BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
subnautica is better than roblox

Roblox is better than Subnautica, as it can allow the maker of the game to implement a variety of game mechanics, items, and stories, to create an original game,unless they create a rip off. It is also free, and offers a humongous variety of content, due to the creators of the games, with fun events with rewards. It is essentially a site that allows people to create their own games, and even earn money if a player uses Robux(the currency in Roblox) decides to spend it for buffs for the in game experience. However, this is usually not necessary for a player to enjoy the gaming experience. This shows much greater creativity than Subnautica. As for graphics, Roblox's uncomplicated graphics allow for people to implement graphics they create into their game for greater effect.
subnautica is better than roblox

Prep 10 m Cook 1 h Ready In 1 h 10 m Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Mix ground beef, chorizo sausage, bread crumbs, 1/2 cup pasta sauce, egg, garlic, Italian seasoning, salt, and pepper together in a bowl until well combined. Shape meat mixture into a loaf pan. Spread 1 tablespoon prepared pasta sauce over top of loaf. Bake in preheated oven until no longer pink in the center, about 1 hour. An instant-read thermometer inserted into the center should read at least 160 degrees F (70 degrees C).
subnautica is better than roblox

First off, that could be said about almost any place on the internet, including forums about Subnautica, and on its steam page. Also with all the nearly indefinite possibilities of game creation on Roblox, you can create nearly any type of game, including a single player survival sim. However you can also create tycoon games, and parkour maps as well, and that is just the tip of the iceberg of all the possibilities of game creation, and, more importantly, fun.
Legalizing Drugs

All of our lives we've been told that drugs are bad for you. I believe that legalizing drugs is a bad idea because they would be even more dangerous. A lot of drugs are addictive and if you are addictive you will be taking them more often then you should even though you shouldn't be doing them. If you are addicted to them you might overdose and die. Also some can kill you if you take them regularly. If they legalize drugs they would be taken more because it is legal and its more likely to take them regularly and those things might happen.
Legalizing Drugs

We have been told throughout our lives that drugs are harmful. I believe that restricting drugs are what makes them so dangerous, this is because of the fact that people are more inclined to harm others to make money off of drugs. Evidence given by Ashley Fantz of CNN writes, "According to figures released on January 11 by the Mexican government, 12,903 people were killed in drug related violence in the first nine months of 2011." Some supporters of drug legalization suggest that legalizing drugs will reduce crime rate. This in fact supports my evidence that drug cartels run on illegal drug money. If the government controlled drug vending it would destroy the drug cartel profit dropping crime rates dramatically. While it may be true that drugs can be harmful when using them improperly, it's important to remember that drugs are used every day to save lives.
The United States should Abolish the Death Penalty

The death penalty is counter productive because in a criminal justice system like the United States people are bound to slip through the cracks who did not commit a crime, and be executed for a crime they didn't commit. Legal experts and statisticians from Michigan and Pennsylvania used the latest techniques to produce a PEER REVIEWED (that is very important for validity) study that showed that at least 4.1% of people who were given the death penalty since the 1970's were later proven as well as anything can be proven to be innocent. This is an impressive figure, because what this shows that, if the point of the death penalty is retribution for families of victims of murder, the death penalty is counter productive when people innocent of that crime are executed. Keep in mind, if you are pro death penalty you are accepting that some people who were innocent will slip through the cracks. Article:http://www.theguardian.com... Study the article was based on: http://www.pnas.org... On top of the counter productivity, I have heard the argument that the death penalty actually costs less than a life sentence, but this is false on every front. 1) Until some one is finally executed the regular prison price is being paid while they are on death row, meaning a death penalty does not get rid of the prison cost. 2)It costs $2,000,000 to $5,000,000 in tax revenue for each death penalty case for trials and appeals, while for an entire 40 years in prison it costs $1,000,000-$1,250,000. So the death penalty is much more expensive than a life sentence. http://okcadp.org...
The United States should Abolish the Death Penalty

I'm formally extending this invitation to SocialDemocrat after watching his debate with Queencop. It was a fun debate to spectate, and I would like a slice of the cake :) According to Merriam-Webster, death penalty is defined as "execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense." Today, 32 states, and even the Federal government uses death penalty. My stand: Death Penalty should be maintained as part of the US System of Justice SocialDemocrat's stand: The death penalty should be abolished My arguments will be that death penalty should be maintained, but limited to use for only the most atrocious crimes, and that the receiver should be ensured to be well-represented by a legal counsel. First Round is for acceptance, definitions and clarification only. Opposition may not bring up any new arguments in the last round, as I will not have any rounds left to rebut them. I'm looking forward to your acceptance :)
Malala Yousafzai Should Have to take the SAT/ACT Before Applying to Stanford

