BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Forza is the best racing simulator series ever

1) Scores of all Mario Kart games vs Forza gamesSuper Mario Kart (1992) =...................................... GameRankings = 93.60%http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart 64 (1996) = ........................................... GameRankings = 87.01%, Metacritic = 83/100http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart: Super Circuit (2001) = ....................... GameRankings = 91.54%, Metacritic = 93 of 100http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart: Double DashR52; (2003) = ................ GameRankings = 87.20%, Metacritic = 87 out of 100http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart DS (2005) = ........................................................................................... Metacritic = 91 out of 100http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart Wii (2008) = ............................................ GameRankings = 82.07%, Metacritic = 82 out of 100http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart 7 (2011) = ............................................... GameRankings = 85.17%, Metacritic = 85 out of 100http://en.wikipedia.org...Mario Kart 8 (2014) =................................................ GameRankings = 88.52%, Metacritic = 88/100http://en.wikipedia.org...Average score = 87.87% from Game Rankings, 87 from MetacriticNow lets examine Forza. http://en.wikipedia.org...Forza Motorsport (2005) = Game Rankings = 93.05%, Metacritic = 92Forza Motorsport 2 (2007) = Game Rankings = 89..98%, Metacritic = 90Forza Motorsport 3 (2009) = Game Rankings = 92.26%, Metacritic = 92Forza Motorsport 4 (2011) = Game Rankings = 90.66%, Metacritic = 91Forza Horizon (2012) = Game Rankings = 86.19%, Metacritic = 85Forza Motorsport 5 (2013) = Game Rankings = 79.49%, Metacritic = 79Forza Horizon 2 (2014) = Game Rankings = 87.47%, Metacritic = 86Average score = 88.44% from Game Rankings, 87.57 from MetacriticSO TO RECAPMario Kart Series = 87.87% from Game Rankings, 87 from MetacriticForza Series = 88.44% from Game Rankings, 87.57 from MetacriticWait a second....Ah f*ck me, I guess Forza actually is better than Mario Kart Vote most points to Pro, but at least give me source points because I just went through a LOT of research just to figure out that I'm wrong and I deserve credit for at least that >.>
Forza is the best racing simulator series ever

1) Car Class and CustomizationConceded, since you cannot customize your own car in Mario Kart to the same extent that you can in Forza games2) Continued improvements and expanding depthPro argues that Forza is the best series because it continues to add new aspects and qualities to the game, But Mario Kart does this as well. In Mario Kart 8 alone, you now have:1 - Anti-Gravity Vehicles2 - New Tracks 3 - New Items4 - New Characters, such as Baby Rosalina, who is the equivalent of Baby Elsa in the Mario Kart world. 5 - New Vehicle Combinations, where you can now choose tires, gliders, chassis, or go for the brand-new ATV for races6 - Mario Kart TV (A multiplayer thing)http://www.youtube.com...http://www.primagames.com...So in conclusion, Mario Kart adds new and exciting content to its games just as frequently as Forza video games do3) 'Forza meets the standards set forth by the term Best'While the term 'best' can be related to many different aspects of a video game, one of the best ways to determine which series is the 'best' is to simply compare reviews of the game and sales of the game. Mario Kart 8 has a metacritic score of 88, and a user score of 9.1http://www.metacritic.com...Forza Horizon 2, the most recent release, on the other hand, only holds a metacritic score of 86, and a user score of 8.0http://www.metacritic.com...So right off the bat, Mario Kart 8 is a hair better rated than Forza Horizon 2 from critics, and user wise the gap grows bigger, with actual gamers giving Mario Kart 8 a solid 9.1 out of 10 compared to just 8.0 out of 10 for Forza Horizons 2. Thats a full letter Grade difference with Mario Kart getting an A from gamers, and Forza getting a B from gamersIn terms of Aggregate scores, Mario Kart 8 also edges out Forza Horizon 2 from GameRankings by a score of 88.52% to 86.25%, the difference of about a B+ for Mario Kart 8, and a B for Forza Horizons 2http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...So, while Forza is certainly very realistic and very real-world-like, critics and actual gamers alike both prefer Mario Kart 8 over Forza Horizons 2, if even in some cases only by a hair. That therefore makes Mario Kart 8 the 'best' Sales wise on the other hand, its not even close. As of February 2013, the Forza games have sold over 10 million copies.http://en.wikipedia.org...While 10 million is a very respectable amount, Mario Kart on the other hand has sold 100 milion copies to datehttp://en.wikipedia.org...100 - Million..... Thats TEN TIMES the number of how many Forza games have been sold. Even if you cut in half the number of sales Mario Kart has made (Since Mario Kart first came out in 1992 whereas Forza didnt first come out til 2005), Mario Kart games have outsold Forza games about 5 times over. This clearly indicates that Mario Kart is the best racing simulator series ever since it is insanely more popular than Forza games are, or any other racing series for that matter. http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...I'll end here for now, back to you Blade
We can't love only one person for our entire life

