the country, the population of the United States would continue to grow. To blame and remove one portion of the population would only be a stopgap measure; instead, to truly fix the problem, resources should be committed to developing infrastructure capable of supporting the inevitable growth. Similarly, while the possibility of terrorists crossing into the United States is a very real threat, a widespread deportation effort wouldn't help to ease the problem. The issue is similar to the argument I stated before concerning drug and arms dealers; terrorist organizations with a great deal of financial backing would be able to more effectively hide from authorities than illegal immigrants that crossed the border to find work, and with the inevitable strain a nationwide manhunt for over 15 million people would cause on law enforcement, it would be easier for terrorists to slip through the cracks. Like the dealers, these individuals should be targeted individually as a greater priority than the illegal immigrant population as a whole. While there are those who take our current relative indifference to illegal immigration as a sign of weakness, this is only because of the hypocrisy of not enforcing our own laws to make them leave. Instead of disrupting millions of lives and ejecting them from our country, we should instead be paying more attention to the inscription on the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, / your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, / the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, / send these, the homeless, tempest tossed, / I lift my lamp beside the golden door." It would represent an enormous accomplishment and testament to the American spirit to take these people who turned to us for the opportunity of a better life, integrate them into our society, and become all the stronger for it. (1) https://www.cia.gov...
The United States Government should immediately repatriate all illegal immigrants.

Regarding the education of the children of illegal immigrants, unless the requirements of becoming a naturalization are rewritten (a topic outside the boundaries of our proposition of expatriating illegal immigrants as they are currently defined), any child born on American soil is guaranteed U.S. citizenship. The immediate expatriation of the parents of such children would have one of two effects: either the family would be split up, as there would be no legal grounds for forcing the child with citizenship to leave the country, and any economic costs their schooling would incur would be unchanged, or the child would return with their families to their country of origin, where in many cases the quality of education is much poorer. We would effectively be denying U.S. citizens access to the public education system on the basis of the actions of their parents. Were expatriation forced, the only way to eliminate these costs would be a gross miscarriage of justice, blaming children for circumstances they cannot control. In regards to community colleges, if we are discussing the U.S. born children of illegal immigrants, such individuals would ostensibly have to pay their taxes and the tuition associated with community colleges if they wished to attend. In the end, the drain they cause on the system is no different from any other citizen (never mind that educating such individuals allows them access to a wider variety of jobs, increasing their overall productive capabilities and having a positive effect on the economy as a whole). In the case of illegal immigrants themselves attending community colleges, the system here in the state of North Carolina has already found a way to take advantage of this. Illegal immigrants can be accepted to community colleges, but at the out of state tuition rate. This additional cost means that the colleges generate a $2000 profit for each illegal student (1). In the end, to immediately expatriate illegal immigrants would cause a loss of future taxes collectable from legitimate U.S. citizens as well as dry up a source of potential revenue for community colleges. In regards to the crimes attributed to illegal immigration, an immediate deportation of all the illegals that DHS could capture would do little to reduce their rates. Drug and arms dealers have demonstrated their ability to operate without being detected by the authorities. A new campaign to remove all illegals would tax already overstressed law enforcement resources that could instead be used to target these criminals specifically, removing a great number of immigrants whose only crime was entering the country at the cost of ignoring many of these hardened criminals. Instead of a mass deportation, we should instead focus on apprehending only these individuals, understanding the weaknesses in our border security they use to transport their goods, and endeavoring to close these gaps. (1) http://www.wral.com...
Why the celtics have no chance at winning the nba championship this year

The Celtics will not win the championship this year because of their lack of big men in the post. With Kevin Garnett playing at the center position he will have to guard centers like Dwight Howard, Jokim Noah, Roy Hibbert, and Tyson Chandler which I don't think he is capable of. The Celtics are finishing off the season strong but I just think they are too old and have no bench to make another run at NBA Championship. The Celtics are old like the Spurs but the Spurs have a better chance than the Celtics because their bench players are much better. I just can't see the Celtics beating the Bulls,Heat, or even the Pacers too even make it too the finals.
Why the celtics have no chance at winning the nba championship this year

