BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Kylo Ren vs Darth Maul

Darth Maul certainly is not the strongest with Force abilities. I don't need to take 1000 characters to explain what everybody already knows. He did use the Force a few times, but certainly never developed that part of his game as much. He didn't need to though. His skills as a fighter and assassin did not require excessive Force usage. I must counter your assertion that Kylo Ren is so powerful with the Force. From what I can see, Kylo uses his Force abilities more like a carnival barker. That's probably due to his Solo genes, which seem to mix badly with the more spiritual Skywalker side. His blatant immaturity contributes to his clumsiness with the Force as well. In short, Kylo Ren is something of a nitwit. As far as lightsaber combat goes, Darth Maul would simply kick Kylo Ren's pretty boy bee-hind. An acrobat and master of weapons, This wouldn't be a fair fight in any galaxy. Contrast Maul's double-sided lightsaber with Kylo Ren's shoddily crafted piece of junk. Maul was able to combine the Force with his superior athleticism, making him a pure killing machine. Kylo Ren on the other hand, his lightsaber is just not well thought out. It's a wonder he doesn't lop off one of his own appendages with that clunky thing. I also disagree that Ren would have defeated Rey had he been healthy. Of course he could not, we still have two more movies left in this series. In summary, Darth Maul was a creature of pure evil incarnate, who took joy in killing and only killing. Kylo Ren is a spoiled little brat (a Prince of Alderaan, actually) who more than once shows that he can't control his temper and is probably going to self implode at some point. We're expected to feel sorry for him and his messed up upbringing and that's why he turned into such a sorry Vader wannabe, but in the end he's just a pretty boy loser. In the parlance of 1980's heavy metal - Kylo Ren is a Poser. Darth Maul would crush Kylo Ren, given the chance.
Kylo Ren vs Darth Maul

Kylo Ren's pain tolerance - you only site him getting hit with the crossbow thing, which he survives. Of course he survives, there's going to be two more movies. Duh. He is badly hurt though, which leads him to summarily get whooped by an untrained Rey. Untapped power? You're just assuming he has this due to his lineage. I argue his lineage has been diluted, first by Padme's blood, then by the Solo blood. So at this point he's only 25% Skywalker. Hardly untapped potential and more than likely why he seems like he's already hit his Force ability ceiling. What you call "Force Rage" (you made that up, it's not an actual canon thing) is really just Kylo's immaturity as a human. "It would be unfair to Pro if opponent tries to address these arguments" - Jesus, you're a real whiner aren't you? While you can try to pre-emptively shut down my final argument, that's not why we have 4 rounds. There are 4 rounds because we get 4 rounds, and as the acceptor of this debate you concede that I get the final word. That's how it works, Turbo. Maul does indeed underestimate Kenobi, but hey that's Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan who deftly fought Darth Vader before bowing out to become even more powerful (argument could be made he actually won that one) even as a decrepit old man. Maul killed Qui-Gon pretty easily, and any of them could make an easy victory battling silly Vader wannabe Kylo Ren.
Kylo Ren vs Darth Maul

My opponent again does not counter any of my arguments. He has done nothing to address Kylo Ren's pain tolerance, untapped power, and force rage. Con has dropped all of these arguments. This debate for Con can be summed up in one line. Darth Maul kills Kylo Ren with his lightsaber. He has not even gave any evidence of Darth Maul's pain tolerance, force use, and lightsaber skill. Even if you think Darth Maul would win, Con's poor execution of defending Darth Maul should be noticed by the Judge. Con has not given a single fact from the movies proving Darth Maul better, while I have given examples throughout the movies. I have given evidence on how a padawon Obi-Wan was able to beat Darth Maul. Think about that. A padawan. This is because Darth Maul underestimated Kenobie. Maul would probably make the same mistake, and that will also cause him to be defeated. I have mentioned in the other rounds how this debate would play out like Kylo Ren vs Rey. This time Ren would be Maul, and Rey would be Kylo Ren. When has Con tried to counter this assertion. Has Con gave any examples from the movies. Con has not. Did Con counter Ren's pain tolerance. No, he did not. Con has failed to counter any assertion. He will say "uses 1872 characters to say pretty much nothing. ". That is all Con will say. An intelligent judge would know that if Con does not counter or provide evidence for how Maul would win, than he is not arguing at all. He has dropped all arguments, and therefore, I would win. I have provided clear evidence as to how Kylo Ren would win. I have given examples from movies of Maul's weakness, and Kylo Ren's strength. My opponent has dropped all of this. If my opponent tries to address some of these arguments, he has failed to in previous rounds, it should not be counted, because it would be unfair to Pro. Pro cannot respond to a new argument. I rest my case. Kylo Ren has to win according to this debate, because of my opponent's failure to counter my arguments. Let me make it easy for you.
Gun Control