Honestly I am confused why sources are not allowed since it would be nice to use Psychology or Biology sources to see if attraction can be indefinite. Nonetheless I accept this rule. As con, I will be negating the resolution and therefore I must argue the case that it is possible to love another person for an entire lifetime. Now I could play semantics and say you will love your mom and dad your whole life but no, I assume this debate will discuss romantic love between two individuals from the moment they develop romantic feelings for each other to the time one of them dies from natural causes, lets just say age. BoP must be on Pro so I will await his arguments.
Be it resolved that gay marriage be legalized in the United States

First, I would like to sum up my opponent's arguments: 1.) gay couples show higher rates of domestic abuse 2.) Gay couples carry a larger amount of diseases 3.) Marriage is not a right 4.)Children need a mother and a father. First, I would like to address the violence aspect. It is proven that domestic abuse and violence are more prevalent in oppressed communities, who are not given equal social and societal privileges and recognition. The same goes for the spread of disease (Like AIDS), drug use, and suicide. Gay people are not inherently violent, it is the result of the surroundings that most gays are placed in. This is also evident in the African American community. Although African Americans make up only 13% of the total U.S. population, they accounted for 49% of HIV/AIDS cases in 2007. They are also about tree times as likely to commit brutal murder than white non-Hispanic males. This is the case with every minority, and being a minority is the only common factor. Being gay has nothing to do with it, not being widely accepted does. Marriage isn't a right: I agree. I say that we revoke and dissolve all marriages, including the heterosexual ones. Heterosexual marriage isn't any less valid, but it is no more valid than a gay marriage. Children need both a mother and a father to function correctly. This simply isn't the case. Most major studies have prove that the only thing a child needs to have a stable, nuclear (two parental figures) family environment to function. It helps economically: Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the City's economy and $184 million to the State's economy. Sources: http://www.psychpage.com... http://www.idvaac.org... http://www.hds.harvard.edu... http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov...
Be it resolved that gay marriage be legalized in the United States

Resolution: Be it resolved that gay marriage be legalized in the United StatesPro argues for the legalization of gay marriage in the Untied StatesCon argues against the legalization of gay marriage in the United StatesOutline:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main case (No rebuttals)Round 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Rebuttals and conclusion (To balance out the last word advantage, CON can rebut two points while PRO can only rebut one point).Rules: No Ad Hominems or various logical fallacies Failure to abide by the outline or rules, while automatically result in the loss of a conduct point and further punishments as the readers see fit. Good Luck!
Worshiping God

My opponent constantly accuses god of "not cleaning up after his mess" or "not fixing our issues." However, let us examine these arguments. If God isn't fixing all our 'problems,' then he must not find them problematic. Just because YOU don't like what's happening doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Just because you think there are 'issues' that need fixing does not mean that God sees it the same way. Regardless of whether God is right or wrong in not 'cleaning up this mess' [though saying God is wrong on a subjective matter is a bit illogical to begin with], HE STILL CREATED US. As I stressed last round, this is quite enough to deserve our praise and worship. MY opponent failed to make any argument countering, simply making parallel arguments about God's duty to clean up after us and nature. Even if god made our lives completely horrible, he still MADE OUR LIVES. If that doesn't deserve worship, nothing does. My opponent claims that he would rather not exist at all than to live in pain and suffering. This is ludicrous, and he's clearly lying to either us or himself. Our lives, no matter how poor the quality thereof, are worth everything to us. Take the lyrics of the Three Days Grace song, Pain: "I'd rather feel pain than nothing at all." I'm sure we can all relate. Nothingness, for most people, is the worst possible outcome. My opponent asks: "On this earth he shows no justice, why would we expect him to in the afterlife?" As I have pointed out, God does not directly interfere with affairs here on Earth. All he did was set up some laws, make some matter, and watch. We should not hold him accountable for everything that results from this, especially since the only people being 'hurt' by his 'actions' are infinitely unimportant compared to him. And my opponent tried to argue against my argument, "So let's say there's an extremely generous 90% chance that God won't help us if we worship him. That makes a 10% chance that he will. Since God not helping us isn't a loss, and God helping us is a gain, the average value is still a gain. Therefore, we should indeed expect it to help us if we worship God, and thus we should worship him for this reason as well." By saying "Refer to last question and why should we worship the cause of our pain?" In this argument, 'why we should worship the source of our pain' is because it might help us, and we have nothing to lose. My opponent's argument failed utterly in addressing my own on this issue. This argument was not about god deserving worship, it was about it being helpful to us to worship him. For BOTH reasons, we should worship god. God created us. That alone warrants worship. Also, worshiping him is likely to bring you in favor with him, which is a good reason on its own. PRO for great justice.
Worshiping God

My opponenet offers several scenarios, and explains how under each it makes little sense to worship God. His argument is reminiscent of the Epicurean paradox: "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" Rather than basing his scenarios on ability and will to eliminate evil, my opponent focuses on perfection, omnipotence, and lovingness. For my first argument, I will simply add another scenario, in which god has all of these traits. I. God could value free will and his scientific laws. If God did not allow any injustice to be done, and all there was was good, good would no longer be remarkable. It would probably lose its taste for God. God isn't some puppet master, controlling our every action, deciding how strong the wind is today or tomorrow. He allows us to do whatever we will, he allows the universe to unfold as it will, whether that end in injustice here on earth or not. Also, he has the power to make this perceived injustice quite just. Victims of injustice can be given just rewards in the afterlife as compensation, injustice-doers can be given just punishment. I now see no validity in my opponenet's arguments. There's no reason to not worship god in this case, and there's plenty of reason to do it [he made the universe, including us, etc.] II. Irrespecitve of whether God's character merits worship, God should be worshipped for self-gain. If God exists, he is likely to reward those who have worshipped him, or at least it is rational for a person to think this. Thus, based on this line of reasoning, God should be worshipped. 4 rouinds, ergo that'll be it for now.
Worshiping God

Here's my problem. God simply cannot be omnipotent, perfect, and loving (which Christianity and other major religions preach). Take life as a case study, all around us there are gross injustices. Cut throat business men get ahead, good guys finish last. Charity and kindness are laughed at, materialism and opulence are exalted. Millions are slaughtered in war, genocide, natural disasters; others are tortured, raped, beaten, scarred. Diseases ravage and deplete entire generations, children grow up with little or no knowledge of their parents. Is this the master plan of an omnipotent, perfect, loving God? By all those who look to logic and reason as their guide this cannot be. Thus we are left with several options, God is loving but is not omnipotent and perfect. Then why would you worship him? That would be like worshiping your parents. They created you and love you and are superior in some ways (wisdom, experience) but they are prone to error and should perhaps be respected but to worship them would just be crazy. The next scenario is that God is omnipotent but not perfect (if he gives to injustice he can't be perfect), and he is not exactly loving (see: injustices). Again why worship him? Out of fear? Is that any way to live? To be afraid of a being that obviously is not just (in this scenario), that has lower moral standards than most of the humans on this planet, a supposedly greatly inferior species. Next scenario, God is omnipotent and perfect and therefore does not concern himself with those who are inferior to him (us). Again why worship him? If he does not care about us, why should we waste our time worshiping him? Lastly if God does not exist why worship him? I think that one is self-explanatory. So here is my challenge to my opponent whoever you shall be. Prove to me that it makes sense, logically, to worship God. By the way the debate will be four rounds, just to add some variety. Good luck to my opponent, may the best debater (not ideology) win.
why is the world of god like this lets seriously debate and decide the winner

God is real. There is only one God, and he began everything. Something had to create the first thing. If you do not believe in God, what created everything? The Big Bang? what created that? God. God is the starting of all things, and he will be the one to end all things. There is only one God. He controls everything, and he sent us to earth so we could worship him. There must be exactly one God. If there was two equally powerful Gods, then they would argue, and nothing would ever get done. If there were infinite Gods, and one controlled another, and so on and so on, then nothing would ever get done. It would be an endless chain of Gods. So yes, there is exactly one god. God is the all powerful. He created everything. He made every thing perfect, the shape, the orbit, the temperature of everything in the universe. it is not only chance that everything came out perfectly. Even the greatest scientists have been confused by how complicated everything is. A universe can technically have thing almost magically popping out of nowhere or disappearing, that all of these laws of nature do not have to exist. But they do, and God created them. God Must Exist!
why is the world of god like this lets seriously debate and decide the winner

I prove only truth. my truth is here of being original torah and last torah genie and original son of jewish god. Every gods rules through genies and genies power works only when they are true in anything as they loose from any truth if some more truth is then them. What about the world of god living of gods creation they act on every understanding and thinking and thoughts and dreams and if they come to know anything which blocks there mind then to keep there mind clean they keep there mind clean and even same thing to genies without mind who are fake genies of original genie. So you decide world of god is real or fake and if any genie is lie then they loose from other genies who is more true then them. So do you think the world of god of all religions in the world is true or fake ? if it is not true and i win then end all religions of god and gods with there genies and all there creations of religion except jewish religion and my religion. When genies power works with any truth which has no more truth then the previous truth then it proves truth is nothing but just thinking of humans or of anyone in the real universe dream and its dream and the world of god of all religions is dream for humans.
The Bible teaches that only certain people will go to Heaven