Even through you did bring forth a good point. The number one team in the West Coast is the Oklahoma City Thunder but they have not won a NBA Championship. Unlike the Celtics who have won 16 NBA championships. I think Rajon Rondo is a much better point guard than Russell Westbrook. I dont think that you should under estimate Ray Allen because he is one of the most accurate 3-points and free throws shooters in NBA history
Why the celtics have no chance at winning the nba championship this year

Due to the fact that the Celtic team is full of vets is a good reason to believe that they are finals ready but however because of the younger talents of tHe teams i mentioned earlier players like ray allen and Paul pierce will have difficulty guarding much younger players like Kevin Durant and Derrick Rose. Althought the Celtics have a good point guard in Rajon Rondo it will in fact be a challenge for him to lead his team for a win against a point guard like Russell Westbrook.
Teachers should be able to have guns in school with the proper clearance.

I laughed when I saw this debate question, because as a high school teacher myself in a rough school in Scotland, I can't imagine what it would be like if you gave the teachers guns. I do not see guns as a form of protection but as a weapon of violence. In the U.K we do not have guns, only some of our police carry guns. The kind of tight gun laws that came in over here after the 1996 Dunblane tragedy have made the country safer in general. 58 Murders a Year by Firearms in Britain, 8,775 in US. Allowing teachers to carry guns in school will not necessarily make school safer. There is always the possibility of a gun being found by a student and used inappropriately, not to mention the fact that armed teachers who have taken a seminar or two are not trained officers; in a tense situation, they might make a fatal mistake. We don't need more guns in schools. We need more empathy and compassion. We need to make dealing with mental health and keeping guns out of the hands of would-be criminals our main priorities in order to prevent these tragedies in the first place. Our first reaction shouldn't be to meet violence with violence. "Guns, she was reminded then, were not for girls. They were for boys. They were invented by boys. They were invented by boys who had never gotten over their disappointment that accompanying their own orgasm there wasn't a big boom sound." Lorrie Moore, Like Life "The wounded were crying, and the rest were dying. Jack stood alone in a hallway of mangled men, who had been trained for this."" Seth Tucker, Friedkin's Curse: A Werewolf Tale of Terror. "You don"t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that"s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars" five thousand dollars per bullet" You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders." Chris Rock.
Teachers should be able to have guns in school with the proper clearance.

There is one big reason that I believe is the main point. For safety. There are so many school shootings that are happening all around and so safety is a big issue. It's not just enough to have a cop walking around the school. I believe with the proper clearance that yes, teachers should be able to carry. If someone were to come in and try to harm your children wouldn't you want the teacher to be able to save them, along with all of the other children's lives? It is just like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. If one of the teachers would have had a gun, then it could have been possible to save some, if not all, of the kid
There is no freedom of speech on privately-owned fora, regardless of how many times it's asserted.

"I'll do better than that" Well, it wasn't that better. Lawyers are some of the best manipulators too. I want to see a document that has the freedom of speech and the censorship part, on the Constitution included. Also, the Supreme Court (the Judicial part of US law) has declared that everyone has a right to privacy, as provided by the case. And with my points that follow you still have not followed through with it. You might have a right to privacy, they might have a right to freedom of speech, but if you let them invade your privacy, they will say what they want. And even if the Consitution says "the government cannot suppress speech," the government being the highest power, unless noted by the government otherwise, the government was used as a means to saying "even the government, being the highest power, cannot suppress speech". Not, "the government cannot suppress speech, but you can". "if they think they can do it on my website (or in my front yard, which I ALSO pay for" But if you let them into your front yard, if you let them onto your property, then they have every right to say what they want to say. So yes, it is unconstitutional.
There is no freedom of speech on privately-owned fora, regardless of how many times it's asserted.