My rebuttals to Con’s claims are basically my opening arguments, but I’ll still address the premise of Con’s argument. Con argument especially boils down to the fact that Yousafzai is so far ahead to every other applicant that she should be able to bypass the SAT since it exits for comparison. One thing Con refers to is that Yousafzai would be invaluable in class discussions (in philosophy for example). However, that automatically assumes just because of her experience she will have wiser or more detailed things to say than others. As one of the world’s best universities Stanford has some of the brightest minds in the world coming into its school, who may be just as if not more capable of providing enlighten discussions, just with perhaps less experience to draw back on. Pro assumes she’s one of the world’s greatest thinkers because of her experiences, but that greatly underestimates the other great thinkers Stanford has coming in, who also had to take the SAT or the ACT. Con also mentions how she would help grow student clubs. Once again, many Stanford students who take the SAT/ACT do that and they may have a huge history of doing so in their high schools. It doesn’t allow them to bypass simple admission requirements. It would perhaps be more appropriate for Stanford to honour her an honorary degree or invite her in as a guest speaker. That way she could help Stanford’s campus while not having to be a student and follow the basic criteria for becoming one. However, Con’s main point is that since the SAT is used as an equalizer she shouldn’t have to take it since she’s so far ahead already. However, she’s not ahead of the basic need to be compared to others in an academic sense. Without a doubt, she’ll probably have the strongest personal profile statement and probably have a lot of leeway, but if she scores horrible on the SAT she may not be currently suited for the classes at such a prestigious school at Stanford. Her academic accomplishments have yet to been weighed by Stanford’s and all of the US’s standard, the SAT/ACT. It would be in Stanford and even Yousafzai’s interests to have her take the SAT and see where she stands academically relative to the rest of the top Stanford applicants. She may ace it and continue to do great things at Stanford, but she would need to prove she is at least on some level close to what Stanford accepts.
Malala Yousafzai Should Have to take the SAT/ACT Before Applying to Stanford

Sorry this is so short, I became unexpectedly busy tonight. Role Model to Other International Students: Without a doubt Malala Yousafzai’s a role model to many people around the world. Especially when it comes to fighting for the right to an education and Stanford (and the US as whole) is one of the best places in the world to get an education. (1) So naturally, if internationals around the world see Yousafzai taking the SAT or ACT to receive such a great higher education, more of them may be encouraged to take the American entrance exams, so they can receive education at a US school. With top quality education, more internationals would be gaining opportunities they never once even may have thought of. However, if these internationals see such a great role model like Yousafzai getting into Stanford without having to take the SAT/ACT, it may hurt their confidence thinking, “if Yousafzai got in without taking the SAT, what chance do I have taking it?” Equality: Every applicant to Stanford is required to take either the SAT or the ACT. (2) This include[d/s] future professional athletes, presidents, famous actors, self-made billionaires, hard working high school students, some of whom are international. (3) Why should this case be any different? It shouldn’t, there are kids throughout the world applying to Stanford who spent months and sometimes years preparing for the SAT/ACT just because they wanted to go to Stanford. There are also kids who aced every official test administrated in their country who were still required to take the SAT or ACT. Unless Yousafzai gets an absolutely terrible score, assuming she takes the SAT/ACT, she’ll be admitted. This is not an issue for her, but her bypassing it is problematic for the thousands of students applying to Stanford who have put a lot of time and effort into taking these tests. Not Preferred: It’s not in Stanford’s interest to break their requirements for someone. Why? For one, it shows their requirements aren’t absolute and are open to be broken. It also shows they don’t value the SAT or ACT as being an absolutely required benchmark to attend Stanford. This hurts the credibility of the school, since they are showing they’re willing to make exceptions to something they clearly value (shown by having and keeping it as a requirement). It will also lead to many others requesting exceptions and they’ll have fuel to This could also hurt Yousafzai’s credibility. Many (especially Stanford students or past and present hopefuls), may think she did not deserve admission because she didn’t follow the minimum requirements. They may think she was simply given a free ride because she has the Peace Prize and/or because she was shot. This is really bad, because it undermines everything Yousafzai fights for (notably equality in education), which I’m sure Con agrees are very important messages. It may even have some see her struggle as not as great as it really was. This wouldn’t be a unique incident. Sources: 1- https://www.timeshighereducation.com... 2- http://admission.stanford.edu... 3- http://www.businessinsider.com...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is unsound

===Definitions===The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) is as follows:(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.(2) The universe has a beginning of its existence.Therefore:(3) The universe has a cause of its existence.(4) If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.Therefore:(5) God exists.[1]God is defined as the personal originator of all that exists. Here the common characteristics of benevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence will not be included as the argument under scrutiny here ignores them.For an argument to be sound means that it is valid (its premises necessitates its conclusion) and all of its premises are true. ===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. Per Con's request, he'll post his preliminary argument in R1.===Sources===[1] http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
The World will be overrun by fat plumpers aka Sumo Wrestlers

