BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Economic competition results in numerous innovations that improve all of our lives

"Economic competition results in innumerable innovations that improve all of our lives. " I strongly disagree with this point. Economic competition should result in competitors lowering prices to out-do each other. This is not the case. All capitalist corporations bar none want to make as much profit as possible. As such, prices reflect not economic competition but supply and demand. Whenever we have a shortage of something, the price goes up across the board, which in no way makes ALL of our lives better off. Only people who can afford such items get them, regardless of how much they need them, while the lower, working classes must go without. "The productive capabilities unleashed through free market capitalism are unmatched by any other system, especially the tyrannical socialism. " This is a completely nonsense statement. The most productive country in the world at the time of this debate is China. They are not a capitalist, but communist. People are losing jobs in every field because of the cheaper labour of China and India. Australia for example, has sent almost all of its manufacturing offshore because Capitalist corporations can make a greater profit in a Communist society. "A system of low tax, private property and a completely unregulated market allows for social mobility and makes all of our lives better off. " A system of high tax, compulsory acquisition of farm land for government development and unregulated corruption is much more accurate description of what Capitalism has brought. The lower class remains stagnant for generation after generation. Capitalism doesn't work. A study of human history will show you that power inevitably corrupts. In a Capitalist society, first you get the money, then you get the power, then you become corrupt and greedy.
It is morally correct to do research on embryonic stem cells

Hi there good to see you againI think the system is not working to post a youtube video, anyway, here is video ID: Wmpfz_1rN90 http://youtu.be...Excuse me for my bad accent.<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Wmpfz_1rN90" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Halo is better than Call of Duty (Please base votes on arguments not what you think is better)

Con misunderstood when i wrote cod was better because of its versatility.I will explain it, since Cod is able to be run on more platforms than Halo, it allows more people to play it.Then i would like to say Hitler was bad is a complete opinion.( although i agree he was bad, but this statement is a opinion) Pro then states that "x. Wii sports is best selling game of all time, but that doesn't make best of all time.)" Np it doesn't make it the best game but this is one of the aspects of a good game. Pro then said i was lazy?, but doesn't recognize that all of my arguments were far longer than his. Pro didn't give me much to argue but i will sum up my debate and why you should vote Con not Pro. 1.Cod has more platforms to play on. 2.Cod has sold better than Halo. 3. Cod works for competitive and regular play. 4. Cod has more games modes to choose from. Call of duty is meant for EVERYBODY, Halo is only made for the competitive players. Cod clearly out preforms Halo in every asset. I think Pro's argument was more of his personal opinion rather than fact.Then he had no other arguments pointed out a small typo so people would vote his grammar over mine. Citations: http://www.freeinfosociety.com... https://forums.halowaypoint.com...
Halo is better than Call of Duty (Please base votes on arguments not what you think is better)

"Pro states that "that does not make it a better game for the individual"Call of Duty has had more games on more consoles, they will obviously have sold more games. These are two very reasons that Cod is better.If a game sells more that means it has loyal customers, and people who recommmend* the game to other people." *incorrect spelling A. So your saying that CoD is better because it's on more consoles, that's like saying "The History Channel: Battle for the Pacific" is better than Infamous because it's on more consoles. B. Hitler had people who were loyal and he was still bad C. Formal fans are realizing it isn't that great D. How in anyway, shape or, form, MAKE it better (Ex. Wii sports is best selling game of all time, but that doesn't make best of all time.) I would like to state that Cal* Of Duty does have mods(console) which means that Cod has custom games modes.I said etc. because there are so many game modes to choose from.( Plus i didn't feel like listig* any more ;) *Y U NO SPELL CORRECTLY A. Mods are against the Xbox live terms and conditions B. Like what, are you just being lazy? P.S. I Forgot to mention this in my previous round "This leads me into my next topic about Cod's multiple story-lines, as Zombies has a story mode which means that Call Of Duty already has 2 story Lines in one game. Which proves that Cod has a far more complex story line than Halo." ("Although Halo has books and Forge and even a Graphic Novel, this doesn't make the campaign better, it just means that it has more stuff.") 2 story lines greater than a movie, books, graphic novels, and a couple of story lines? seems legit.
Halo is better than Call of Duty (Please base votes on arguments not what you think is better)

