BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
GTA V is better than COD

GTA is so much more fun and entertaining!!!!! Ok yes there are glitches but I feel the glitches are the fun part about gta v. On all cod of duty videos I see and gameplay I do all I get from multiplayer is getting pissed off at people of how crap and no life you can make this game. Besides there only one thing to do in cod that is shoot people and kill them with different guns. GTA V there is more than one way to kill people and have fun while your doing it. You can hijack people crap and rob banks and become a criminal for all you want. I feel in GTA V you have more options of fun and plus you can do some many things with friends other than shoot them and piss them off.
GTA V is better than COD

Yes GTA V has made it In the record books and has sold many copies Talking about sales and records have nothing to do with which game is better this entire debate is not based upon which games have sold more the debate is whether about which game is better and is generally more fun to play. You never answered my question You clearly said that GTA V is the "only game where you can Go nuts And it doesn't matter" Once again what about past GTA series And also games like saints row and bully It is not like GTA V Is being innovative with the free-roaming many games offer this feature already. Like I stated in previous rounds The multiplayer feature within GTA V Is completely broken Players are easily obtaining experience points and money With ease Creating an unbalanced multiplayer Experience In addition GTA V Is nothing new There are many other games out there like it On the other hand there are many first-person shooters out there such as battlefield which are similar to call of duty, But call of duty has made up for this by adding zombies mode survival mode and extinction mode The developers have even gone as far as adding DLC to Keep the game feeling fresh and new. Once Beating the GTA V storyline There's not much replay value to the game besides free-roaming an Multiplayer is the next best option But some players do not have online capabilities Call of duty On the other hand offers split screen Which is a really nice feature to have For players who lack online capabilities. To conclude GTA V is an amazing game and So is the call of duty series They both have their pros and cons I enjoyed Debating with you I had lots of fun This is a very tough topic to debate about. Let the votes begin.
GTA V is better than COD

I would like to begin with zombies In your opinion zombies is awful But you can clearly see it's not to other players The reason behind this is The developers of the games Continue to create these game modes. Why create these game modes if they are awful ? Simple players enjoy these game modes so the Developer creates them to keep the players happy because they truly enjoy them. Also Zombies or any other game mode for that matter such as Extinction Is so popular it's treated like its own game The evidence behind this is There are YouTube channels Dedicated to zombies survival mode and extinction There's plenty of merchandise out there just for these game modes people spend more time on these modes than the Multiplayer and the story mode. To add to that Most of these game modes are not just about surviving wave after wave They have an entire separate storyline from the other parts of the game. This story line is what drives players to play the game as the maps of the games are full of Easter eggs which makes Curious players Want to go Easter egg hunting also the Easter eggs add to the story and are very rewarding in the end a perfect example In call of duty black ops on the map moon when completed with the Easter egg the players receive all the perks Within the map this can cause a great feeling for the entire team as there hard work finally pays off most of the Easter eggs Require the team to do multiple task not just run around and kill people or zombies that just proves the game is not all about killing with different guns. It appears that the developers of the call of duty series Really do care about the players In recent years the developers have guaranteed DLC for the entire year When purchasing the special edition of the gameThis DLC makes the player keep their interest and also changes up the game from time to to time There is at least four DLC packs released an entire year for one call of duty game This creates something for the players to look forward to So the game does nog become as boring To compare to GTA V There has only been one DLC up for offer And it was only for a limited time I understand that GTA V is a vast open world but DLC would be great to see adding more fun to the game. In addition I understand people want to go crazy and kill other people why not it's just a game but that is not my point I'm saying that the Majority of the players Don't have the ability or have an idea How to glitch or hack this has nothing to do with being a good Citizen within the game The people that cheat the system in GTA V make it harder on the gamers who like to play Casually which ruins many Peoples experience Also you say that GTA V is the "only game where you can go nuts and it doesn't matter" well what about the other GTA'S ? Could you not go insane in those games or what about other games like saints row ? Or games like bully ? Call of duty may be limited but the Developers really push To keep players interested In the games.
GTA V is better than COD

Don't get me wrong I love cod and different game modes but they have one goal kill the person or kill the person and get the dog tags what a different idea!!! Also yeah I can upgrade guns and sights and camo and have the better gun but the same and still go kill people. In gta v I can go buy a mini gun and just start having fun with it and shoot anybody or anything I want. And also give me one proper play who plays GTA V like a good citizen really that's the boring way to go you never play gta v the good way this is the only game you can go nuts do whatever and it won't matter. Why have a normal nice good life gta v when you pretty much already live it so why pay $60 if your gonna do the same thing. COD zombies has been ruined just ruined. I think know they bs there game now going something fun from world at war to something just awful!!!!!! Ohh more people to add to a game all zombies is killing zombies over and over and over I don't know about u but I don't wanna do that for 3 straight hours just doing the same thing. In Gta v u don't have to spend 3 hours doing one thing you can go around the city doing multiple things and not be bored and heck cause havoc and be a federal criminal.
GTA V is better than COD

I understand your frustration with multiplayer Every call of duty player will become angry at some point while playing. I see that you state That "there is only one thing you can do in cod that is you shoot people and kill them with different guns" That is not true what's so ever I can prove that with a couple of features the game offers such as You can level up Multiple times With the prestige feature You can earn attachments for guns Even different types of camo for guns Also You can play corroborative co-op with other players letting two or more players play the story line as a team. In recent years the zombies an survival modes have added more corroborative play within the game allowing players to work more Strategically together causing them to not become irate towards each other but works as a team and have fun together. In addition the Multiplayer Feature offer many team-based games Such as search and destroy , team death match and kill and confirm. i As you can see there are quite a couple different Alternatives besides killing people with different guns The game allows Players to work together far much more often than to work against each other. Now for the glitches in GTA V yes some players may call that fun most players like to call it cheating because players really over use glitches and the majority of players don't like to see someone who has had the game for two days having more money than them when Other players have had the game for two months all because they play by the rules ? Now that is just obscured and not fair to players who are just trying to play Properly
christ never stated one damn word about being gay nor transgender.