The gun control debate. I take the view that gun control is wrong, including the ban on assault rifles. Personally, I don't mind if someone owned a Super Star Destroyer. My only question would be, "Where can I get one, too?" Aside from the obvious, "Where would I put it and how much does it cost?". But anyway, the first round is for acceptance only, the second round is for arguments, the third for rebuttals, and the last round is for closing statements. Please vote, I can't improve myself if people don't vote and tell me what I did right and what I need to improve. Any takers?
Gun Control

Rebuttal.>> I agree with you that 100,000 people are shot annuallyI never said that, neither did my source.>> the best way to reduce accidental deaths is to have people learn how to use a gun safely.I never made that argument.>> How many lives would be saved if people ALWAYS obeyed this one rule to never point the gun at someone.A miniscule number, to be sure.Note to reader: ALWAYS BE SAFE WITH FIREARMS. Just a FYI.>> We can't eliminate crime unless we made it unprofitable. Actually, pro-choice abortion and removal of lead from gasoline had a lot to do with the reduction in violent crime in recent years.[1][2]>>As for a 3-D printer, how about if 3-D printers that can print a gun You must understand a 3d printer. It operates using paste like modeling clay. Metal must be die cast or machined.>>rule #1 is ALWAYS KEEP THE GUN POINTED IN A SAFE DIRECTION.My point is that 19,392 people prefer to hold a gun inside their mouth. Pointed towards their brains. Maybe with a suicide note left considerately by their desk. Kaboom!>>As for suicides, the mere fact that so many people commit suicide is proof that something is wrong with our American culture.This is ignorance of the global stage. China, France, Poland, Greenland, Russia, all of these have more serious national depression than the United States.Here is a list of countries, from most depressed to least depressed.[1]GreenlandBelgiumSouth KoreaLithuaniaGuyana (more info) Kazakhstan (more info) BelarusChina ChinaSloveniaHungaryJapan (more info)Sri LankaRussiaUkraine (more info) CroatiaSerbia and Montenegro Estonia Latvia Moldova FinlandUruguay South AfricaPoland France (more info) Hong Kong Suriname Bosnia and HerzegovinaNew ZealandAustria Czech Republic Cuba Bulgaria Romania United StatesSweden Norway Ireland United Kingdom (more info) PortugalCanada (more info) Denmark IcelandChile Switzerland Trinidad and Tobago India (more info) SlovakiaGermanyAustraliaKyrgyzstan Turkmenistan Netherlands Republic of MacedoniaEl Salvador Zimbabwe LuxembourgThailand Argentina Spain Puerto Rico Ecuador Singapore Mauritius IranItaly Costa Rica IsraelNicaragua Panama Colombia Brazil Uzbekistan Seychelles Georgia AlbaniaMexico TurkeyHondurasBahrain Belize Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Paraguay CyprusGuatemala Barbados Greece Malta Venezuela Tajikistan Saint Lucia Dominican Republic Philippines Armenia Kuwait The Bahamas Jordan Peru São Tomé and Príncipe Pakistan Azerbaijan Maldives Jamaica Syria Egypt Grenada Saint Kitts and Nevis Antigua and Barbuda Haiti [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[2] http://www.economist.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gun Control

