BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Fallout games vs. Call of Duty games

Hello people of DDO i am going to start off by saying that i will provide you your fundamental points of this debate my opponent wants to compare COD to Fallout 3. Well when comparing something like these games we have to look at what they have in common and which ones dominate that particular area. What does COD and Fallout have in common? Guns, simply put this should and pretty much has to, when comparing an RPG to a FPS like fallout and COD for if they had nothing to compare then one couldn't be better in the other because they are different games. Now i will compare the shooting of both games... Shooting in call of duty is the best in this case, Why you might as, well as you may know shooting in a RPG is all down to your stats, percentages and equipment stats and perks. So even if you have a good gun but your lv one you could be up close with it point blank and miss or get a head shot and not kill him. Thats another point i wanted to throw out people can survive , No coming back from wounds or inflictions like: Head shots,throat's being slash, and the all rare granade and mine survival. Im sorry to say but mines will blow your legs off and head shots will drop you instantly. Also all the guns are the same there are only 2 types of assault rifles,shotguns,and only 3 types of pistols and only one sniper rifle and a mini gun. all shoot like crap if your lv sucks. Then they have Lazer guns and etc however we cannot compare that with call of duty since there are no lazer weapons. On COD however guns actually work, No Vats, No idiotic stats, and no Lvs. It takes what a real gun would take to get a shot in, Hand eye coordination, and specializing in your type of weapon. Like assault rifles, sub machine guns, light machine guns, shotguns, and my personal favorite the one shot one kill sniper rifle. Their are different types of guns and they all shoot differently accordingly, everyone has their favorites. Usually their are a lot of guns assault rifles usually they have 8 or 9 and shotguns and snipers 4 and pistols 4 or 5 LMGs 4 to 5 and SMG's 6 to 9. All different and will have a better feel for shooting, rather than shooting right at a person and missing; you feel like your actually shooting rather than trying to increase stats so you can actually hit the person and kill them in one shot. ( thats very hard and unlikely unless you rank up to your 30 to 50s. Even then you will never kill a overlord super human in one shot to the head.) COD has that feeling of shooting an actual gun rather than pressing vats and praying you hit him and that it kills him. As well call of duty has Online multiplayer and increase it replay value how ever after beating fallout there is no replay value. I would know about Replay value on fallout and oblivion ( i have all oblivion acheviments). XP
Fallout games vs. Call of Duty games

The Fallout games are based 200 years (or more as time progresses) after the Great War that almost destroyed the world. The state in is plain hell, with almost everything trying to kill you. The almost is one thing distinguishing it from the all-out war of Call of Duty. Unlike the missions you get in those games, you have more variety and choice that will make you play it over and over. Missions force you to do one thing and going against it will force you will start it over entirely (or from a checkpoint). If one mission in Fallout says to, for example in Fallout 3, you have to find a home for Bryan Wilks. You can send him to his aunt, to a location called Little Lamplight, or you can choose the most evil choice and give him to slavery. However in COD, you are more limited to your decisions. In Fallout, you can go all out and kill everyone in the Wasteland, if you like. Limited decisions is one. There is also a limited arsenal of weapons, many of them normal weapons found in the army such as grenades, rifles, etc. A lot of variety can be found in Fallout. You can find advanced alien weapons, melee, and special weapons you have to search to find. Modding your weapons is also available in Fallout: New Vegas and can make your weapons lighter, faster, more accurate, etc. There also isn't only one class of weaponry. Melee, guns (small and big), energy weapons, explosive, and even unarmed weapons. Special versions are also available in secret locations for you to find. This proves more variety to kill your many enemies. As a more open environment, there are also allies and companions (followers) that you can get based on the many choices found in Fallout. You always have your squad in COD, but these followers can be killed, if you want, or switched out as you please. They have different specialties that can help you (or not) in your many quests available and, most importantly, in battle. Not only can human companions be found, but also dogs, a super mutant (mutated human), nightkin (special super mutant), ghouls (mutated human somewhat like a zombie), etc. Allies can be found anywhere, and these people cannot be in your group, but can benefit you ultimately. Based on your choices, you can gain the people of Fallout as friends or enemies. They can give you hints, get you further in the game, give you weapons, give you caps (Fallout money), etc. You can side with the good, bad, or neutral people as you like. There are more kinds of enemies than in COD as well. Instead of only people (or dogs, in some cases), Fallout has creative enemies such as the many types of mutants and killers you can battle. Mutated versions of insects (ants, praying mantis, wasps, etc.), humans, crabs called Mirelurks and Swamplurks, chameleons (Deathclaws), and even bears (Yao Guai) can be found. More types of enemies make the game more exciting with surprises to face with these enemies. Go Fallout! Sources: fallout.wikia.com
Fallout games vs. Call of Duty games