I would like to state that i always cite my sources at the end of the of the debate if that is ok with con. Pro states that "that does not make it a better game for the individual"Call of Duty has had more games on more consoles, they will obviously have sold more games. These are two very reasons that Cod is better.If a game sells more that means it has loyal customers, and people who recommmend the game to other people. Pro then states "if a game is truly good people should be able to play it for at least 2 years b. It shows that the developers put time and effort into there games, the fact that call of duty has had no major advancements since call of duty 4 and World at war says a lot". I would like to say, i could never play a game for 2 years, but Halo isn't the only game that people play for two days, matter of fact, i know people who still play cod 4.I would then like to add, just beacuase a developer takes two years on a game doesn't make it better. Pro stated that "a. there is a difference between MLG and a gamer who wants to play a game where he doesn't get killed with three bullets b. (In other words it takes more skill to play)" Well in my opionion it requires more skill when it takes 3 bullets to kill because it forces you to be more careful. In Halo, all i see people doing is jumping and shooting and thaT doesn't require skill. To be honest i haven't played the campain in a while but i assure you that i have played it. Cont then states that" Pro said nothing about Halo's campaign which includes books, Forward Onto Dawn (Movie), and graphic novels b. Makrov didn't kill ghost and roach, General Shepherd did (gives me a reason to believe con hasn't played campaign) c. While MW2 did have the best campaign, no other game (excluding black ops and modern warfare those just came out, has a memorable story." Although Halo has books and Forge and even a Graphic Novel, this doesn't make the campaign better, it just means that it has more stuff. Pro then stated Spartan ops, Firefight, forge, "b. custom games let gamers make there own game types look at these examples below c. etc. (LOL, con couldn't think of anymore)" I would like to state that Cal Of Duty does have mods(console) which means that Cod has custom games modes.I said etc. because there are so many game modes to choose from.( Plus i didn't feel like listig any more ;) I cite my sources at the end of a debate, and i'm sorry for calling you con.( I'm used to being Pro)
Halo is better than Call of Duty (Please base votes on arguments not what you think is better)

Rebuttal: 1. "Cod has sold 12 million more copies than Halo.(As a series) Also, in recent polls in the gaming community, Cod has gotten more votes on every platform. Call Of Duty also has better ratings than the Halo series." a. that does not make it a better game for the individual. b. Call of Duty has had more games on more consoles, they will obviously have sold more games 2. "I would then like to point out that Call Of Duty games come out every year, while a Halo game lifespan is often 2 years. This makes the Halo fans not only wait, but forces them to play a halo game for 2 years, then for the players who aren't compettetive players they won't even enjoy Halo." a. if a game is truly good people should be able to play it for at least 2 years b. It shows that the developers put time and effort into there games, the fact that call of duty has had no major advancements since call of duty 4 and World at war says a lot 3. Con stats that Halo is balanced for competitive play,but fails to realize that approximately 2 percent of gamers are competitive. This leaves the other 98 percent of gamers left without a entertaining game. While Call Of Duty is made for both competitive( League Play) and just casual gamers.( Public Match) a. there is a difference between MLG and a gamer who wants to play a game where he doesn't get killed with three bullets b. (In other words it takes more skill to play) 4. "Con then states that Call Of Duty campaigns don't have in depth campaigns. This is completely false , as it was very emotionally when Roach and Ghost die by Makrov who was thought to be their comrade. It was a very triumph moment when Captain Price kills Makrov(finally). Also, Cod has a very complex story-line, and you have to play them from the very beginning to fully understand." a. Pro said nothing about Halo's campaign which includes books, Forward Onto Dawn (Movie), and graphic novels b. Makrov didn't kill ghost and roach, General Shepherd did (gives me a reason to believe con hasn't played campaign) c. While MW2 did have the best campaign, no other game (excluding black ops and modern warfare those just came out, has a memorable story. 5. "I would then like to state that Call Of Duty has a lot more game options to choose from, such as zombies, special ops. Etc." a. Spartan ops, Firefight, forge, b. custom games let gamers make there own game types look at these examples below c. etc. (LOL, con couldn't think of anymore) 6. "Cod has better rating, more options, Compatible for ALL types of players, and has sold a lot better than Halo. Call Of Duty is a far superior game to Halo." a. Con did not cite sources when needed (better ratings and sold a lot better*) *incorrect grammar b. rest of statement already responded to FYI: Cite your sources and YOU are con Custom games http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com..., http://tinyurl.com... P.S. Halo is the peoples choice P.P.S. I didn't want to include graphics, because that's not even a debate
Halo is better than Call of Duty (Please base votes on arguments not what you think is better)