The term Sumo Wrestler is meant more as a metaphor for fat people with tooth floss in between their cheeks. It is strictly there to emphasize the fat obesity in our society. The main point I'm making is that obesity will continue to rise and I'm not talking about a little stomach or an extra roll, I'm talking about gutt hanging out of your t-shirt, smelling like vinegar, legs rubbing together 350 lbs plumpers that you see stuffing their pie holes at the all you can eat trough called Golden Coral or Panderosa or Sizzler or whatever all you can eat buffet. I once saw an all you can eat pasta (how much pasta can someone eat). Do you know how many carbs are in pasta? The obesity is out of control now, and with the current generation of millenials and future generations all spending their time on social media, nobody is exercising, sports enrollments are down and most young people do not do any form of physical activity or cardiovascular exercise required to keep the weight below obesity with the amount of calories consumed every day. Todays society is already at a record high obesity rate and things will only get worse as humans continue to eat and not exercise and machines make our lives easier with work becoming more about desk jobs and less about physical manufacturing labor jobs. By 2050 we will have all these 400lb people just pushing buttons to get a self driven car (less exercise to have a robot drive while you chow down on a bucket of KFC in the back seat) we will just be pressing buttons and robots will be doing everything for us, and we will just eat and socialize on our digital devices, food will also be delivered and a robot will cook anything you want at home. Therefore your fat azz will just be able to sit in one spot putting on the pounds while the robots will service your every need, including adult diaper changes as you will be too fat to get up to go to the bathroom. Nurse robot will just roll you over and change your diaper and give you that big ice cream cake you wanted for desert. My whole point is that as a society we will look like Sumo wrestlers to any other civilization, alien form that will arrive on earth and see us in 2050.
The World will be overrun by fat plumpers aka Sumo Wrestlers

The title of the debate is the world will be run by sumo wrestlers. While the title is amusing, and so were the pros arguments, I can safely say that the world would not be run by sumo wrestlers but instead political leaders of some kind. (Sadly, we will probably be having celebrities run this world after Trump such as the Rock, maybe Kanye, but definitely not sumo wrestlers). Humans will not go extinct from being overweight, if anything population would be thriving although no one would be in good health, but still, humans would not god extinct over it. I think the pro has a tall mountain to climb if he wants to win this debate. He is going to have to do a better job of showing us how the world will be ran by sumo wrestlers. I expect to hear how sumo wrestlers from Japan will invade the USA and make Sumo wrestling the new USA tradition and how a sumo wrestler becomes the president, and somehow ceases control of all other countries while in power. The pro is just attacking straw men here folks, but I will wait and see his arguments for the later rounds. Anyone want some Nachos?
The World will be overrun by fat plumpers aka Sumo Wrestlers

The world will be overrun by fat, plumper, sumo wrestler type obese people by 2050. With the abundance of food, the buffets, the high sugar content in food and drinks plus the lack of exercise by most people due to the constant sitting in front of computers and on social media and the fact that children do not play outside anymore, just on their devices, the human bodies will turn into obese fat plumpers for the general population. The obesity rate in the USA is already at 56%, as we become more globalized and McDonalds with their grease ball burgers and KFC with their greasy buckets of chicken infiltrate all countries, those countries will get into the same habit of eating crappy food and sitting on social media all day until we will have a world of sumo wrestlers. This is a global pandemic that will result in extinction of human kind through diabetes, heart disease, and other overweight problems.
The World will be overrun by fat plumpers aka Sumo Wrestlers

My opponent still has failed to prove that the world would be overrun by heavier people. I hope you, the readers have realized that now by reading the debate. Further more, if you look at my opponents first link in the last round (3) HE ONLY PROVED MY POINT. Point which being is that currently one third of the world is only overweight. You know what that means? More people in decent shape, not overweight are still the majority. My opponent has not provided any solid argument all three rounds, his entire argument has been nothing more than just a prediction, an estimate of how the world might end up in 2050. He even went to find his sources cause he himself was unsure of the numbers and statistics. It's worth noting, you'll get different statistics from different websites. Also worth noting CNN itself has been caught in the past providing wrong information in their articles. Countries like Africa for example would still not be taken over by fat people by 2050. For my opponent to be right, and I stress this again, more than 50% of the world would have to be overweight, meaning the majority around the world would have to be bigger. As of right now, my opponent is wrong. I too can make the same prediction and say the world will not be overweight in 2050 and be more correct actually seeing that I am currently right as it is now. I can go further and say we might not even be here in 2050 as a species. I can then go on finding sources from websites and linking you guys these sources to look smart and have you guys think I am correct. The wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org... does a good job providing some knowledge on obesity. http://www.worldometers.info... http://www.who.int... "Overall, about 13% of the world"s adult population (11% of men and 15% of women) were obese in 2016." This statement from one of my links gives a better statistic and more believable statistic than my opponents first link in the third round. So as it stands, my opponent only has made a prediction. I think we are all aware that obesity is growing, but it will not be world wide in every country, and will not be over 50% by 2050. It's worth noting obesity is preventable through activity, and exercise.
The World will be overrun by fat plumpers aka Sumo Wrestlers

