BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
MMORPG's

Realism isn't what I meant obviously MMORPG's aren't made for realism. What I'm trying to say is the world needs to be more interactive and make leveling up more worthwhile. It'd be nice to take control of positions on the map or build your own and defend it. I honestly along with others don't find grinding fun killing the same monster again and again. What if someone could level up to prepare for battle and one that mattered. Sure there's PVP, but it feels repetitive and pointless. Let's give an example say I was the most powerful player in a MMORPG this would not matter to anyone. Why because my character really isn't any different from others or unique and please don't mention character design. This doesn't mean appearance it means in making a difference real interaction. Imagine a world where your characters name was talked about through out the world a real success. Instead your left wanting more (levels), but this never ends of mattering as you have accomplished nothing. Basically being able to change the world something everyone wants a chance to do this motive would make players try harder and more interesting and overall a world I'd try my hardest to be a part of. (Side Note) You lied about different variety levels of punishment they all are extremely chilled punishments which makes characters lazy and oh so dull and boring. (Lastly) It annoyed me severely that you said you may fight low levels many time to get to high levels. Duh as I said grinding which is again pointless and doesn't lead to any meaningful progression.
MMORPG's

MMORPG stands for Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. This is an experience like no other. You take a noob level one trash tier player and you nurture it and make that beautiful set of pixels on your screen become that Level 110 major pro that wrecks the noobs to the highest degrees imaginable. Along the way, you will come across monsters, or at the very least obstacles to you leveling up. In addition, each level requires more XP (experience points) to get to the next level than the difference between the previous one. Depending on which MMORPG you are playing, HP (health points) can be a factor and dying can either mean literally dying for good and having to start back form level 1 or perhaps having to lose all items you gained in your inventory and remaining at your level but super poor. Different MMORPGs have difference severity of punishment for failure as some are specifically designed to be more chilled out than others and cater for a different temperament of player/gamer. The Contender here seems discontented with the fact that you can fight a low level char many times and still reach high levels rather than risking it on a higher level char to level up faster (at the higher peril of death being more probable) this is similar to real life where the difference between the same numeric levels of higher ranks is often far more severe than the difference between lower ranks. So, for instance, the difference between a black belt and brown belt, in a martial art is often far more severe than between a yellow and white belt. The realism is on point to a degree but of course it's only fun if it's simple and not mind-boggling. Who wants to have to strategize an entire war strategy every time they want to level up? sure some players do, there's online chess for that or even complex war strategy MMORPGs specifically for those specialized player types. I think the issue my opponent has is with the fighting-styled games where everything is far too simplified and unrealistic. What my opponent has failed to understand is that games aren't always suppose dot be super realistic even fi it is 'role-playing' a real scenario.
MMORPG's

I'm going to say something that may anger a whole race of gamers, but I feel I must. MMORPG's are a failure as a whole they all have not reached the correct scale necessary. I heard of them awhile ago, but they lack everything that would make them worth while. Now this is easily debatable and I'll think it'll show below, but so many needed essentials are missing. Tons hardly feel interactive with other players which I feel is beyond important. No consequences is a system worked into most games. Why is this in an MMORPG where I want to feel like I'm actually in a adventure trying to survive. Something I can't stress enough why don't the players directly and permanently change the environment. Imagine if one of the best players and his team could take over a city or start a war against another team or army. This would keep the game fresh for years to come considering the environment would change nearly every day. The grinding delusion and disappointment is to me and some others downright terrible. People spend hours fighting the same enemies leveling up their character while in the delusion it matters. How and why does it matter if everyone can complete the same quest and get the same legendary. Legendaries should live their names players become legends for having them instead of everyone having one and bragging. Completely makes them feel dull and disappointing since everyone has one. Overall what I'm saying is the idea of a MMORPG is genius, but it hasn't been done successfully.
Fallout (Pro) vs Elder scrolls (Con)

With a total of 7 installments the Fallout series is one of the most well known video game series known to gamer kind. The world takes place in the future that the people of the 40's and 50's imagined. This is one of the most unique setting in any game series. While the elder scrolls is more of a typical fantasy game, Fallout's world is more of a what if. What if we had an atomic age instead of the age of the internet. Fallout's game play is also incredible, there is something magical about roaming in the once great city's of the U.S. Fighting super mutants and ghouls on the way.
Fallout (Pro) vs Elder scrolls (Con)