I agree with you that 100,000 people are shot annually. The question is, is gun control a good way to reduce suicides, accidental deaths, and crimes? In my opinion, the best way to reduce accidental deaths is to have people learn how to use a gun safely. My dad taught me to never play with a gun when I was a kid. The most common cause of an accidental discharge is deliberately pulling the trigger of a gun thought to be empty. That's why rule #1 is ALWAYS KEEP THE GUN POINTED IN A SAFE DIRECTION. http://en.wikipedia.org... Another common cause of accidental discharges from a gun is accidentally pulling the trigger before you are ready. How many lives would be saved if people ALWAYS obeyed this one rule to never point the gun at someone. As for suicides, the mere fact that so many people commit suicide is proof that something is wrong with our American culture. However, crime is a different issue. We can't eliminate crime unless we made it unprofitable. Like it or not, there are always people who will be dishonest for profit. I don't think banning guns will help, since criminals can collect a gun some other way. As for a 3-D printer, how about if 3-D printers that can print a gun or gun parts be given the same restrictions as an actual gun? Would that appease both sides of the debate?
Gun Control

"With just a few exceptions, the majority of gun deaths in the United States have been self-inflicted every year since at least 1920. This is a startling fact, and one that forces us to realize that, no matter what we may believe about the Second Amendment, the debate over how to reduce the death toll from guns is, to a great extent, a debate about suicide prevention."[1][2] [1] http://www.bostonglobe.com... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Gun Control

Flamethrowers? http://www.wired.com... Besides, we have the blaster pistol now. http://www.amazing1.com...-/ Why should I be UPSET if someone had an F-22 Raptor? I wish I owned one. However, I wouldn't take any enemies on if they leave me alone. I'd love a tank, too, but it costs too much and it would be pretty hard to fit it into my garage. In short, I wouldn't mind if someone built a real life Star Destroyer (Please tell me where I can find one), except I'd be a little nervous if someone built the Death Star, since it can destroy the entire planet in one shot. Please mail me the Star Ship Enterprise!
Gun Control

FlamethrowersIf you respect the army and enjoy comedy, watch George Carlin's skit on flamethrowers.[1]Transcription of the argument is as follows.George Carlin: Think for a moment about the concept of the flamethrower. Okay? The flamethrower. Because we have them. Well, *we* don't have them, the army has them. That's right. We don't have any flamethrowers. I'd say we're fucked if we have to go up against the army, wouldn't you? But we have flamethrowers. And what this indicates to me, it means that at some point, some person said to himself, "Gee, I sure would like to set those people on fire over there. But I'm way to far away to get the job done. If only I had something that would throw flame on them." Well, it might have ended right there, but he mentioned it to his friend. His friend who was good with tools. And about a month later, he was back. "Hey, quite a concept!" WHHOOOOOOOOSSHHH! And of course the army heard about it, and they came around. "We'd like to buy about five hundred-thousand of them please. We have some people we'd like to throw flame on. Give us five hundred thousand and paint them dark brown. We don't want anyone to see them."[2]TanksAre flamethrowers not enough? There's a long running gag on Amazon.com. Keep reading."I'll admit it. Shopping for a personal tank can be a bit daunting. Many times in the past I've purchased overpriced, so-called "battle tanks", then driven them into battle only to be wrecked in ten minutes by the first blow off of some insurgents home-made mortar." ... "The only real negative with this tank is that it shows up on radar a little more than I like (although there is a poly resin graphite stealth model available). Also, the included spare isn't full size."[3]Fighter JetsThe Super Star Destroyer you want is called the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor with a unit cost of $150,000,000.00[4] The United States owns almost two hundred of these babies! Perhaps you could save up a little and buy one. What would you do with it? Maybe you could blow up a building or something.More TanksMaybe you can do without air support. A bad military tactic, but maybe you could buy the Badonkadonk(tm) mentioned above. Compare your neighborhood attempt to overthrow the government with the list of currently active United States military land vehicles.[5]Best of All WorldsSilly me, I forgot. The USS Enterprise is for sale!!! $451.3 million if you have the right connections.[6]Note that the USA is considering aircraft carriers. The expenditure of $24,000,000,000.00 give or take a few pennies. That's for seven or eight aircraft carriers to replace the Enterprise.[7]Maybe after conquering the United States military, you could take China! Or just nuc them!!Sources:[1] http://www.youtube.com...[2] http://www.imdb.com...[3] http://www.amazon.com...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] USS Enterprise (CVN-65)[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Video game genres shouldn't be defined by mechanics, controls, or intended "ways to play the game"