I believe that Call Of Duty is better than Halo because: Cod has sold 12 million more copies than Halo.(As a series) Also, in recent polls in the gaming community, Cod has gotten more votes on every platform. Call Of Duty also has better ratings than the Halo series. I would then like to point out that Call Of Duty games come out every year, while a Halo game lifespan is often 2 years. This makes the Halo fans not only wait, but forces them to play a halo game for 2 years, then for the players who aren't compettetive players they won't even enjoy Halo. Con stats that Halo is balanced for competitive play,but fails to realize that approximately 2 percent of gamers are competitive. This leaves the other 98 percent of gamers left without a entertaining game. While Call Of Duty is made for both competitive( League Play) and just casual gamers.( Public Match) Also, Con states hat Halo battles are about outsmarting and outperforming your opponents. I would like to say that this isn't entirely true, in Halo polls it is said that 85 percent of people who shoot first win the gun battle. You can use melee weapons , grenades and equipment is a main aspect in Call Of Duty. Con then states that Call Of Duty campaigns don't have in depth campaigns. This is completely false , as it was very emotionally when Roach and Ghost die by Makrov who was thought to be their comrade. It was a very triumph moment when Captain Price kills Makrov(finally). Also, Cod has a very complex story-line, and you have to play them from the very beginning to fully understand. I would then like to state that Call Of Duty has a lot more game options to choose from, such as zombies, special ops. Etc. Call Of Duty has a better story-line, better multiplayer, and more special features. This leads me into my next topic about Cod's multiple story-lines, as Zombies has a story mode which means that Call Of Duty already has 2 story Lines in one game. Which proves that Cod has a far more complex story line than Halo. Cod has better rating, more options, Compatible for ALL types of players, and has sold a lot better than Halo. Call Of Duty is a far superior game to Halo.
Halo is better than Call of Duty (Please base votes on arguments not what you think is better)

I believe that Halo is better than Call of Duty because: 1. Halo is balanced for competitive game play. The weapons, the maps, the ranking system, the equipment/AA's are all designed to work well in a competitive environment. Every weapon has a different functionality or use giving the game great weapon variety and depth. 2. Halo battles are about outsmarting and outperforming your opponent using your weapons,grenades, melee, and sometimes your equipment to defeat your enemies. Its not all about who sees who first, because while that is a large factor as in any first person shooter game, there is a ton more decision making and skill that goes into a Halo match than any Call of Duty match. 3. Call of Duty campaigns are unoriginal and don't have any in depth story lines, for example, imagine your sitting across a table from your war buddy, and your playing Russian roulette, big shocker, he doesn't get killed and you escape imprisonment. Now, picture a Sergent you've been since the very first Halo game, your fighting the final boss and he gets shot, "oh he'll get up" you said, "he'll be fine" you said, nope he saves you by shooting the guy in the back and with his last dying breath says "Send me out......with a bang."
religion=pretend=act=false

Excuse me? Are you trying to imply that 84% of the world is insane just because they have a religion? Furthermore, I thought rehab was to help people be rid of insane behaviors. Also, what is "religion is belief, belief is unknown" supposed to mean? Do you not believe in things that are unknown? What is wrong with the unknown? I like the fact that your main argument (religion is false for it to exist) isn't even grammatically correct.
Republican President (Pro) or Democratic President (Con)

First of all, the country got better under Obama. He delivered on all his promises except the closing of Guantanamo Bay. (http://nymag.com...#) "On January 20, 2009, when Obama delivered his inaugural address as president, he outlined his coming domestic agenda (...) the four major areas of domestic reform: economic recovery measures, health-care reform, a response to climate change, and education reform. (...) Obama has now accomplished major policy responses on all these things. Certainly, when Obama unveiled his domestic ambitions, few thought to accuse him of setting the bar too low. (...) Charles Krauthammer, a voice of relative sobriety, called his speech the boldest social democratic manifesto ever issued by a U.S. president." And this is from 2014. Since he has actually delivered on immigration as well. He has been a major world player in climate change talks, saved the US economy after Bush's failures, etc etc. But let's talk about the future. If Hillary is going to be four more years of Obama, I'd prefer that to any Republican. But I'll wait until next round for more arguments. Looking forward to a good debate!
Soda should be banned

Soda shouldn't be banned because part of human rights is we choose what we eat and drink so banning soda would take those rights away. Also, as soon as soda is banned, a new junk will take its place that is maybe even worse so that we will never be rid of un healthy food Furthermore, banning soda would make lots of people lose jobs which our society would have to deal with. This is why it is silly to ban soda, we have bigger problems to solve!
Best handgun you would use for self protection