The Constitution permits freedom of speech. I do not see where it says anything about Censorship. Please point me to this spot. I can't go into someone's personal property because it is the right to privacy "http://www.law.cornell.edu...; This is the Griswold vs. Conneticut case that permits the right to privacy. But, a forum is not a private place because anyone can join. And even if it is Admin controlled, once you let them in, they can do what they please like freedom of speech. "Any private site owner or administrator has the right to bar ANYONE from participating on their site" Exactly, but the minute you allow them to get onto your site, they still have the freedom of speech. They could have freedom of speech, but you could not let them join your forum. "If they can say anything they want to say, it would stand to reason that all sorts of web administrators would be sued, constantly, for deleting objectionable posts or banning abusive users" Because you might have a user from Mali. No offense to Mali, but the government doesn't care about Mali. They won't pay attention to lawsuits permitted by a Malian. It's too much work to sue you. Plus they would need sufficient evidence, which you could delete. Honestly, this topic is a hard one, I just argued it because I used to be an Admin of a site.
There is no freedom of speech on privately-owned fora, regardless of how many times it's asserted.

I, being an Administrator of two forums, one of them being for two years, have also seen this type of thing happen on forums a lot. Also, having been part of many different types of forums, I have seen the goods, the bads, and the uglys on what members can do and what they can accomplish (and spammers too). "with the assertion that deleting objectionable posts or banning forum abusers violates the first amendment to the US Constitution" Of course they do this. They can say whatever they want to. They can post pornography and post naked pictures of gay men in cock cages making out in a bath-tub. Now don't interpret this in the wrong way. I am going to make a few points to support this. 1) The Consitution is correct. It allows "Freedom of Speech". They may say what they want to when they want to. 2) This does not mean, though, that you cannot delete it. They have said there part. They have spoken there freedom of speech. Does that mean that they cannot be deleted? No. If I wanted to say a bad word, then I will: (say f-word here) This doesn't mean that the Admins to the site cannot censor or delete or replace that word. I have said what I want to say. If I wanted to post a picture of a massive orgy of vampires drawing blood from each other, I can. I won't. But I can. That does not mean that they cannot censor or take away the photo. So, yes, in a way they have freedom of speech, and they have the freedom to say it, but they can be censored eventually. 3) They are not being silenced once they say it. To be silenced is for someone to want to say something, but not be able to say it. Let's say they had a expletive word blocker on debate.org and if I typed in the word ‘crap', the word ‘doggy' would come up. Just wanted to mention that. 4) I actually found this in quite a few PHP run sites and other forums too: You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated or any other material that may violate any laws be it of your country, the country where "The Sith Council" is hosted or International Law. Btw, The Sith Council is hosted in the United States of America. This is in direct confliction with the Constitution. The Constitution says "Freedom of Speech"; not "almost Freedom of Speech". To think that they do not have the right to free speech is basically desecrating the Constitution by interpreting it into what it does not say.
There is no freedom of speech on privately-owned fora, regardless of how many times it's asserted.

As a current administrator of a forum (and a past administrator of many others) I have constantly been barraged, normally by forum troublemakers, with the assertion that deleting objectionable posts or banning forum abusers violates the first amendment to the US Constitution. As a privately-owned space, forum administrators are free to include or exclude any comments or users they see fit to include or exclude, and the First Amendment was never intended to allow abusive users to say anything they want to say on the internet. I believe that those who constantly yell "First Amendment!" on internet message boards are typically the worst abusers and use this as a way to stop any discussion and to get their way. I believe that people who pull this "rabbit out of the hat" in order to shame administrators to let them do anything they want to do need to go back and actually read the text of the First Amendment.
According to the Bible unsaved people will go to the Lake of Fire

Being saved is accepting the gift of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. OC1: The sheep and the goats represent the saved and the unsaved. It is correct. OC2: Absolutely applicable. 20:14-15 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. The second death is eternal punishment in the lake of fire, experienced only by the unsaved. Once this final judgment occurs, there is no further need for either death or hell (Hades) (1: v.18; 6: v.8, Isaiah 25: v.8; 1 Cor. 15: verses 26 and 55). An eternal separation is now made between those who have life and those who have "death" (Dan. 12: v.2; John 5: v.29). http://www.discoverrevelation.com... All have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. Therefore they are in a condemned state unless they choose to accept Jesus as their personal savior. If they choose to remain condemned, their eternity will be in the lake of fire. If they choose to accept Jesus as their savior, they will spend eternity with Jesus in heaven. Thanks