BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare vs. Left 4 Dead

Thank you to Ann for submitting herself to my zombie horde. I hope you have a pipe bomb. ^_- REBUTTALS I’m dropping a few points here, but I’ll make up for them with counter-arguments. Given the completely different nature of the two games, there are going to be some incompatibilities. GAMEPLAY MAPS The original L4D package came with 4 campaigns; L4D2 came with 5. Each map features several huge maps where the survivors must travel from a safe point on one side of the map to the other; each map features alternate routes and hidden areas. There is no way COD:MW has an advantage here. MULTIPLAYER And no matter what they add, they cannot balance the game to accommodate newbs and vets playing together. There is nothing particularly fun about joining your first game of COD online and getting shot in the back 30 times in a row, which is almost exactly my experience. I’ve been playing for weeks now and I’m only marginally closer to having a 1:1 Kill/Death ratio. This is not the case with L4D. The excellent range of difficulty levels allows newbs to find a game they can pwn in and vets to find the challenge they desire. Furthermore, with realism, versus and scavenge modes there are many levels of variety and skill that can satisfy any level of gamer. AWARDS AND SALES I concede that COD:MW is a more popular game. It received more awards and made more sales. This isn’t to say that L4D wasn’t critically acclaimed or extremely profitable, just that it is less so than COD. ARGUMENTS STORY – The Zombie Apocalypse For those of you unfamiliar with L4D, it breaks down like this: You play one of four survivors (each with a unique personality) in the zombie apocalypse, trying to get to safety through hordes of the undead and worse. Sure, many games have dealt with zombies before but none like this. This feels exactly like I imagine the zombie apocalypse would feel. COD:MW is very good, but it hardly revolutionises the FEEL of the war game, only the mechanics. The storyline isn’t better than any Metal of Honour game. CONTENT – Mutations Every single week Valve implements a set of experimental game rules, called mutations. This means that week in, week out L4D2 players can try something they’ve never tried before. These mutations are voted for any the most popular ones are encored again the next week. Clearly this is going to help L4D3 become superior to L4D2; Valve clearly cares about making the game fresh and giving the people what they want. CONCLUSION P1) There are more zombies in L4D than COD:MW. P2) Zombies make EVERYTHING better. C) L4D > COD:MW
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare vs. Left 4 Dead

Welcome to the second installment of debates between tvellalott and myself. Hopefully there will be more to come! In light of my recent forfeit in our first debate, we decided to debate once again with a different resolution. And this is what we came up with: I will be putting forth the argument(s) that the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare series is a better First Person Shooter (FPS) series than the Left 4 Dead series. Definitions: Better: Greater in excellence or higher in quality [1] The first round is merely for acceptance of definitions and terms. Arguments will begin in round 2. I ask that no new arguments be put forward in the final round. Sources: [1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Let's begin!
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare vs. Left 4 Dead

Thanks for the reply, TV. Sadly this is the last round but it won't be our last debate! I look forward to one about Punk music now. :) MAPS: “As I previously stated, L4D2 came with 5 levels, each with 4-5 maps. That’s 20-25 maps. ” Combined, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has 20 maps. That’s the same as Left 4 Dead so even though Call of Duty might not have the advantage, it is in no way at a loss in this category. n00bs? “First time you play COD:Get shot in the back 30 times in a row. First time you play L4D:Play an easier mode, pwn 200 zombies like a pro. ” I disagree to an extent. The chance of you being shot 30 times in a row is entirely dependent on the game you join and who you are competing with. Plus, what’s stopping the n00b from playing Campaign on an easier mode so they can learn how to play well before joining the online action? If the n00b has any sort of intelligence, he/she will practice before getting onto Xbox live. PLOT: “Story-wise, [COD] is pretty standard. There isn’t much you can do with a realistic war game after all. L4D on the other hand is intentionally designed to play out like a post-apocalyptic zombie gore-fest. ” And how has Left 4 Dead revolutionized the plot? Here’s a list of all the zombie video games: . http://en.wikipedia.org... You’ll notice that there are 71 games there (not counting the unreleased and cancelled) with some even dating back to the late ‘80’s. The point is, a zombie apocalypse is not an original idea. At all. So at least Call of Duty revolutionized gameplay and graphics which counts. CONCLUSION - Call of Duty is still superior in graphics, gameplay, weapons and missions. - Call of Duty revolutionized its particular genre while L4D merely rehashed the same ‘ole story with the same ‘ole graphics.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare vs. Left 4 Dead

