BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Language barriers have a net positive effect on the video game industry

Resolution: Language barriers have a net positive effect on the video game industry ==DEFINITIONS:== Video Game Industry: The industry that specialises in the development and promotion of video games. Video Games: An electronic or computerized game played by manipulating images on a video display or television screen. [http://dictionary.reference.com...] Language Barrier: barrier to communication resulting from speaking different languages. [http://dictionary.reference.com...] ==CON ARGUMENTS:== ===1) The cost of translating games=== Translating a game from Japanese to English, French, Italian, Spanish is quite a costly process. First and foremost, translators need to be hired to translate the text. After that, you need voice actors, which do not come cheap. Most games easily have thousands of words of text. The cost of translating is outlined here : http://www.clarktranslations.com.... The cheapest goes at $.14 per word. $.14 x 5000 = $700. This must be done for several languages, and 500 words would be considered a low amount of text. An article here outlines the cost of a translator: http://www.gamespot.com.... A voice actor got $500,000 for game voice-over, and on average $760 for a 4 hour session of recording. There also must be software to accommodate different words, e.g. Chinese Kanji, Russian Cyrillic, etc. They must also translate the game manuals, covers, and back to accommodate different languages. The above costs would not be needed if there weren't language barriers. Ergo, the language barriers are detrimental to the video game industry. ===2) The cost of promoting the game overseas=== After translation, the video game makers must then promote their game in an area with a different language. They must hire someone to promote the game in that area. They must also hire people to translate the advertisements into a different language, sometimes changing them altogether to accommodate the different words (e.g.Changing from English Latin words to Chinese Kanji). Ergo, the cost of this also detrimental to the video game industry ===3) Quality of the finished product=== When translating from language to language different words can mean different things. Therefore, grammar can be off because of differing sentence structure and grammar, or words are off due to strict translation. This makes the game worse than it is. Ergo, the ruining of the finished product is definitely detrimental to the video game industry. I await my opponent's response.
The two party system should be abolished.

My opponents alternative is to have no political parties at all. But, the problem is, the framers absolutely hated political parties. They despised them. The constitutions intent was to set up a government, not set up political parties. But, they formed anyway because Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had opposing views about the powers of the federal government, Jefferson wanted a limited government, Hamilton a more powerful one. There was never anyway to get around the fact that political parties will develop no matter what as long as groups of people oppose each others views. Furthermore, my opponents suggestion is to abolish political parties and elect the 535 members of Congress plus the president in a democratic matter. But, wouldn't this mean instead of 2 prevalent views in Washington there are 535 prevalent views? This means LESS will get done. Not more. And let's say 200 of these people have similar views. Would they not band together to try to pass their legislation and control Congress? That is what a political party is. A two party system works better than the alternative. I wish to have a longer debate on this topic with my opponent if he wishes to.
The two party system should be abolished.

First of all, my opponent seems to think that I support more than two parties. This is not the case. I agree that more parties would lead to less efficiency. It stands to reason, however, that if more parties make it less efficient then no parties would be more efficient. As to the statement that I didn't offer an alternative, that's it. Similar to our current government, but without the individual labels or the electoral college. A "regular democracy" is a system of government in which the people decide who to elect with a system of voting. Imagine our current voting system, but without the interference of an electoral college. Furthermore, my opponent claims that the current two party system works, but that is simply not the case. All you have to do is look at what's going on in Washington. Congress is in a constant stalemate because the two parties are more worried about the success of their party instead of the success of the country.
The two party system should be abolished.

My opponent still has not provided another system that will replace the two party political system, a more democratic system does not mean there are more than two major political parties. Furthermore, what is a "regular democracy?" C1. The United States has had a two party system. Why change something which works? Since the days of George Washington, there have always been two political parties. It first started as the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans (with the exception of the era of good feelings). Now it is Republicans and Democrats. This is part of the United State's tradition. The United States has had it's ups and downs but, the United State's government does work. The two party system only allows for two separate platforms to be in the government and actually have a chance for running for government. Imagine what would happen if you have 3 or 4 completely separate platforms all in Congress. The United States government would be much less efficient. Furthermore, I ask my opponent to answer the question of how can you ban the two party system, even if it was wanted.
The two party system should be abolished.