Saying that whats popular is better is completely wrong. In your argument you kinda proved your first claim wrong, if Call of Duty is the number one shooter but tons of people hate it, does that make it good? Also what about games like Tetris, or Metal Gear Solid 3. Those games are classified as the best of there class. However not many people actually play it. Now lets not focus on numbers but by actual gameplay. From the Capital Wasteland to the Commonwealth the fallout series is always being improved, I always felt the opposite of the elderscrolls series. Morrowind was for me were the gameplay peaked. And from there on it went down hill. In Oblivion it felt like they were setting up my own path.You try playing as a thieve and try to go through a gate of oblivion. So eventually I just kinda gave up and make my thief into a warrior.Speaking of being a thief, in Oblivion you would be lucky to be able to by a flipping sweet roll with the amount of money you make from thieving. In Fallout however there was constant progression in the series. In fallout 3 they made the world 3D and more of an action RPG (V.A.T.S, more weapons etc) in Fallout NV they made the side faction alot more interesting. And in Fallout 4 A TON WAS ADDED, Base building, Armor and Weapon crafting, A new V.A.T.S, Customizable Pip-Boy Color, A better combat system. I could go on and on!
Fallout (Pro) vs Elder scrolls (Con)

Although it may be true that Fallout 4 is played more, that is because it is a newer game and is the flavor of the month. I'd like to see fallout 4 have 30k players in 2020 (five years after its release). For example, Fallout: New Vegas, made in 2010, now only has a 1k average of players in game and a negative gain (meaning less and less players are playing it) while skyrim averages 25k players at a time for the last 30 days with a +7% gain (http://steamcharts.com...). Also, popular DOES mean good, and the word "bae" is a outlier. Also, people tend to hate what society does not agree with them. Why does CoD get so much hate if it is the top rated first person shooter? Because the more people that like it also means the more people that hate it. Next, looking at the negative Fallout 4 reviews, the top ten have no complaints about slow frames per second. You want to look at all the games? Elder Scrolls Online, 5, 4, and 3 all have positive gain of players over the last 30 days.
Fallout (Pro) vs Elder scrolls (Con)

Fallout is available on Xbox, PC and Playstation as well. Also whats played more doesn't mean a games better. Also currently Fallout 4 is more played than Skyrim at the moment (http://steamcharts.com...) . Back to what I was saying about whats popular isn't always good, the word bae is popular but most of us hate it. And the only reason why most players rate skyrim more that Fallout, is because people don't read the PC requirements for fallout 4 and then go on a rampage because they didnt use common sence and tried to run a new AAA game on there Dell Laptop. And Skyrim is an easier to run game so most computers can run it. (Also remember were focusing on the series all together not just the most recent game)
Fallout (Pro) vs Elder scrolls (Con)

Although Fallout, compared to the 5 versions of Elder scrolls, has two more installments, metacritic rates Skyrim, the fifth elder scroll, five out of five stars. This has one more star than the 4/5 rating of Fallout 4, the latest installment. Now, many people do not consider metacritic ratings as a reputable source; instead, the majority believes user ratings are much more valuable. Because of this, we will look at the ratings from steam customers. Skyrim has over 100,00 reviews, and is rated extremely high. Also, it is a five year old game, but there is, on average, over 30k players at a time on steam, and thats just steam! Skyrim is also available to pther brands like xbox. Resources: https://steamcommunity.com... http://www.metacritic.com...
perfection can never exist

such thing as perfection is an illusion it is created by humans especially the weak . the people who seek every thing without the will to sacrifice anything . to get results without putting effort . they make an image that can never exist a group of the values they seek not only the values even the material side is included they think of someone smart handsome wealthy and healthy , with no flaws or mistakes thaw I think it's impossible that it'll ever exist but I think it has an important role in some people's lives as goal it's what they seek ; besides as personalities change the definition of a perfect image changes but it's always the one thing that we think as impossible and at the same time that can provide the ultimate happiness ps : sorry for my bad english
perfection can never exist