Hmmmm..... Yeah, I'll be honest, maybe you have this one. But there's still one more round left. My arguments can tend to be sloppy like this, thank you for being patient. I must say that, on the subject of Portal, I wasn't really saying we should use the term "Puzzler", just stating how the gamers, who have been using these genres for awhile, tended to avoid calling this game an FPS, despite having both the FP and the S. I do not have my own naming system in mind, nor should I be obligated to find one; the argument here is about why the current naming system is wrong more than it is about how to fix it. I understand I probably didn't make this clear. And I do understand that movies and games are different, but movies and books are different as well. Movies took books and built off of them, as games are now doing with movies; However, movies and books kept relatively similar ways to name their genres, but only with games did we begin to differ. Could this just be because of how far we broke off from the original media (books)? Maybe. But even so, the genre should still be able to capture the essence of the experience you will have, at least to whatever extent it will be able to. This doesn't necessarily restrict itself to narrative, but it should hint off at what kind of game it is. Further, my point in mentioning FPS's was to point out that FPS's and TPS's should be considered the same genre, but aren't. I don't actually know where you think I was going with that. I apologize for not rebutting sooner, which can only be chalked up to a one word explanation: "Whoops!". I'll have to fix that. To take into account your point about games without narrative, games are an interactive medium that can portray ideas and emotions, as well as many other things, without the use of a narrative. Take the flash game "loneliness", for example (Link: http://www.necessarygames.com... ). No narrative per se, but it definitely gives emotion.
Video game genres shouldn't be defined by mechanics, controls, or intended "ways to play the game"

You have a nice argument, I'll give you that. Honestly, the only real reason I started this debate is because I need to participate in and complete three debates before I can start voting. That being said, I started this debate, and I'm going to finish it. I will admit that my argument for Spec Ops: The Line was sloppy at best, but I have more than just that, or I would not have even started this debate. FIRST: Having the genres based on mechanics or something else as basic, I will argue, is the same as having movie genres based on the camera view and cinematics, or a book genre based on word choice. This system has worked so far because, for what I can say in AAA gaming, there isn't much variation in games. Most FPS's are COD ripoffs, or at the very least games that play very similarly. But what if a game breaks tradition? My ace card, ladies and gentlemen------ Portal. It is a game that involves shooting in the first person, but is seldom considered an FPS. It is, in my experience a puzzle game in the eyes of most gamers. If I am right, this is something that the gamers that you mentioned in your final argument have done to name their genres, and the point you made about the " game genre naming system" supports my ideas. If I am wrong, and people consider it an FPS, that just proves that these genres can easily become confusing to the player, as the term FPS tells you nothing of the game Portal. Also, let's look at the FPS genre. The "FP", stands for first person, implying that a third person shooter falls under a different category, despite the miniscule difference it has on gameplay and player experience
Video game genres shouldn't be defined by mechanics, controls, or intended "ways to play the game"