I'm not a huge gun nut, but I strongly believe in our right to bear arms, so I thought I'd accept the challenge anyway :)I own two guns, a Walther P22 by choice and research, and a baby glock 9mm primarily by chance (I attended a gunshow at which I was unable to purchase from vendors at the time. Of the limited person-to-person options available within my budget the baby glock was my prefered choice.)I believe I could make a strong case for both of the guns I own - else I would not own them - but in order to avoid a debate centered primarily/exclusively on "stopping power" I'll choose to argue in favor of the baby glock, as it's available in both 9mm and .40 as is the CZ 75B.I look forward to a good debate!
Government Foreign Aid

CON did not address nor refute my distinction on practicality versus morality, and continued his argument based on a purely practical basis. Each of his supposed "well-sourced reasons" are the same as they were in round 2. 1. From round 1, I established that human beings are moral beings, and morality is the highest justification for our actions. CON's only refutation to this resolution was that he "does not agree with Korsgaard." So, in effect, the resolution stood, as he did not concretely refute the statement. 2. CON, for each round regurgitated a plethura of facts and technicalities while trying to undermine and ignore the moral aspect of the debate. 3. Therefore, my argument is unchanged as well. Morality is above practicality. 4. FACT: It is the moral course of action to give foreign aid. 5. FACT: It is the practical course of action to NOT give foreign aid.6. The point of morality being superior in justification to practicality went unaddressed. 7. Therefore, the U.S SHOULD give foreign aid, because it is the moral action, and the point of morality above practicality stands unchallenged. I see no need for further explanation.
A single god that created existence, and everything, is impossible.

Of course there is no evidence to suggest that he doesn't follow the rules of our universe. As i said, there never would be any evidence to support his existence if he truly does exist outside of our universe. But the fact is, we will most likely never know whether he is 100% real or not. My claim is that it isn't impossible. It is very possible for a god to exist outside our universe, we just won't know it if he does. And whether or not it is more reasonable to assume that he isn't real vs that he is real is a matter of opinion, not fact.
A single god that created existence, and everything, is impossible.

One thing I dislike about that statement, is the null hypothesis is in favour of a god existing. From observations of or universe, the lack of sentient life, and our current scientific reasoning. I would assume it would be, by default, more correct to assume their is no god, rather than their is. To assume their is a god, that brings in a sentiency into the beginning of our universe, when their is no evidence for it. Therefore why should we assume there is a living being. As this isn't proved or suggested by our observations. Surely, the stance should be for the believers to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the case. As our observations suggest neither. We should be thus impartial. No? Furthermore, If god does in fact transcend time of our universe, like the statement says, he must have come into existence somehow, or always existed with time and space. Taking this into account, for him to be omniscient and omnipotent, like many religions claim. Then he must have obtained that knowledge from somewhere. Or it must inbuilt into the fabric of space and time, and have always existed. Rather like a script, code, or mathematical equation for existence. This I would assume, and the null hypothesis would be that a "god" that is living becomes less and less likely. And the human aspect of a god becomes more unlikely. The statement says "observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis" regarding the universe being eternal. No it doesn't. All we know is our universe originated from high dense singularity, and expanded, we have no evidence to prove that it existed before this singularity, or began with this singularity. So this statement is also void, as the person who made it obviously has divine insight into the origins of the universe. "the universe began to exist a finite ~13.8 billion years ago" This is false. it should read "the universe expanded a finite ~13.8 billion years ago". We have know knowledge as to whether it existed or not. As we assume all prior evidence/information to a state before this singularity is unavailable, and or destroyed. Thus we cannot assume that the universe is finite, or infinite, as the evidence points to neither. It simple proves that our universe as we know it expanded from a point of almost infinite density, by a series of observable natural laws. And obeying natural mathematic laws too. Regarding the last line of the quote, this Idea is equally, if not more viable than the "god" theory. From our observations of the universe, we can conclude the following: 1. Life is less abundant than non-life, 2. Life most likely arises from the non-living via Abiogenesis. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Non-living objects are more common in the universe than living. Taking these three common and modern scientific 'truths' into account. We should assume that our universe arose from a non-living origin. As the 'living' matter is infinitesimally small, compared to the 'non-living' matter.
A single god that created existence, and everything, is impossible.

Hello! I appreciate the challenge! Now, I myself do not believe in god but, I do not doubt the possibility of a higher power. http://www.godandscience.org... Above is a link to an article that I will be using as a reference and in it`s last paragraph, it answers the question of "Who Created God?" which I assume is what your main question is. "God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time or within multiple dimensions of time. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.8 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally."