BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Is Okay

Regarding my opponents previous debate round; you make a lot of good points, but they can be easily contradicted. Answering your questions, A) a lot of people say. The homos, bis, pans, supporters, etc. B) I mean that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. Okay means not wrong but right. Good. Now, about your argument ice Church basics, yes, the bible does say homosexuality is wrong, but things change, correct? Women used to be seen as people who create more "powerful" men and take care of the men. Now look at us. We are strong, independent, powerful, and free. Hasn't that changed over the years? It has. I was going to ask you why you think gay is not okay in a short answer, but it seems you have given that reason. A very u logical one. "Because God said so." "Homosexuality is a sin." I do worship God and believe He will save us, but if you think that homosexuality is a sin, go for it.do you know what else is a sin? Not treating everyone equally: telling people what they are doing is wrong, put someone at a lower position, ignoring the word of God. Everyone sins. You sinned by dissing the baptist Church. Did you realize that? Now, even if homosexuality is a sin, God will love you just the same. I am Christian. I have been for a long time. I only realized I was gay after I joined Church and accepted God. And you know what? He helped me. He turned my life, which was awful, just a little bit better. Slowly each day, my life is getting better because He is with me. You, my fellow opponent, contradicted the fact that there is no harm in loving someone. You stated that you could love someone who abuses and mistreats you, but in reality, if they do that and you have to leave them, it's not love. It never was. You were just blinded by something. What? I have no idea. You also stated that "We do not want the homosexual to have a more boring life"" May I ask, in what way is a life of being homosexual boring? Is it because you stereotype gays as non Christians? Are you saying people who aren't Christians have a boring life? No. Our life is perfectly entertaining and attention grabbing as yours is. Conclusion: Everyone sins, God loves us no matter what, and it's okay to fall in love with someone of the same sex. Thanks. :3
Gay Is Okay

The U.S. recently passed the law allowing gay couples to get married, but some how, people decide it's still worth protesting against. I still don't understand why. Gay just means that two people of the same gender fall in love. There is no harm in loving someone. According to society and the media, relationships are in, so why is a relationship with two guys or girls bad? Twaimz (Issa) once made a video on YouTube called 'You're Gay' in which he protested against haters and stood up for the people who just wanted to love. "Why hate someone because they love someone? Like, they're not hating you." Being gay myself, I know that it can be hard with the haters. It's especially hard when you are a homosexual AND go to a Christian church. With my religion, I'm told that God says homosexuality is bad. Sure, God created a man and woman and people will protest with the common phrase, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" This is true, but if God created Adam and Steve, there would be quite a lot heterophobic people or no females at all! How would you females feel? Not so great huh? What about straight (or bi, pan, etc.) people didn't get who you loved? Homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, and any other sexuality that is with one gender liking the same gender (even the slightest bit) has all the rights to be as equally accepted as heterosexuality.
Call of duty is better than battlefield

IGN did give COD Ghost 8.8 rating but that was a review of the game on next-gen consoles and many people seem to disagree with IGN as at the moment the video has 4,344 likes to 7,703 dislikes. The IGN review on battlefield however was on current-gen and the public seem to like battlefield a lot better as that video has 4,403 likes to 1,661 dislikes. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... Since you are trying to find faults in my arguments, an easy fault that i could state for you is that you have not listed a single source this whole debate.
Call of duty is better than battlefield

Cod zombies has been a hit and a world wide popular feature which is a very important reason why so many people bought black ops 2. In many videos people say the first thing they do once they buy black ops 2 is play zombies which proves how popular it is. Zombies, extinction, squads, special ops with missions mode,chaos mode, survival mode are such popular modes they are the reasons why cod has the edge. These are things that make people like cod more and buy it. Battlefield is said to have only good multiplayer , destruction and commander mode while cod is famous for all its modes and is given the advantage and win. IGN ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RATING SITES GAVE COD GHOSTS 8.8 AND BATTLEFIELD 4 8.5 WHICH MEANS OVERALL THEY ALSO BELIEVE BATTLEFIELD IS BETTER. you can search battlefield 4s rating by ign and cod ghosts. cod ghosts campaign also has the feature of tanks and helicopters which doesn't make battlefields vehicles so special now that cod also has it and I know you would be then saying it doesn't have vehicles in multiplayer, well it doesn't really take away vehicles and destruction in battlefield it will be hated cod doesn't even have it however ask cod fans they don't mind and its popular without it means that cod without all the advantages battlefield has is still very popular and those are the only reasons why battlefields like by the average gamer PS: you wrote dsiables instead of disables so if its a draw I might get the winning edge by the votes ratings :).
Call of duty is better than battlefield

For the campaign for both franchises i do agree with every point and statement you have given and overall agree that Call of Duty's campaign is better. Now for the multiplayer of both franchises i see you have already given some reasons why battlefields multiplayer is better so i do not need to cover them, but i do believe battlefields multiplayer is exceptionally better than call of duty's. I think you are exaggerating the point of walking far distances to reach enemies. It does not take that long to reach destinations on foot and the only way it could get so boring to the point where people need to complain is if they have really short attention spans. Also the only way you do spawn far away from enemies is at the start of the game or your team is unable to secure bases to give you other spawn points. An easy way to stop spawning far away from enemies is play with a squad so then not only do you have bases to spawn at you can spawn at teammates who are deep in battle and you are able to get into the action straight away. This also give you the option of choosing a spawn which call of duty has never been able to introduce. I do agree with the fact that it is bad that you have to pay real money for certain guns in battlefield but battlefield 4 has approx. 110 guns to choose from and call of duty ghost has only a mere 40. So even though you have to pay for some guns, i am sure battlefield have more free guns to choose from anyway. Call of Duty does have a lot more game modes than battlefield but this year in Call of Duty Ghosts took out game modes which were liked by the public. This could also be a reason why it is the first decline in sales between games in the franchises history! Call of Duty does have the perk system but many do not like perks as well as the people who do. They do also have kill streaks but they are mostly helicopters and other vehicles which battlefield already have without needing to earn them. This is much better for gamers who are not very good at FPS and do not get many kill streaks in COD. This means that they can use these vehicles in battlefield without earning them and fun like everyone else. Kill streaks also mean RAGE. I have experienced this first hand. When you are one kill off precious kill streak and then, BOOM, you walk past a claymore and die. All you want to do is turn off your xbox/playstation/pc and not play the game. Yes call of duty do have many fun modes but a mode that battlefield has that does not get enough credit is commander mode. I have actually caught myself using commander mode more than i thought. If you are getting slightly bored playing but you still want to play games with your friends or still stay with you squad being the commander is a good option as not only are you still playing with your friends but now you can be a tactical mind to try help your team win. It gives you a good fun escape from gameplay before you are ready to play again.
Call of duty is better than battlefield

Thank you for accepting this challenge. I shall begin with the campaign, now we all know that Cod has a better campaign than battlefield for the following reasons 1. It makes you care about the characters and have feelings about them 2. Has an interesting story which makes it very entertaining 3. It is well structured 4. The criminals (characters) are also very unique 5. It's missions around the world or in space, underwater, ships etc. The missions are very nice to enjoy with every mission having their own unique feature. So as you can see if people don't like playing online with others Cod has backup such as a great campaign and spec ops, zombies etc which I will tell you more about later on. Also in black ops 2 you have the free will to choose your own weapons for that mission which is a fantastic feature. Overall Cods campaigns are better than battlefields. Multiplayer Now I shall admit Battlefields Multiplayer is better however not by a long distance as a matter of fact Cods multiplayer can be more fun I shall explain why. Battlefield is more realistic than Cod so you can do the following 1. Bullet drop 2. Destruction of buildings 3. recoil Also Battlefield has tanks, helicopters, jets and bigger maps, more attachments etc. There is one bad thing with big maps in battlefield, So I have played Battlefield play4free online on the Internet www.battlefieldplay4free.com In big maps if other players have taken the tanks and vehicles you have to walk a lot to reach enemies and opponent base camps which can get boring. One really bad factor about battlefield online ( battlefield 3/play4free/4) is that for unlocking certain guns you have got to purchase with real money which is really not fun and very bad. Cod is also very good in multiplayer and more fun, I will explain why 1. In cod everything is free 2. Cod has way more game modes than Battlefield which makes it so much fun such as I have cod ghosts which is amazing an example of a fun game mode is infected which is really fun. 3. Cod has more perks, has kill streaks etc. The turning point on why COD OVERALL is better than Battlefield Besides fun multiplayer and average campaign does battlefield have anything else, not really so for cod it has more varieties of options for example 1.Treyarch produced a very popular mode called zombies which you have to admit is very cool and fun 2. Infinity ward made special ops which has 3 more options in it Missions mode, survival mode and chaos. 3.cod ghosts from infinity ward has extinction which is so much fun and squads. so overall cod has more options which are a lot of fun to produce the ultimate entertainment package. Overall I think that cod is better than battlefield since it has more game modes and game options to choose from and you don't have to pay for anything separate especially for something so small like a particular gun ridiculous is dice money hoggers.
Capitalism is better than Socialism

"If income and wealth is going to be equalized, why would anyone save or invest? Savings and investment just adds to wealth, and wealth is anti-social under a social justice regime of equal wealth for all. Indeed, the only rational strategy for everyone under such a regime is to consume all income and not save or invest anything." - Peter Ferrara A Capitalist society, is one where hard - work is rewarded.Where each individual is given the same opportunity to make the best out of their situation and rise above others. Where as a Socialist society entitles the equality of wealth, ( or equal distribution), one that in my opinion does not encourage the motivational drive and determination for one to move up in life; just to remain where they are and not pursue future successes. Capitalists fundings in present day America, are the ones that help create new technologies that revolutionize the world as we know it. For instance the creation of the the Windows software or Apple Computer, both engineered by todays leading teach savvy's ( Bill gates and Steve Jobs ). IF not for the capitalist ideals we would all be stuck at the same old software/ computer that was there the time it was first brought into our markets and homes. Funding where does it come from? Where do the millions of dollars that are used for Cancer Research and Alternative Energy come from? The profits from the capitalist corporations. If not for them we would not have the knowledge of that we have now of cancer or any other sorts of diseases. Socialist Ideals are necessary for the public, but in moderation. It is agreed that it is because of our socialist ideals; that we are given free* public education, and provides welfare for the unfortunate.But it should not be an excuse to for the need to punish the hard-working entrepreneurs that put their blood and sweat together to watch their company succeed.
Capitalism is better than Socialism

Thanks for the opportunity to express my views on the subject. I do not intend to prove the reverse of your argument, that Socialism is better than Capitalism. Rather, I'll argue that Capitalism and Socialism are two economic tools, forces that must be brought into balance. I will argue that all successful modern states recognize this principle and incorporate a blend of Capitalist and Socialist institutions. Further, I will argue that traditional Capitalist solutions are unready for the challenges posed by new technologies. For the near term, at least, a correction that favors increased reliance on Socialist tools will likely prove necessary. Capitalism is not better than Socialism, nor is it worse. That would be like arguing that gravity is better than electromagnetism. Both are dynamics that must be taken into account and employed to the benefit of a stable, prosperous, and sustainable economy. The Oxford Dictionary defines Capitalism as: an economic and political system in which a country"s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. And Socialism as: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. . http://oxforddictionaries.com...
River Rafting Should Not Be Regulated

This is going to be short and sweet because I am too damn sick to really think of anything to type or really to take the time to type. People are stupid. It's human nature. Some people are smart and some people are stupid. Rivers are regulated to keep the stupid people from going down them. When stupid people go down regulated rivers illegally often times they get hurt. Once they get hurt the smart people have to go in and rescue them which costs money. Many rivers require permits because the stupid people that like to get hurt and white water raft like morons can't figure out how to get permits. The permit system was put in place to keep the stupid people out. The one thing they do understand is that they will get in trouble if they go down the river without a permit. Most of the world's ecosytem isn't extremely fragile but the government likes to label it as such because stupid people understand the word fragile and they are less likely to hurt fragile things (unless they are really stupid). If you were to take all the stupid people who like to raft and deregulate the rivers then all the stupid people would definitely hurt the ecosystem because stupid people in packs turn into REALLY stupid people and really stupid people mess with fragile things. So what have we learned here today kids? Well we learned that rivers should be regulated by a permit structure or other means to keep the stupid people out that like to get hurt and also hurt the ecosystem. For stupid people the permit structure is like a lock on prescription bottles for children. Yay!!! Thank You, Nate
River Rafting Should Not Be Regulated

Nate, I did not use any personal attacks, but nice try. This is a trick you undoubtedly learned from your liberal professors and the liberal media. If there's any hint of an aggressive or assertive argument, it's deemed as a "personal attack" in order to make the debater look like a jerk. I called you no names, and in no way did I discuss or attack your personal life. This is a frivolous claim on your behalf. I don't need to re-read any of the previous arguments. I've made a very clear case as to why the rivers should be open to all Americans, not just those people who fill out a lengthy permit application, pay a fee, and in some cases wait for several years. I think I did an excellent job explaining who wants access to the rivers limited to only a few, and what their motives are. I also explained why we're not damaging the so called eco-system. Just because you claim to be able to "rip [my] argument" doesn't mean you are actually able. Maybe in your closing argument you'll get around to wooing us. I hope you get better soon, and I look forward to your closing argument.
River Rafting Should Not Be Regulated

Hey Phil, I love the personal attacks in round one of the debate. They just made my day. It's amazing how far away from the real issue a person can get when they are concentrating on attacking their opponent on a personal level. For this round of the debate I'm not going to bring anything new to the table for two reasons. First, I want you to re-read the round one argument and really analyze the points you are trying to get across. Focus on the points and not the personal attack strategy. Second, I am unable to take the time to rip your argument the new one that it deserves because I need to study for midterms and I am also sick with a viral infection. Good Luck!!! -Nate
River Rafting Should Not Be Regulated

Let's breakdown your 3 points: 1. America is all about freedom and liberty, and that includes the freedom to do "stupid" things. If I don't have the experience necessary to go down a river, but I decide to do so anyway, that's my fault and I'll have to pay the price. Looking beyond that, I'd love for you to explain how exactly a government application somehow magically proves that I'm qualified to raft down a river. We're also not talking about protecting the livelihood of Americans, we're actually talking about Big Brother controlling the choices of Americans. It's not the government's job to protect Americans from themselves. According to your point of view, we need to get rid of anything that could lead to someone getting injured or dying. 2. Here we go, now we're getting to the heart of the debate..."the environment". Somehow this "extremely fragile...ecosystem" has survived for billions of years, animal herds, and mother nature's worst storms, but people in a rubber raft is going to destroy it. Not to mention that these river's ecosystems stretch for miles and miles beyond the rivers themselves in most cases. If you think about it, groups of people can backpack into these areas without a permit, but we're not worried about them destroying the ecosystem, just the people on the rubber boats. I find it funny that people actually think we humans have the power to destroy this planet. The next time you take a flight, get a window seat and then stare out at the amount of vast emptiness and see if you start to feel a little smaller than you do right now. 3. Are you listening to yourself? "Deregulating America's rivers"??? Are you kidding me, do you think we live in Mother Russia. You would think if something was referred to as "America's rivers" that any and all Americans could actually tour the rivers of their own freewill. Well, that is apparently not the case. As for funding the state governments, thank you for the joke of the day. Please, search your endless database and point to a single government bureaucracy that actually works. And here you are, wanting to give more money to a bureaucracy who's responsibility it is to patrol and monitor our rivers in order to stop the American's from damaging some water and rock ecosystem with a raft. I think you've actually made a strong case as to why we should in fact dismantle these patrolling bureaucrats. Let's be honest though, permits are required for one major reason...power. Someone wants the power to decide who gets to enjoy the rivers. The reason, well, if you're an environmentalist, then it's because your nose is a little bit higher than the rest of us. If you're a politician, it's to court votes by giving the impression that you're "environmentally friendly". If you're a rafting enthusiast, then it's because you don't want to see other boats when you're on the river. Everyone has their reason, I guess my reason is that I like my freedom, and believe those rivers belong to all of us.
River Rafting Should Not Be Regulated

Permits should be required on Americas' rivers for three major reasons. The average white water rafter does not have the training to safely navigate many of the regulated rivers. By requiring permits on rivers, especially those in wilderness areas we are protecting the livelyhood of American citizens. Unfortunately, common sense and general safety rules are strong enough guidelines to follow when rafting down these dangerous rivers. On rivers where permits are required the environment is extremely fragile. The average American does not have the training or knowledge to inhabit these areas without causing severe harm to the ecosystem. By opening up rivers where permits are required we are going to put pristine and untouched wilderness in extreme danger. Neither the US government nor the state governments would have enough funding to patrol and monitor these wilderness areas if they were not regulated. By deregulating Americas' rivers we would be further constricting funds that the government just doesn't have.
Parody Election 2

I’ve saved the earth like three or four times,time to put the rifle down and start bustin’ rhymes.I know you’re the pope,And that’s dope,But I won’t coop,With the fact you high priests don’t use soap!Taken from my home when I was just a little boy,They handed me a gun and said here’s your new f*cking toy!Put into a suit and told to protect the human race,Press LB and my fist will go flying into your face!I may not be erectable,But these raps are so undeflectable,Vote for me and you will see,The pope can’t compete with this fat D!Yeah, I rap a little too in my spare time, so vote for me because of that…“I was in the Hitler Youth as a kid, I experienced the same stuff.” Hitler? Come on, that guy would bend over for me If I asked him to. “And that is what makes us different... Masterchef has only ever taken orders from people, Im the only one who has actually taken the leadership role on something.” For one, I am Master Chief, not Master Chef, I do however enjoy creative cooking. Also, I have pressed quite a few buttons in my life time, so I know to be a leader. Sure if I didn’t have a waypoint I would get lost, but it’s not like Obama’s doing any better. I good leader knows how to lead, not pray.“I used to say that kids should turn in their playstations for a PRAY-station.... But the graphics were terrible so I moved on from that. You kids do whatever you want with video games I couldnt care less.” I actually enjoyed the Pray Station, I had Halo: Holy Combat. I was really disappointed when they stopped making em’.“Besides, I feel kinda bad for masterchief.... It must be hard being a video game character in a game that always gets wrecked by every Call of Duty game ever made ;)” Conceded lol. Vote Chief!