Letting someone know what they are in for is the primary usage of such classifications.Spec Ops: The Line is set apart from other FPS due to having strong storytelling and narrative which actually condemns violence. However people who enjoy traditional FPSs can still play it and like it without engaging with the story and having a strong narrative than condemns war is not enough for most people.Let's come up with a description for the "feel" of Spec Ops, as you posit this "feel" as the replacement for conventional genres. Let's say "Brutal immersion in the horrors of war while becoming dehumanised". Let's say that's the description people get. If someone only likes JRPG games and hates FPS, this will not tell them if they like the game.If I only knew what type of "feel" a certain game had I, and almost all gamers, would be completely disappointed if it turned out to be one that we don't like. The mechanics and way to play the game are what most people care about, so it is the primary and most important definition.If you'd like to test this, feel free to name a few genres of game you like and a few you dislike. I'll describe the "feel" of a few games from each genre in question without mentioning which genre they're from. You tell me which you like the sound of then I reveal what they are. I bet you'll pick some games that you'll find you don't like once they're revealed and you know more about them than their general "feel".With some games, by definition it must be the gameplay which defines the type of game as there is practically nothing else of note to define it with. The implication of your position is that story and narrative should have primacy, which seems to be what you mean by "feel". How do we accurately describe tetris if not a "puzzler". What about Kerbal Space Simulator? Or Starcraft 2? They lack a narrative, so what are you going to do? Make graphics their defining feature? Or Sound?Are you going to try to describe a RTS in terms of whatever minimal storyline and largely inconsequential storyline they use? Or by the core gameplay mechanics that define what a game is.People will find much more in common with classic tetris and a modern cartoony tetris remake then between a modern cartoony tetris remake and a cartoony beat-em up. This is because the genre, the actual nature of the gameplay, is the defining feature.There is no " game genre naming system" that came up with genre descriptionThe names of different genres have developed organically over time within the video-game community. They have not been enforced from above. They are therefore the definitions that gamers largely want to use and find useful - otherwise they wouldn't have developed.
Video game genres shouldn't be defined by mechanics, controls, or intended "ways to play the game"

[in a sarcastic tone] Well, the game genre naming system (or whoever started naming the genres) has produced brilliant and original names to make sure the audience knows what they're in for. For example: If it involves shooting things with a first person camera, then it is a first person shooter. This category includes and endless stream of COD ripoffs, but also games like Spec Ops: The Line, one that produces an entirely different feel. As a matter of fact, it makes fun of the aforementioned clones. These games are entirely different, yet they are crammed into the same category, despite the fact that playing them gives you entirely different experiences.
Choose the Topic debate!!!

Yes, good point. But see, even if we had no Easter Christmas would still be a holiday worth celebrating because he did more than just be a normal person. He is not just meant to be celebrated by. I am a her by the way. Believe it or not some Jews like my grandfather do celebrate Christmas and some Muslims like my uncle Jose celebrate Christmas because they respect this particular holiday. Christmas is not just a religious holiday. And when I brought this topic up in the first round you chose to make this religious. I meant it as a childish way of celebrating it. Santa is not false. It is the belief in him that makes him real. You are just a party pooper because you don't believe in the wonderful short fat man who delivers presents. He may not be a real person but the belief in him makes him alive. I stopped believing in him when I was five because I saw my parents do Santa's job. Now as I just refitted my last and final argument, I had fun. Thank you for this debate and Vote me.
Choose the Topic debate!!!

I will be making my rebuttals of my opponent's second round. His arguments are very short, so my rebuttal will not go in super length also. They will just be concise. Without Easter, Christmas will be useless, the birth of Jesus would have no meaning, because then Jesus will be like same as any normal person; he won't be a special person. It's kinda useless, and people won't celebrate a birth, like any other birth, or every single day would be a holiday because another Jack or John was born. Christmas would have no meaning if there was no Easter. Therefore my opponent's point is refuted. My opponent also makes his argument in an opinion, and it is a bare assertion."No matter what religion people believe in Christmas is still a celebration." This is totally wrong, people like Muslim, Jews, etc. don't celebrate Christmas because it is a religious holiday. Even some of my classmates don't celebrate Christmas, actually most don't because they aren't Christian. So my opponent is wrong, for them it is not a celebration.Santa is false. I don't think I need to explain this right now. My opponent says he will prove me wrong, but clearly he won't, and I will make him try to prove me wrong. Who cares if it is more known? It doesn't make it a better holiday; just a holiday which is more celebrated, that's off topic. Therefore, as I refuted all my opponent's arguments, Vote for me