bbBrraaiiiiNNss…. REBUTTALS “Think again! Call of Duty: MW2 came with two different packages and each had 5 maps. ” As I previously stated, L4D2 came with 5 levels, each with 4-5 maps. That’s 20-25 maps. Each one is different, there is no monotony. L4D2 also had a level called ‘Dark Carnival’. It has freaky clown zombies; their noses squeak and attract more zombies. “Take it as incentive to play more until you can pwn as well. Online the game isn’t really responsible for teaming up newbs in one game and the veterans in another. ” I agree to some extent. However, my point was that L4D is both more newb friendly but also offers extreme challenges to veteran players. The fact remains that in this regard, L4D has the advantage. Let me reiterate: First time you play COD: Get shot in the back 30 times in a row. First time you play L4D: Play an easier mode, pwn 200 zombies like a pro. “Not true. Modern Warfare is critically acclaimed as THE best war series. [1] It revolutionized war gameplay, the realness in the graphics, and brought the missions to new levels of pure, stunning awesomeness. ” Ok, I’ll give you war gameplay and graphics but not story. Story-wise, it is pretty standard. There isn’t much you can do with a realistic war game after all. L4D on the other hand is intentionally designed to play out like a post-apocalyptic zombie gore-fest. It's simply more fun. CONCLUSION -L4D offers a much wider range of challenge, catering for newbs and vets. -L4D plays out like a zombie movie; everyone loves zombies.
Greed causes a great deal of negative problems with the politics and economy of our nation.

My opponent attempted to prove that greed was a bad thing. He cited many things that in fact have been enhanced by greed. For profit motives are what makes our products so cheap, and what helps those who work in the lower classes. After all, making some money is better than making no money. Greed is not a bad thing, it is the prime motivator for capitalism, a system which has moved us from living off the land to worrying about whether or not we will get to watch the latest movie. It has increased our population substantially. My opponent brings claims of starvation, famine, disease, etc that have not only not come true yet, but been disproven. The theorist he mentioned who predicted the global starvation is famous for just that, the false prediction. He predicted that without understanding all the new things that allowed us to survive. These greed, this capitalism, has brought us from a state of world where we had less than 500 million people to one where we have over 6 billion, one where capitalism allows itself, such as in the united states, people prosper beyond imagine. Greed, rational self interest, the desire to make more money have brought us to this point. Our lives are all better off because of the greedy.
Greed causes a great deal of negative problems with the politics and economy of our nation.

"I'd like this to center around political or economic issues. I will be centering my debate on 'greed', in fact, being good- causing the world to advance and become more productive. I'll define greed as an "Avid desire to gain more wealth." Very well, wow a 5 round debate? I better save some steam. Basically I feel that greed is a bad thing, which is reflected in its very definition. Being ambitious, or being innovative, are not the same as being greedy. As your definition clearly states, greed is the "Avid desire to gain more wealth." The emphasis of course being more< "the state of being rich and affluent; having a plentiful supply of material goods and money" according to wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn. Therefore the very basis of being greedy is wanting to have more than you need. In most cases it is, because that extra wealth is usually gained off of the work or downfall of other people. A prime example is Wal-mart. Wal mart wants to constantly get more and more money, at what cost? Its employees getting payed extremely low wages with no health care, and buying its products from factories overseas with child labor and despicable working conditions. I don't see a cheap shirt being worth the downfall of many people. Another example, is EXXON mobile, who netted 30+ billion in one quarter of 2007. Exxon mobile just spilled 2.5 billion dollars worth of oil near Alaska, and the American people are struggling to keep up with steep gasoline prices. Illegal Immigration: 12 million extra people, that is a 4% increase in the total population. Is that a problem for America? Well consider that the average American can't live off of minimum wage, so how can we expect someone to be able to live on less than minimum wage? They can't, therefore our infrastructure has to pick it up. Another emphasis, is that those 12 million people are going to reproduce, and they will give birth to Americans. Is this legitimate? it doesn't matter, at that point we have to pick up the slack. You could have two parents who aren't legally allowed to get a job, while their American child needs food and clothes. That is a major problem. Now, what sparks it? The fact that businesspeople hire illegal immigrants to save money on regular labor. That is the pure and simple point. If you take away the work, illegal immigrants would have no desire to come here. The focus being on illegal, that means that they are not trying to reap the benefits of living in America, because they technically aren't allowed to reap any benefits, the only thing they can do is work, which is their incentive. Reason: GREED of business owners. (once again a billion dollar + market) These are just a few examples, we have many rounds to go. I think this is a very interesting debate, I look forward to your points. Thanks, Danny445
Pro Life Advocates Present Plan to Eliminate Abortion is Failing!

My fellow American, Are you debating me??? "Four of the five most conservative justices to serve on the Supreme Court since Franklin Roosevelt, including Roberts and Alito, are currently sitting on the bench today..." My point exactly…Presently, and for the past few years, there has been a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. However, Roe vs Wade has not been overturned. The US Constitution allows for only 5 Supreme Court Justices to make the winning decision. With the most conserative court in years, Roe Vs. Wade still stands. They do not need a another justice to overturn Roe vs. Wade, if the "most conservative" Supreme Court will not do it. Waiting For SupermanMy argrument is that their plan to eliminate Roe vs. Wade is doomed. Their plan of "Waiting for Superman" or a conservative president to be elected an to appoint a another member of the Supreme Court is stupid. The US Supreme Court Justices have lifetime terms. They step down when they feel like it. In addition, President Obama term ends in 2012. With 3 justices over 75 years of age, it is most likely that He will appoint another moderate to the Supreme Court. In addition, in all liklihood Barack Obama will be re-elected or the next president will be moderate. Pro-Lifers can continue to wait, dream and hope that the present and future justices will overturn Roe v. Wade. “If they can't overturn it, they will whittle away at it as much as possible. “ ... In other words, my opening argument is true: Pro-lifers cannot eliminate Roe vs. Wade. They are comfortable with small unknown victories. AMERICAN HAS CHANGED. As church attendnance declines in America, the Pro-Life fight in America is losing ground. http://today.msnbc.msn.com...; As people loses grip of their moral religious compass, their viewpoint on abortion evolves. The most recent poll states that only 17% of Americans believe that a woman should not have anabortion under any circumstances. Only 17% are "true" Pro-Lifers. This is a drop of 4% in the past few years. http://www.cbsnews.com...; As the American people viewpoints changes on abortion, so does the electorate (the people they endorse).
Pro Life Advocates Present Plan to Eliminate Abortion is Failing!