Versus-as compared to or as one of two choices; in contrast with: traveling by plane versus traveling by train. Abbreviation: v., vs. The title of this debate is Fallout games vs. Call of Duty games. It is neither Fallout weapons vs. Call of Duty weapons nor the similarities of Fallout and COD games. "We all love the game play, we only get bored of the guns,perks, and maps." We only get bored. How true is that with COD, that you even admit it. With Fallout, you have an entire variety of items to use and explore. That way, you don't beat the game in an hour unlike COD, where the goals are simple. The more time the game is given to develop, the more the creators get to be creative and actually improve the game instead of adding maybe one weapon or map that changes the game. The changes from Fallout 3 to New Vegas included new characters, weapons, etc. One thing about COD also bugging me is the strange, Crawler or Gas zombies. It is not even possible that humans could have mutated into those "zombies". Just like the Hellhounds' creation. Takeo Masaki even said "That could not ever have been human!" Go Fallout! Sources: My brain. And thank you for mentioning that I am a she (unlike previous arguments).
Fallout games vs. Call of Duty games

Clearly my opponent did not get what I was saying, this debate must be argued about the similarities like the guns with these you cannot compare a FPS and a RPG. She never set up how the debate will be view and i set those parameters and so far she has ignored my point on how we can only compare the similarities of the games, not how the game play is. Now what my opponent wants you to think call of duty is over made comes out with a new one every year however thats what makes the game. We all love the game play, we only get bored of the guns,perks, and maps. So making a game every year improves call of duty as it evolves every time it comes out. Yet we must look toward her Fallout 3 which released games and takes years to have another game, and playing fallout for hours and hours and logging 24 or more hours of game play it gets boring and you will have to wait for years to get it.
Fallout games vs. Call of Duty games

First of all, laser is spelled as so, not lazer. Second of all, Fallout and COD are not only about killing and weapons. Sure, it's for fun, but there has to be some meaning to them. At least, Fallout is. It has a more open story then COD does; the killing just put in to explain the horrors of the Wasteland. It's not all about the death, but the people you interact with and the decisions you have to make to survive. That's purely what Fallout is: trying to survive after the fallout. As for the shooting, head shots and grenades will kill, if you have enough experience. If you are not skilled enough, you will miss that shot to the head. The first person view doesn't show that you will kill them. VATS (Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System) is a system used (from your Pip-Boy, I suppose) to easily lock on to your enemies. Fallout is a fast-pased and exciting game, and you'll need VATS in case you miss that shot, especially at a low level. As you get more experienced and get more exp. points, you will easier kill your target, just like in real life. COD takes away that challenge. Fallout also has special perks in the game to help you out in the game because it's more difficult than COD to play. It's more complex and contains more thought. An example is in COD: World at War. The first scene is one person cussing out another one and eventually killing him. That's just for useless violence. Zombies (or Nazi Zombies, some call them) have also been added in COD just to add effect. The public loves zombies, so why not put them in a game about WAR? The Hellhounds and their variants don't even have plausible explanation for existing. A mutated dog is possible. But one with flames streaking out from them and somehow surviving is long from existing. Perhaps in one's imagination. The ghouls, or Fallout's version of zombies, have been created from the radiation from the nuclear bombs. That makes sense. And the cyberdog, Rex, in New Vegas is possible because of more advanced technology. The army fighting zombies does not, unless there was an apocalypse. As for their Nazi name, that couldn't have been possible unless a group containing only Nazis had been infected with the virus. The old Nazis couldn't be either, because they're long dead. "Even then you will never kill a overlord super human in one shot to the head.)" It's Super Mutant Overlord. And if it was Overlord Super Human, there should be an an before it. Super Mutant Overlords were also only in Fallout 3, and only if you got the Broken Steel DLC. If you had a powerful enough weapon, you could kill one in one shot. If you are experienced and have an advanced Fallout weapon, then it is possible. And back to the DLC's, that's another good thing about Fallout. Instead of coming out with new games every year like COD does, Fallout brings in DLC's to save the fans of Fallout, such as myself, money. Go Fallout! Sources: fallout.wikia.com; callofduty.wikia.com Question: What is not a wikia?
The surviving members of "Laughing Coffin" should've been put on trial upon awakening from SAO

In the anime and manga series "Sword Art Online", 10,000 individuals were trapped inside a video game called Sword Art Online (the franchise's namesake) through an advanced Virtual Reality (VR) device which could not be safely removed. No one could awake in the real world until somebody beat the game (which happened after 2 years or so of the game's duration). If a player was killed within the game, the VR device would emit deadly microwaves in the player's brain and kill the player in real life. Players within Sword Art Online (SAO for sake of shortness) were able to kill other players within the game, causing the VR device to kill their victim in real life. Within SAO there was a Guild (that is, an alliance of players) known as "Laughing Coffin", which consisted entirely of players who would "PK" (Player-Kill) other players. As the information above would infer, their victims were killed in the "real world" by the VR's microwaves. Upon awakening in the real world, a player named "Kirito" testified to Japanese authorities the events which had transpired inside SAO. The resolution of this debate is thus: Upon awakening in the real world, the former members of Laughing Coffin who survived SAO to its conclusion should've been put on trial in a criminal court. This excludes those who were with the Laughing Coffin guild for the sole purpose of infiltrating it with intent to participate in opposing it. And despite the fact that "Sword Art Online" is a work of fiction, for this debate both parties will assume that the actions described and portrayed in the franchise actually happened, so that this debate isn't automatically ended on the spot by Con saying "SAO isn't real so this whole debate is null". First Round is for acceptance. Burden of Proof is on Pro. Good luck.
Chicken fries are good

My opponent begins his first argument with a fallacious appeal to emotion, and anecdotal evidence. Of course these types of evidence are extremely questionable at best, and completely wrong at worst. My opponent did not decline my definition of good, so for some thing to be good, then it is the thing you ought to do. good - Ought to do. This is a very important thing when deciding if something is good. If chicken fries are good, then they are the thing you ought to do. This could mean two different things. A) If chicken fries are good, then you ought to eat them for every meal. This is actually very unhealthy. Eating chicken fries for every meal would lead to major increase in sodium and fat intake. This would lead to things like population wide obesity. Or having way too much salt in a diet. Chicken fries would lead to millions of deaths. How is something that causes people to die a good thing? Or causes them all to be extremely over weight? Chicken fries are clearly not good. They are neutral at best. While one could occasionally indulge on chicken fries, eating them is permissible, it doesn't matter either way. B) If chicken fries are good, then why do you destroy them. If you ought to do what is good, and chicken fries are good, then all humans should do is make chicken fries. Destroying them is evil, and eating the fries is evil. However in your argument for chicken fries, the person you appeal to is doing the evil act of destroying what is good. In my closing argument, I ask, does my opponent devote his life to eating what is good? For every meal, and every time he eats? If he answers no, then chicken fries are not good. Or does my opponent spend his life doing what he ought, making chicken fries, and making sure that no one destroys what is good, if my opponent answers no then chicken fries are not good. If my opponent answers no to any of those questions the debate is automatically won, that chicken fries are not good.
Chicken fries are good

Lets let the people answer this question. According to grubgrade. com, "I did kind of enjoy Fiery Chicken Fries enough to give them a diagonally pointed thumbs up, but they"re really lacking the heat. .. .I love the colorful packaging (good job marketing team) and it works great for grubbing on the go complete with a spot to hold your dipping sauce. You"ve got your choice of BBQ, Honey Mustard, Ranch, Zesty, Buffalo and Sweet & Sour, and Chicken Fries Sauce. I went with Ranch because it seemed like the natural choice for a spicy chicken product. There"s a nice selection of dipping sauces to choose from which is a plus. " Even Jesus loves chicken fries. Look at Psalm 34:8. "Taste and see that the chicken fries is good; blessed is the man who takes refuge in him. "
Blood is only made up of DNA, Oxygen, and water

"There is no iron in your blood if there is, every time you breathe in oxygen your more likely to get iron poisoning there is such thing as iron poisoning." There are body functions which help regulate the iron amount and with almost every other substance, if not then we would die from overflowing with blood, overflowing water which would make us drown, and overfilling with oxygen to the point that we pop like a balloon. Same thing with zinc. Therefore two of them are sufficient enough for my side of the resolution to be proved. But also it has been said that blood carries plasma, "plasma, a yellowish liquid that carries nutrients, hormones, and proteins throughout the body". http://kidshealth.org... and dna is a apart of plasma, not plasma a part of dna.
Blood is only made up of DNA, Oxygen, and water

There is no iron in your blood if there is, every time you breathe in oxygen your more likely to get iron poisoning there is such thing as iron poisoning. https://en.wikipedia.org... There is no salt in your blood if there is, every time you breathe that salt will take the moisture out of your blood and potentially kill you There is no metal or zinc in your blood if there is there could be metal poisoning. http://en.wikipedia.org... Your blood is just made up of three simple things Oxygen, Water, and DNA That's It!
governments should implement a 'fat tax'

con argues that if you can afford to eat fatty, you earned it. this ignores that fatty food is the cheapest food out there. that's why poor people can struggle with weight, ause their cheapest options is fatty food. con agues that you shouldn't expect health insurance if you are fat. well, that's one approach we coud take. but my debate assumes we are going to cover their expenses to some degree. this isn't going to change any time soon, so given that practical consideration, what should we do? and that's where i say the fat tax. con should be arguing with the premise that we will cover the expesnes, since that's the practicla reality. the debate has the wrong focus on this point. the fat tax on people who die early is just fate. same way medicare and social security for a lot of people will never come to fruitition cause they die before they are able to reap the benefits. con argues taxes would just make their lives more miserable. well, that's just life. it will cause some to eat less and be more active, which is a good thing. and it will cause the taxes on everyone else to be lower, and for the fat people to be more self suffiicent as a tax load, which is also a good thing.
governments should implement a 'fat tax'