Pleased to "meet" you, Pro. I accept this debate and look forward to a good discussion. I would like to remind the voters that the burden of proof is on Pro in this debate.As my opponent's R1 speech consisted entirely of rhetoric, with no actual arguments presented, there is nothing for me to respond to other than the resolution itself. My response shall be a presentation of examples of perfection.In the physical worldAny unrestrained liquid in a zero gravity environment will form itself into a perfect sphere.[1]In metaphysicsDeities, especially the Judeo-Christian God, are often said to be perfect, to act perfectly or to have perfect qualities (i.e., omniscience).[2]I look forward to my opponent's response.Sources1. http://startswithabang.com...2. Psalm 18:30
All drugs should be legalized

I think Pro's overlooking why drugs are "illegal" in the first place; they are dangerous. Yes, my opponent said " When we decide to legalize drugs, we can make the process of getting and using drugs safer.", but legalizing drugs doesn't make it healthy like that. There are many drugs which are dangerous, such as LSD, Heroin, Cannabis, and Barbiturates. Some drugs are illegal, because they're harmful to people. Legalization can't fix this, therefore those drugs should be illegal.
All drugs should be legalized

Legalizing drugs would make them much safer. When we decide to legalize drugs, we can make the process of getting and using drugs safer. By passing drugs through the government, instead of passing drugs through drug dealers, we can make sure that dirty needles and like aren't used when drugs are being used. Also by passing drugs through the government, we can make it so that when users buy certain drugs, they know that that drug is what they"ll be getting, instead of another drug advertised as the drug they"re buying. We can make taxes off of drugs. By passing drugs through the government, the government can impose taxes on drugs, providing a major boost to the economy.
The existence of God has a more logical infrastructure then the basis for unicorns

On an unrelated note, the idea that somehow rationalism is grounded in an almost mathematical consistency is itself circular. The fact that so many people are atheist simply because of the lack of proof for God should render the logical alternative with the same handicap. But on unicorns. The notion that a unicorn has the same amount of empirical proof as any other intangible sentient agency is wrong in it's own right simply because the consensus of unicorn believers isn't that they are intangible. Rather they exist noumenally on some candy mountain somewhere being gay. The proliferation of the religious institution is grounded fundamentally in a number of different disciplines. First, the ancient Aquinas notion that Newtonian physics (maybe not chronologically) proves that for motion in the universe to exist at all there must be a creator itself not created to make the first series of motions. If you reject that a creator moved the objects in the universe directly and that maybe a big bang is an adequate enough theory to move objects irrespective of God. Then multi-universality becomes the creator of atom which created the universe. There are two problems with this. First Your not answering the question just creating a pseudo-satisfying subset, which yields a similar but different question, what created the multiverse? Second The multiverse is completely theoretical in the same way God is metaphysical, and you have no weighing mechanism on which you can yield an "objective" answer. Unicorns in no way address any of these logical antagonisms. Secondly, The fact that people die, (of course not just people but animals plants etc.) yields a number of interesting hypothesis on whether or not death is transcendental or simply an end to series of biological interactions. But Labeling something simply as an arbitrary phenomenon, or as a series of chemical, or quantum mechanical events is to completely miss the point. When asked what's the meaning of life. In your atheistic world, there is none. People are born they live and the die, giving birth to an offspring with the same inevitable outcome. However meaning doesn't exist in the world, e.g. a tree doesn't have "meaning" irrespective of its observer. Rather it is our humanism which assigns symbols and cultural or historical significance to otherwise futile collections of particles. And with this attached meaning (which is impossible to remove from our observations; see Derrida or Levinas) we witness the birth of a new number of implications, all of which have some idiosyncratic significance. And imply that without our humanism your collection of particles wouldn't exist in the first place, as would the notion that God put them there, and that the two feuding notions are logically grounded in the same Genesis.
The existence of God has a more logical infrastructure then the basis for unicorns