My opponent fails to recognize the signs and the facts which I will present showing how 1/3 of the world are already plumpers and the numbers keep raising. This equates to one-third of the world's population carrying excess weight, fueled by urbanization, poor diets and reduced physical activity. Global obesity numbers are included here http://www.cnn.com... https://www.bloomberg.com... https://www.theguardian.com... https://www.reuters.com... This should be enough evidence to show that over 2 billion people world wide are obese and the numbers keep rising Point proven apology accepted, case close (mic drop)
The USFG should repeal anti-discrimination laws in the private sector.

I no longer wish to give my opponent a platform to bash minority groups so I’m going to be brief with my rebuttal. Comparing BLM to ISIS is a bad joke. Calling “sin” a scientific process to diagnose mental illness is a bad joke. It is this ignorance that many Americans commonly hold with a straight face that leads to gays being evicted or fired [5] and blacks being denied home loans [1]. Pro says there is no cost to human dignity because it is rare? Even though it’s not rare, and it certainly wasn't rare in the past - today at least 15% of cases plus an unknown amount of settlements shows that unlawful discrimination still happens today – does the commonality of a crime determine it’s legal weight? Murder in Japan is extremely rare especially compared to Western countries, should Japan repeal its murder laws? Of course not. My opponent thinks that court settlements proves that ADL is ineffective – I don’t think Pro understands that it is because of ADL that companies have to settle, it’s because of ADL that allows for a redress of grievances. If Pro were to have his way there would be no court cases or settlements, just discrimination. Some business may fail, but in bigoted communities, especially in the south, most business would not be effected except minority exclusion. Again my opponents attempt at math is a bad joke. “Fine, I'll adjust the population to the 140 million people who are employed. That's less than 0.0002% who have been discriminated against, which is still an extremely small percentage.” Pro doesn’t seem to understand that these cases are rarely individual cases, most being class action lawsuits. That 0.0002% is a representation of cases, it does not tell us how many individuals are involved in these class action discrimination cases. But again he didn’t even factor in settlements. Pro says there are legitimate reasons to discriminate, he’s yet to present a compelling example and has ignored that current ADL already has a handful of exceptions for special business interests. Sources: [5] http://www.npr.org...
The USFG should repeal anti-discrimination laws in the private sector.

My opponent asks for evidence that things like racism and homophobia are common today and thinks prejudice is very rare. My first piece of evidence is Pro himself. Calling BLM terrorists - even though the Dallas shooter was blacklisted from joining their ranks because he showed signs of instability [3] – is prejudice. Calling gays mentally ill – even though the process to classify homosexuality as a mental illness was just as non-scientific as the process to declassify it [4] – is prejudice. Pro says he agrees that discrimination is foolish, yet by repealing ADL it would effectively legalize and legitimize such foolishness. Pro has yet to justify why such foolishness should be permitted when it comes at the high cost of human dignity. Pro says discrimination of the past couldn't happen today, he ignored that 100,000 discrimination cases were filed in a 2 year period, but with his own source he proves more than 15% of the cases have merit - “Another reason why discrimination suits might fare poorly, say lawyers who represent employers, is that companies can be quick to settle suits that appear credible. Cases that aren't settled, says Dallas defense attorney Michael Maslanka, often are frivolous and should be dismissed. Adds Lawrence Lorber, a defense lawyer in Washington: "If it's a real case, they settle. Employers aren't dumb.” My opponent proves that discriminatory practices still occur to this day and are proven damaging in a court of law thus justifying ADL. Pro’s attempt at math is pathetic. He counts the entire US population divided by 15,000 - FYI children, the elderly/retired and the unemployed don’t really have to worry about job discrimination. Finally the religious discrimination, my opponent completely drops this argument meaning he must agree that businesses do not have the right to discriminate based on religious grounds. In conclusion, Pro’s argument is prejudice for the sake of prejudice. He ignores historical context, in denial that it doesn’t happen today. ADL is meant to address the moral failing of racism/sexism/homophobia and the repetitive negative social impacts it has on the respective communities. Sources: [3] http://www.thedailybeast.com... [4] https://www.psychologytoday.com...