First off let me apologize to my opponent for the short debate. I haven't been on this site for a while and I forgot that the acceptance counted as a round. With that out of the way, my opponent challenged me to come up with a replacement for the two party system. I think it would be better with a regular democracy. Don't get me wrong, I don't adhere to the Democratic viewpoints, I just think the populace should elect their own leaders, without the "help" of an electoral college. As to my reasoning for the claim that the two party system has failed is because all it does is give people a reason for infighting within the government. Politicians are more worried about beating the other side than actually getting anything done. As long as there are multiple political labels compromise will always take a back seat to competition.
Golden Goose Outlet bragging

If we were like previous generations of women, We might be able to "age gracefully. " But, For most boomer women, This isn't our style. These charts improve the effectiveness of the operations by managing change well. A lot of bragging occurs on Instagram, With users regularly sharing pictures of glorious vacations, Mouthwatering meals, Adorable babies and pets, And many, Many fashion highlights. In modern culture, The elders tend [url=http://www. Goldengoosedeluxebrandsale. Com/][b]Golden Goose Outlet[/b][/url] to think of traditional culture as "primitive, " "backward, " somehow "childlike. " In traditional culture, On the other hand, The elders tend to think of modern culture as "hollow, " "ignorant, " somehow "childlike. " But modern culture tends to take over traditional culture because modern culture is powerful: it is mechanized, It moves mountains, It digs canals and drains swamps, It overwhelms, And it is seductive it glitters, It tastes sweet, It goes fast. Again, Making sure [url=http://www. Goldengoosedeluxebrandsale. Com/][b]Golden Goose[/b][/url] that your Tbone is laying completely flat. Enfin si : qu'il parle du petit peuple. The SQL count function is a simple function yet it has important uses when combined with the SQL select statement. Littleunderstood factor that enhances the effectiveness of many Sikh leaders is their traditional caste, Says Purewal. This is no different from someone who grows up in an environment that might increase their chances [b]http://www. Goldengoosedeluxebrandsale. Com/ [/b] of becoming a criminal. Arms ecstatically outstretched, Framed by grapes and vines, Legs akimbo, He has an enormous erection. And as powerful as drugs and alcohol. In the US, 70% of inmates find themselves back in Prison within the first 3 years of being released? In 2007 the United States had almost 17, 000 murders. There are also a growing number of small manufacturers that significantly tightens the competition. These things don't really mean a lot when done mechanically, Which is what's going to happen if she says, "What's wrong is I wanted you to ask about my day, " and you say, "Oh, Of course, Tell me about your day. " That [url=http://www. Goldengoosedeluxebrandsale. Com/][b]Golden Goose Shoes[/b][/url] setup doesn't leave one convinced that you actually want to hear about her day. http://www. Goldengoose-ggdb. Com/womens-starter-sneakers-c-7_16/ http://www. Goldengoosedeal. Com/men-ball-star-sneakers-c-68_69/ http://www. Goldengoose-ggdb. Com/golden-goose-mid-star-c-17/
Get rid of the border

Thank you for making this opportunity possible, and I hope to have a pleasant debate as well. Secondly, by experience from my previous debate, thanks to my opponent, I'd like to suggest a basic set of ground rules for it will be needed here on out. Round one - Opening Statement Round two - Rebuttal Round three - Rebuttal and closing statement Here I shall make my argument : It is true that the colonists have done terrible deeds in the past, and they've come to that revelation today. However, history turned out this way today into the USA. While this piece of land is stolen with forces of coercion, it is occupied by millions of families today living here, and they've lived there all of their lives. The border serves an important role for immigration, and without it, the already bad immigration system would turn to disaster. Illegal immigration would be easier than ever, therefore modern drug dealing would be easier than ever, along with some other illegal activities, and if this immigration system is abused like that, turmoil is bound to occur. I understand and respect your opinion on this situation, however, the past can't be expiated, and that's why Americans exist today, the citizens here today should not be punished for a deed they had no control over. Also, may I ask for your race? I do not want to offend you in anyway possible, I'd like to keep this a calm and fair debate.
USGF should substantially reduce its military presence in Kuwait, Afghanistan, South Korea, Turkey

"BlackNovice forfeited this round." --> 1) This doesn't address any of my 2AR claims. He drops all of my points in what could quite possibly be the worst Neg. Block ever. 2) Flow through all of my points. 3) Take note of his 1NC. Those are the only points that he can use to win the debate. FAIL
Imperialism is bad for either the imperialist or the conquered.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree, when looked at in a solely analytical way, there is evidence leading one to believe that imperialism is good for everyone. However, I strongly feel that imperialism is a truly awful thing, and, if pursued as fiercely as it is by America, will lead to our downfall. Though I do have some arguments against it that are moral or ethically based, I appreciate your desire to solely stick with facts, as there is nothing I hate more than an argument based only on feelings and emotions. The first thing that came to mind when reading your argument, was the Roman Empire. They were amazingly successful, politically, militarily, and economically. However, they became too stretched thin, which led to their collapse. This is happening to America currently, and is critical that we end this policy. One form of American imperialism has been happening for the past fifty years, and takes the form of our military. We have bases all over the world in a variety of defeated countries, such as Japan or Germany. You commonly see on the news how our army is having trouble reaching recruitment quotas and our force in Iraq is too small. However, our army is amazingly large, and one of the, if not the biggest in the world. However, a vast amount of our troops are stationed in these bases, and serving very little purpose. This is causing the collapse of our military and will lead to the lengthening, or defeat, in Iraq. Another form of American imperialism that is occurring right now is globalization. While this is a relatively good thing for the sake of the world, we are spreading our economy too much, and producing fewer and fewer things here in America. This is going to lead to our obtaining resources and products solely through imports, and when an economic collapse happens in America, (which, unfortunately will happen inevitably, what with the deficit, the Fed etc.) America, and all of it's trading partners will be SCREWED. Just look at what happened after the Great Depression. There was in essence no globalization, and Europe still felt major effects. So no, I feel that imperialism, is not only bad for the conquered, but also for the conquerors themselves.
Noah's ark account is false

Well apologize for my opponent's behavior. Anyway, if you look in the comments, you will see we're assuming for the purpose of this debate that God exists. If God, as defined, exists then God made sure that the Bible was written correctly by speaking to Moses all the things he needed to write down. So if we're taking Noah's Ark account literally, then I provide the syllogism: P1) God made sure the Bible was true. P2) The Bible tells Noah's Ark account as a literal event. C) The Noah's Ark account actually happened. So that means that my side is supported. I can see how my opponent would overlook that though. According to a study done where the logic and reasoning center of a Chrisians brain was shut down, you don't have to be that smart to be an atheist: http://www.psypost.org... Since my opponent forfeited, that's all I need to say.
Chemotherapy Destroy Lives of Cancer Victims

I know for a fact that chemotherapy is long considered the most effective cancer-fighting treatment for some people! but according to the new study chemotherapy may actually make cancer worse.The extremely aggressive therapy, which kills both cancerous and healthy cells indiscriminately. Can cause healthy cells to secrete a protein that sustains tumor growth and resistance to further treatment. Scientists found that healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B which boosts cancer cell survival. and before you take chemotherapy I'm sure the patient will be warned the danger of chemotherapy. and as a fact, 50 percent of some hospitals died because of this treatment and I don't want to take that 50/50 risk. I know you know all that in some cases cancer will transfer after the chemotherapy and it will be worts. I heard lots of news. and along the process chemotherapy will destroy your healthy cells and as a result, your body will have a hard time to recover and Chemotherapy and radiation have even worse long-term recovery rates than surgery. This is largely because they resort to toxic methods of "bludgeoning" a person"s cancer to death. These toxic treatments harm healthy parts of a person"s body along with cancer, thereby making long-term recovery difficult. Tell me if this story sounds familiar: Someone you know finds out they have cancer. They have surgery, multiple rounds of chemotherapy, and radiation. During treatment, cancer shrinks and disappears. The doctors tell them they can"t find any cancer in their body. They are "NED" (No Evidence of Disease). They announce to the world that they are "cancer free." Everyone is relieved and excited and celebrates. Some time goes by, and the patient has more tests only to find out that the cancer is back. And this time it"s spread to their liver, their lungs, their brain, their bones" They go through more rounds of chemo and radiation, but the treatments don"t work as well the second time. The doctors can"t seem to stop cancer. Every time you see the patient, they look worse and worse. Eventually, after a difficult battle ranging from a few months to a few years, they die. So what happened? This is what happened: Chemotherapy is toxic poison. It works by attacking rapidly dividing cells in your body, which affects your hair, nails, skin, digestive system, and blood. This process makes you very sick and can cause permanent damage to various parts of your body, including your brain, liver, hearing, and reproductive organs. Chemotherapy attacks rapidly reproducing cells, which includes some types of cancer cells. But it also destroys your immune system. Your immune system is what keeps you alive. Everything I presented is a fact and base on a study and individual who survive cancer without undergoing chemo and radiation.
Chemotherapy Destroy Lives of Cancer Victims

I disagree with the Con and, thus, will be taking the position of the Pro in this argument, as I believe that chemotherapy is one of the best and most reliable things that we can provide for cancer patients. As the Con has not laid out a format for this debate, I will be using round one to simply state my stance, round two to provide my arguments, and round three to counter the Con's arguments along with provide a closing statement. I hope to hear from the Con soon.
Chemotherapy Destroy Lives of Cancer Victims