I'd first like to start out by congratulating my opponent on that sick burn he dealt me at the top of his argument. Good one. He first asserts that you can only disprove logic, logically, and therefore it is impossible. This is by far the most circular argument I've ever heard in my entire life. But that's not even the reason I'm going to claim that it's wrong. Luckily I'm creative enough to think of my own arguments instead mechanically applying fallacies to everything. The reason this notion should be rejected is that I don't need to logically disprove logic but rather ask a series of questions that render the logical agent with the burden to prove its concreteness. For example, Why should I be logical? What proves rationality to be truly rational? Who decides what's true and untrue? None of which have anything to with a logical stream of cognition. He tries to call straw man, however he didn't show how I misrepresented a unicorn, just that I did. It's not as if the common consensus for unicorns, is that it represents a God, and for him to claim that it does would be straw man itself. On motion To say that we don't know what happened would be ridiculous. I don't assert God because I feel like it, rather I logically deduce that something transcendent started the causal chain that led to motion. This is so far the only explanation. He then tries to say that a unicorn could have created the universe but obviously he is trying to apply the omnipotence of god to a unicorn which would then make the unicorn godlike. This concession isn't a rebuttal of the argument but rather a re-assignment of the physical label of God. God could take the shape of a unicorn or something gay like that but of corse he would still be God. We can't make assumptions about the world in which God lives. To say that you know for a fact that the same laws of physics apply in every state would be a blatant lie. On God of gaps, "It is theologically more satisfactory to look for evidence of God's actions within natural processes rather than apart from them, in much the same way that the meaning of a book transcends, but is not independent of, the paper and ink of which it is comprised." John Habgood But of course God of gaps isn't a fallacy. Like my opponent would like to claim it is, rather it's an argument on the same footing as any other that atheist have created to attempt to undermine the phenomenology of the unexplained world, and it's a refusal to believe that God in any way had anything to do with anything. It's like if someone dropped there keys in a dark alley way at night, but only looked for it in under the street lights, because they refuse acknowledge the truth. Read Goethe's Faust
The existence of God has a more logical infrastructure then the basis for unicorns

So I would have thanked my opponent for a well thought out debate, but his argument is really pathetic to say the least. First let me link to logic definition so all the voters who don't know what it means can see it. http://www.merriam-webster.com... His argument that the use of logic is circular is attacking a properly basic belief. The reason we have to accept logic is that in order to say logic doesn't work you have to use logic. Like my opponent tried to do. Now on to his second point, he blatantly asserts what unicorn believers think does not back it up. But alas in doing so he created a straw man argument for unicorn believers. A Straw man is a logical fallacy, and a logical fallacy is by definition not logical. So he failed to show why god is more logical and the proof of that is that he used a logical fallacy as his overall argument here. Problem with the second argument is who created the creator, if god was suppose to move he needed something to create it, or is he special pleading. Special pleading is a logical fallacy, so hence not logical again. He is also doing an argument from igorance or god of the gaps argument. The fact that we don't know how the first motion started does not imply god. It says we don't know and he asserts god. I could say pinky the invisible pink unicorn made it and god can't account for it too. That would mean unicorns are even with god in logical infrastructure. Now to the last point, again god of the gaps argument from ignorance. When we don';t know something the correct answer is we don't know. I could assert pinky the invisible pink unicorn created a place where people go when they die as well as religion can. This does not make it logical. Links to the fallacies: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Trayvon Martin equally acted in self-defense against George Zimmerman

The way that pro is defining the world self-defense is kind of bollocks. If you look at it from that perspective anything can be self defense. Example: I punch someone in the face. I started the fight. They act in self defense. Now sense they are acting in self defense, I have the right to act in self defense. This type of thinking is at the most a failure in logic. I will not contest this much due to the fact Con is mumbling the same things. He also concedes that martin was the one who started the physical aspect of the fight. As far him Zimmerman baiting him when the fight started, I have explained why he followed him. Zimmerman was not baiting martin into a fight. He was worried that a criminal with a hoodie was wrongly in the gated community where he lived. He was right. When someone confronts you to ask "hey let me call the cops because you don't belong here", and then you see fit to bounce their head of the sidewalk like a ball. This is not self defense it is stupidity, and initiating the fight at which point Zimmerman had the right to act in self defense. Cons logic is what I would could faulty.