I do apologize for not posting last round, I was extremely busy with school work. Next round, could you please explain why you feel those verses prove that anyone can get into heaven, without regard to their soul, you should not rely strictly on a source as your evidence, you should elaborate yourself on it. Another quick note: I did not mention that I will be using the English Standard Version in Round One, my dearest apologies. First: Romans 3:23 states that, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Three chapters later, Paul states that "the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." The death there is, in the Greek, thanatos, which is Strong's word 2288. From these two verses, we see that every person has sinned, and that the cost of sinning is thanatos, which is eternal separation from God. Romans 10:9-10 "because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved." John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." Now, we have: Everyone is a sinner Sinners go to hell Anyone can be saved through a simple process Only those who are saved will go to Heaven Therefore, only certain people will go to heaven. Those certain people, are those who are saved. Everyone has the ability to be saved, not everyone chooses that choice, though. The Bible teaches that only believers, a certain group of people, will go to Heaven.
The Bible teaches that only certain people will go to Heaven

"For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; it is those who keep it who will be declared just. When Gentiles who do not have the law keep it as by instinct, these men although without the law serve as a law for themselves. It shows that the demands of the law are written in their hearts. Their conscience bears witness together with that law, their thoughts will accuse or defend them on the day when, in accordance with the gospel I preach, God will pass judgement on the secrets of men through Jesus Christ. " Romans 2: 13-16 New American Standard Bible 1970
The Bible teaches that only certain people will go to Heaven

In a comment you wrote, mathgeekjoe, you said that the Bible teaches that everyone can get to Heaven, depending on their soul. I disagree. I feel that the Bible teaches that everyone can get to Heaven, but only if they are true, born-again Christians, or true Jews if Jesus had not died yet. For this debate, both of us may only use the Bible as our source, and interpretations of the Bible (i.e. sermons, footnotes). Please be consistent with the Bible you use (use a single version), and cite it once, during round one. Cite any other sources at they appropriate spots. The format for the debate will be as follows: Round 1: Rules, acceptance, citations Round 2: First Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals, second arguments Round 4: Final rebuttals, closing statements. The time to argue is three days, with maximum arguments being at 10,000 characters. Voting shall last for ten days. Voting will be conducted by a seven point voting style, with no restrictions concerning Elo score. Good luck!
Annoying Orange is annoying.

first of all it is impossible to be annoying and funny at the same time . either one or another. Orange (voiced by Daneboe) is the lead protagonist and main character, appearing in every episode since the series began on October 9, 2009. He has yellow teeth, grey eyes, and a braying laugh. He is known for his puns which he uses in every episode. 1. puns are funny 2. sarcasm is used 3. it makes audience pay atention
Annoying Orange is annoying.

"Annoying" and "funny" are simple opinion words. Also, it being funny or having a video game or franchise is irrelevant to this debate. Also, I clearly specified in round one that "Annoying Orange" is referring to the character. Reason 1- He laughs at his own jokes. Reason 2- he bugs his friends. Reason 3- he just plain acts like a moron. Reason 4- he is a horrible role model. All of these are evident, regardless of if you are watching the youtube videos or the Cartoon Network TV series.
There is strong evidence that sexual orientation can be effected by genetics.

My evidence is statistical analysis that shows sharing specific genes increases the probability that you will find the same sex attractive. The topic of the debate was not that sexual orientation is 100% determined by genetics but that genetics do infact play a role which is demonstrable by the evidence I gave. I would like to point out that my opponent has done nothing to show the evidence is in error. [b]"It's in our instintics that every one of us, yes including the other sexuals, was to be paired with the opposite sex."[/b] This statement is very vague, if the claim is that as a matter of instinct we are [u]all[/u] attracted to the opposite sex then this is demonstrably false....as gay people actually exist. [b]"If it is indeed in the genetics the why would the genetic makeup of a gay man not have the qualities of a woman.[/b] Sexual orientation and sexual Identity are two separate issues. There are men with gender identity disorder(brain of woman, feels like they're a woman) who are only attracted to woman. Likewise there are masculine men that are attracted to other men. I would like to point out you never explained why genetics playing a role in sexual orientation would necessary require that gay man would have the qualities. [b]"He can't reproduce if he is only attracted to men so why would his DNA make him a guy?"[/b] Homosexuals are not sterile. [b]The thing is, it doesn't make since for a GENETICALLY homosexual not be able to reproduce with other GENETICALLY homosexuals.[/b] Con never explains this statement, just merely asserts it. The majority of con's points are non sequitur and are borderline incoherent. He has done nothing to counter the strong link between genetics and sexual orientation I have provided.