Thanks for the debate history!!! This is seriously the easiest win ever. The President cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision, but he can appoint justices who are pro-Life to the Court. Republicans have gotten a lot of Supreme Court appointments and have appointed VERY conservative members to the court, like Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Kennedy, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. It's likely that if Republicans get one more appointment, they will have enough votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. Pro-Lifers have succeeded by making Court appointments a campaign issue. US News and World Report reports, "John McCain, for one, doesn't seem to want to take any chances. Last week, he joined a long line of Republican presidential candidates who have pushed for a more conservative court when he promised to make Samuel Alito and John Roberts his "models" for judicial appointments. But how conservative would a McCain presidency make the court—and how conservative is it already? The answers to these questions may be found in a new paper by Richard Posner, a judge who sits on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and William Landes, a law professor at the University of Chicago, that is now making its way through the academic community. In "Rational Judicial Behavior: A Statistical Study," Posner and Landes use a database that includes the political background and voting records of the past 70 years of Supreme Court justices—who appointed each justice and how the justices decided every case—to come up with a ranking, from most conservative to least conservative, of the 43 justices who have served on the court since 1937. Their conclusion: Four of the five most conservative justices to serve on the Supreme Court since Franklin Roosevelt, including Roberts and Alito, are currently sitting on the bench today. Justice Anthony Kennedy, another current Republican appointee, is ranked No. 10. (The table has a full list.)" http://www.usnews.com... ==Other successes== Pro-Lifers have sought various other ways to restrict abortion and are succeeding. They have criminalized taking a minor across state lines to have an abortion, without parental consent. In many states, it is criminal to perform an abortion without parental consent. They have sought to limit public funding of abortion, further restricting access (like with Planned Parenthood during the government shutdown negotiations). Pro-Lifers ensured that abortions would not be covered under Obama-care. Pro-Lifers have gotten late-term abortions banned in nearly every state. Pro-Lifers have allowed doctors to refuse to perform abortions, meaning that in religious states, it may be impossible to get an abortion, even in life threatening situations, because no doctor will be willing to perform the operation and the hospital cannot order them to do so, since they are now protected by freedom of religion, due to the efforts of Pro-lifers. If they can't overturn it, they will whittle away at it as much as possible. These plans have all been successes.
Pro Life Advocates Present Plan to Eliminate Abortion is Failing!

Pro-Lifers make it an issue to determine whether or not an elected official is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. The reality is that it does not matter who gets voted into office. In the Eighties, Ronald "Pro-Life" Reagan could not reverse Roe Vs. Wade. George H. Bush and George W. Bush made no impact on Roe Vs. Wade. If Pro-Lifers think that electing Pro-Lifers to an elected office will change Roe vs. Wade, their campaign is doomed. The Supreme Court made the Decision and the President of the United States cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision. Until they stop making Roe vs. Wade an issue for elected officials, their actions are doomed.
The president is in violation of the US Constitution war powers act

Armed Conflict: A prolonged period of sustained combat involving members of the US Armed Forces against a foreign belligerent. The term connotes more than a military engagement of limited duration or for limited objectives, and involves a significant use of military and civilian forces. A: Obama is right about NATO/UN You say that Obama is a liar for saying that he's getting his orders from the U.N. But he is. The U.S. is the biggest contributor to both the UN and NATO, but he doesn't command those troops. Also, the commander in charge of NATO forces is a Canadian, not even an American. UN military is controlled by the UN Security Council. Obama can influence, but he has no final say. B: Definition of Armed Conflict The definition I quoted (as provided by Google Definition) states that armed conflict is "combat involving members of the US Armed Forces". As the U.S. is using drones and air strikes to fight the entire conflict, this definition means Obama is not in conflict with WPA.
The president is in violation of the US Constitution war powers act

President Obama is in violation of the war powers act, by not allowing Congress, the opportunity to debate and vote on the US military becoming involved in a war with Libya. He says he's getting his orders from the UN, and that our involvement over there right now doesn't constitute a war. I say that Obama is duplicitous, a liar and a war mongering servant of the globalist elite, who seek to bring America to ruin, and to establish a one world government, and a New World Order.
The Christian god exists

This debate is a direct challenege to Jerry947 per our discussion in the forums. My opponent claimed he could show the Christian god exists. He will have full burden. Rules1. No forfeiture2. All arguments must be according to the definitions provided.3. Appropriate conduct must be made: no profanity, inappropriate behavior, or trolling.DefinitionsChristian god - God as defined by the BibleExists - Have objective reality or beingShow - Display or allow to be perceivedFormat72 hrs/argument, 4 rounds, 10,000 charactersVoting will be select winner and voters must have over 2000 ELO.*Should my opponent have any issues with definitions or format then it must be addressed before acceptance.I will send this over to Jerry now so that he may lay out his case. It's been a while since I've debated, so maybe Jerry will take it easy on me. ;-PI look forward to a lively debate!! Good luck, sir!
Homosexuality is quite unnatural!