In my mind, the Boston Tea Party was more about taxing a simple luxury, that many enjoyed. Tobacco is very similar, and attempts to eradicate the users through taxation will fail, unless the taxers convince the populace that the plant itself needs to be eradicated. Good luck eradicating a plant, that so many love. Here is an opportunity for the high chins, to make examples of the low brows, the proles. Ever read 1984? Fatness is about "The pursuit of happiness." Ever heard that phrase? It is becoming alarmingly extinct here in the land of capitalism. I would say if you earned enough to afford the food you like, then so be it, enjoy! Do not expect to have a cushion that will catch you when you fall, AKA health insurance. Your choice is your fate, do not gamble if you can't stand eating the turd that you chose to create, which may be you, or me, but the fact that a person claims they deserve to be cared for only comes from greedy souls. You assume that fatter people will consume more of the health care dollars. "im sure all those who are fat would like health care in their last days or for fat related issues. the tax is merely recouping the expenses involved." Your words. What about the fat folks that did not, consume all the possible healthcare dollars that is? They died early, yet you would impose a tax on them based on weight, height, and what other judgements? I have known a few fat men, merry and happy, very good fathers and mothers too. Their lives were not easy, and more taxes would not have fixed them, it would have made their lives less free, and only better for the taxers. They died young, but were willing to do so because they were allowed, as American citizens to "pursue happiness". I may be "fat", 6'0" 200lbs, but I am very strong, and I carry it well, and willingly, with no hope of eternal life which is that what the healthcare industry promises to it's recipients, upon the signature so many willingly give, in order to stave off their fear of death. I care not to be a contributor to the elite, because they say I should be more like they. Have you looked at many of the UN folk? There are a fat many there, behind the scenes, pursuing their version of happiness, and encouraging you to follow, with the promise of never ending life. The end result of life is death, except in a matrix world, which I will hold no quarter to prevent. Stick me up aginst a wall and shoot me please.
governments should implement a 'fat tax'

'taxing fat could lead to revolution' i don't think the boston tea party as you cite was about taxing vice. but regardless, i supposeit could lead to revolt. hopefully given the majority would be needed to pass the tax, it's not like the fat folks would win. plus they are on the fatter side, so in a war they might get worn out sooner.... im sure all those who are fat would like health care in their last days or for fat related issues. the tax is merely recouping the expenses involved. how to do it? a copule weigh ins a year, and if you want to go more often to save money, so be it. i'm not tryin to argue about rationing food to the populatce, i want them to have freedom to eat what they want. they just have to pay a tax if they get fat. it seems con's only real point is that it might be 'revolution worthy' to have a fat tax.
governments should implement a 'fat tax'

It is hard to know where to start with this debate as your suggestion has so many implications in regard to human rights and personal freedom. It is what it is, this will be fun, and in the end you will hopefully realize that sin taxation causes improvement in the elites living standards, by decreasing the living standards of the perceived sinner, as an example to the possible future sinner. Taxation based on personal choices, in order to further feed the elitists, while starving the poor of their simple pleasures, cigarettes, alcohol, sex, and FAT in this case, is a cyclical idea that all regimes ascribe to, and result in revolution every time. Think Boston Tea Party! What will be the standards of judgement for taxation on fatness? It is your idea, please describe your vision a little more. Weekly weigh ins at the doctors? Monthly, yearly? Maybe if we just fed the populace a determined ration that would guarantee no weight gain that would suffice? An egg an a bowl of rice per day+ 2 liters water and a chocolate chip? Milk and cookies on Sundays? Only lettuce and water on Monday?
governments should implement a 'fat tax'

the idea, that heart disease and other bad health effects from being fat causes an increase in health care costs, in a country that is heavily subsidized by the government. so, whatever it costs should be made up for in fat taxes. my understanding is right now the costs of being fat to the government are not sufficiently made up for in sales taxes. if it were, it would be more prohibitive for over eaters, so they would't eat and be lazy as much, and it'd be ensure the government is getting reimbursed for what it spends. could make an exception for medically known reasons for being over weight. i might agree with making the tax contingent on taking any government benefits, i'm not sure. probably along the idea of the 'obama care penalty' logic, i'd tax all who are fat, cause everyone needs health care at some point, especially notably those who are fat.