Chemotherapy Destroy Lives of Cancer Victims, It never helps the cancer patient to recover. It kills good cells with cancer cells in the process. I don't really recommend chemotherapy treatment for a cancer patient. I suggest going organic, healthy lifestyle, mind setting, faith in God, Support and Love of the Family and most of all Mind strengthening. I value life importantly and wants to be open-minded in all aspect of life so please let me know your thoughts. Please check this quote for people whose suffering from cancer and diseases. https://ponbee.com...
Chemotherapy Destroy Lives of Cancer Victims

In his arguments for Round 3, the Con stated many of the side effects that can be caused by chemotherapy, proceeding this list with a question of "What's the point in undergoing treatment if this will happen to you? " To this question I have a simple answer: the will to live. Sometimes you have to sacrifice something in order to gain another. In the case of cancer and chemotherapy, a patient will have to sacrifice a healthy body for a while in order to have a much higher chance of surviving cancer. The Con also stated that a chemotherapy patient "will lose lots and lots of money". While this may be true for some people, an insurance policy will pay the vast majority of the costs for most people. Also, money really doesn't matter in a life or death situation. Simply because a person can go into debt as a result of the expenses of chemotherapy certainly does not supersede that person's life! The Con also revealed that he knows a woman that has cancer and is combatting it with natural medicine and a change of lifestyle and not using chemotherapy. The con proceeded to tell that her tumor has shrunk since this. Tumors can shrink and tumors can grow. As long as it exists, she still has cancer. The natural stuff is not going to help her in the long run. The natural stuff and change of lifestyle has not cured the cancer, and time is limited. I sincerely hope this woman goes to the doctor and gets chemotherapy before the cancer has advanced to an untreatable level. Natural cures simply cannot treat cancer alone. They may be somewhat useful when they are used with treatments such as chemotherapy, but, otherwise, they simply won't work. If they did work, many people would have success stories of how they beat cancer simply with natural herbs and a change of their lifestyle. However, this is not the case. Instead, many deaths from cancer have resulted from people refusing to undergo chemotherapy and only a few people have told stories of how they beat cancer naturally, but not one of these stories has actually been verified. I maintain my position that Chemotherapy is one of the best and most effective treatments that we can give to cancer patients.
Chemotherapy Destroy Lives of Cancer Victims

Thank you. You did your research well. See the problem here is that we only say what we want to hear and to know. Imagine the fact that the side effects of chemotherapy are the following: Fatigue Hair loss Easy bruising and bleeding Infection Anemia (low red blood cell counts) Nausea and vomiting Appetite changes Constipation Diarrhea Mouth, tongue, and throat problems such as sores and pain with swallowing Nerve and muscle problems such as numbness, tingling, and pain Skin and nail changes such as dry skin and color change Urine and bladder changes and kidney problems Weight changes Chemo brain, which can affect concentration and focus Mood changes Changes in libido and sexual function Fertility problems. and so on. Whats the point in undergoing treatment if this will happen to you.? Will you agree to me that having cancer is really tough and plus the sad part is, you undergo treatment, you will feel excruciating pain, you will lose lots and lots of money, plus additional body sickness with the above mentioned, and plus you might undergo many treatments and thus prolonging your suffering. Why can't we just choose organic before going treatment? why do we always go organic when it's the last resort when your body is at it's weakest or if it's too late?. Is it all just money making thing? I never heard doctors saying plant fruits and go organic, eat healthy, mindset, exercise daily. Instead, they keep saying rest, medication, treatment. then YOU NEED THIS AMOUNT TO PROCEED WITH THE NEXT TREATMENT? seriously? can they just pay after you treat them, rather than giving them another hardship and options in life?. I know someone who survived cancer without going chemo, She doesn't have money for her treatment and so she changes her lifestyle and just live normally without thinking that she got cancer. She eats healthy food, she looks even younger, plus she doesn't have those side-effects, she doesn't stay at home, she prays and just lives the life at it's fullest but with limit and self-medication. One day she visits her hospital to check what stage is her tumor and the doctor found out that it became smaller and so she continues until now she's doing her best to become healthy and to live life at it's fullest. I got lot's of stories to tell but let me tell you one last thing. Chemotherapy is an option for rich people but what do you think with poor people and those who cannot afford it? Let's realize that going healthy, healthy lifestyle, going organic, a healthy mindset is the first priority here, the first option that we need to consider rather than risking our loved ones with this treatment (50% survives from some hospitals) and if they survive the first one how many treatments they will still undergo, How many more treatments and money they will be spent??? and how many side effects will they see our loved ones feel? If I have cancer my first option is ALL HEALTHY! and my last option is Chemo when I did everything I can. Thank you!