The ultimate proof is in the biology. Heterosexuality serves a well defined purpose and guarantees the perpetuation of the species. Homosexuality is some kind of freak mutation that serves no biological purpose whatsoever. I imagine that you fancy yourself as some kind of "defender of the (LGBT) cause" with your longwinded, self-indulgent passages that really don't say much; I can tell you've spouted this litany of "defenses" of homosexuality many times in the past (or at least you give me reason to suspect that you've done so) and you've grown quite frustrated from the effort. Opinion invariably pops up in these informal "debate" forums so try not to take these "comments" too seriously otherwise you'll just end up giving yourself an ulcer. (BTW, you really do talk too much, but again that's just me!) Homosexuality is contrary to the course of nature, contrary to the purpose of gender that only heterosexuality fulfills, and it has no biological, evolutionary legitimacy; heterosexuality has been around for an estimated half billion years and has been the "bread winner" of our success as a species so far. By the definition I quoted in my first posting homosexuality is a deviation from the norm that, again, contradicts the intended natural purpose of gender. In that sense at least homosexuality is unnatural.
Homosexuality is quite unnatural!

Abnormal is not un-natural, your connecting two very different things that are not reliant on one another. The first Africans that moved up north and were born with lighter skin then the others were abnormal, but it wasnt un-natural, it was the opposite.. a natural abnormality due to genetically mutation in the benefit of the species. You would not have evolution without abnormality. Any genetic variation that would be deemed advantageous to a species would occur more often. Lets take the example of ADHD. In todays society it is 'clear' to us that is a mental disorder, yet paleontologists and psychiatrists disagree: ""Having the profile of what we now call ADHD would have made you a Paleolithic success story," Weill Cornell Medical College clinical psychiatry professor Richard A. Friedman suggested in a recent op-ed for The New York Times." ( http://www.businessinsider.com... ) Human evolution cares nothing for social changes that have happened in the past 100 or 5000 years. It does not change nearly as fast as societal opinion. Your second point - yes some cant have children, but that is far a rarer circumstance and much of it is connected to congenital disease or pathology. The concept, as well, that plenty of 'children dont want to have a child' is something society has created in the last centuries alone. Again, evolution and genetics do not care for a few centuries worth of societal changes. Such a concept is a new phenomenon and has zero relevance on the issue of the natural fit of homosexuality into humanity. Beyond this, you say that couples who may not have children or do not wish to have children add value to society.. that is biological purpose.. and then you continue to completely contradict yourself in the next sentence. Lastly, your final argument is completely opinion based. You provide not proof, no fact, no source, no scientific appeal to an issue that you try to argue from a scientific perspective, that of nature, which does not care for your emotions on the subject. Nature is brutal and unemotional, and in direct contrast of your opinion of its function. Furthermore, you completely and outright ignored my comment on Menopause, one which provides factual evidence that a member of society does not need to exist within typical boundaries in order to be beneficial. You also fail to study the subject your so absolutely sure of. Gay or lesbian couples could never understand the love that a man and woman feel? Why? What proof do you have? Your own personal bias because you find it 'icky' and your not attracted to men therefor those that are, are obviously lesser then you? Have you ever been in a gay relationship that you know their love is lesser? Ever heard of the Band of Thebes? In a debate, what disgusts you because of your own personal beliefs that are completely absent of fact and dwell only on a emotion, is irrelevant and I honestly dont care how you feel about the subject. Your hear to debate a subject on the premise of intellect and you are failing. This is not a debate, this is an empty op-ed for you to publicize your feelings empty of any rational context.