I gladly accept this challenge. Before I put forth my formal argument about Jesus Christ's stance on the homosexuality and transgender issue both my opponent and I must agree on a few things. 1) I expect to be treated with respect. I understand if there is fault in my logic I need to be called to my error, but I will not stand around and be personality insulted. If you do, I will take it as a forfeit of the debate. I am fine being criticized, but there is a distinction between criticism and blatantly attacking me. 2) Let's assume that the Gospels along with the New Testament were a valid accounting of Jesus' life and ministry. We cannot get very far on what we think Jesus' position is on these issues if we do not know what he said. 3) Finally, let us not forget that you hold the majority of the burden of proof on this issue since you raised the debate and are on the pro side of this debate. I will however for the interest of the viewers be commenting about Jesus' and the scripture's position on these two issues, however this does not negate your job of proving the position above. In return for these three conditions I will have an honest open debate about this very interesting topic. My opening argument will be in round 2. I thank you for your time and hope for a pleasant debate.
christ never stated one damn word about being gay nor transgender.

Rules: Give the "why" christians should hate gays/ homosexuals. In order for you to accept this debate, you MUST be a christian and follow the bible implicitly. (Pro) christ never stated one damn word about being gay nor transgender. Since that is all for the (Pro) side, I will be taking the (Con) side. Yet strangely christians and only christians like packs of wolves and the whooping cough are against being gay/ transgender. And they also have the $$$$$ to back them. Otherwise being gay/ transgender here in this country would fizzle like a used hamburger of pure blackened ash and those who are gay/ transgender would be able to live their lives as they see fit and in peace. And the other thing is, is there's no reason "why" christians hate gays/ transgenders in their greasy hate filled bible"s or in person other than it is what it is. Yeah. Talk about being totally 100% immoral and fickle. But then again, that's exactly what christianity and god is as god is based on hate as he hates children. Ah yes, being gay is an outlet for christians to either hate, or learn to hate and they love it in return, just as their god wants. Another rule: dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
christ never stated one damn word about being gay nor transgender.

Before I begin my closing remarks I have a message for my opponent. I expected better from you backwardseden. Regardless of what your opponent says you should always hear someone out. I took over an hour and a half calculating my response and reading yours. I'm sorry if this is not enough time for your standards however I do not have infinite time on my hands. I simply saw your reply was posted (6 minutes after to be exact) and had some time to spare so I replied immediately. I also am disappointed that you failed to actually discuss the real debate about whether Jesus talked about homosexuality or going transgender. Instead you devolved this into an attack on the validity of scriptures and the Christian believers. I never once brought my personal views into this discussion instead I took the stance of an observer of the gospels as an account of Jesus Christ not as divinely inspired. But in this final round you attack my faith instead of replying about my strong argument on this issues. This conduct is unacceptable for any debater. I would go into depth about why you are wrong about these verses you quote so much, however I believe your own words characterize you the best "absolutely no one can convince you of anything, period, no matter what it is, you MUST be right on everything AND everybody else is WRONG no matter even if you know that you are wrong." So to the voter I conclude this debate with this. My opponent fails to refute or give a more valid interpretation of the verses that show how Jesus said words "about being gay and transgender". His arguments proved nothing except for a little skepticism in scripture hermeneutics, which I disproved in the third and fourth sections. I believe I have produced the better argument and ask the voter to choose Con.
christ never stated one damn word about being gay nor transgender.

Nevermind. I'm not even going to bother reading a single word that you have posted for RD4. There's absolutely no possible way that you could have had enough time to have digested the information that I posted in between rounds to what you have posted to come up with a proper post to circumvent it. PE-RI-OD. Like nearly 100% of those who pretend that they are christians, you most certainly are not one as you have not given up your family nor have you given up ALL of your possessions as your christ orders you to do. Here's you and I cannot pity you for this... absolutely no one can convince you of anything, period, no matter what it is, you MUST be right on everything AND everybody else is WRONG no matter even if you know that you are wrong. Even if someone were to agree with exactly what you were to say to the letter, you would still manage to find fault with that person. That my friend = ego, just like your god, bible and religion as unproved by nobody.
Suing Fast Food Restaurants due to Obesity is Wrong.

There are a lot of things a person could do with a large cash settlement. A person could, as you suggested, use the money to continue eating fast food and living an unhealthy lifestyle. A person could use it to go to a fat camp or a gym, or to build one for the matter. I think the real importance is not paying out the money, but to show the world that a fast food restaurant has been successfully sued, and that the restaurant is guilty of poor business practices. The restaurant will not care about the money so much as the negative publicity cast upon the restaurant by the case. In short, yes, it would make a difference to sue a fast food restaurant: it would force them to change or be foresaken by the public.
Suing Fast Food Restaurants due to Obesity is Wrong.

You made some valid points and again its all about personal preference. It is their fault that people choose to eat at fast food restaurants and that should be taken into consideration. You said in your last argument that if you sue a fast food restaurant it is not much of a punishment and their is no harm in doing it, but its all about if it is the right thing to do. What do you actually gain by suing the company? Fast food is bad for you as you stated, with this knowledge people should not eat their and in the end sue them. It is wrong and not fair to the company. Sorry my argument couldn't be longer and more thought through. I had little time this week. Vote as you see fit.
Suing Fast Food Restaurants due to Obesity is Wrong.

You are correct, Pro, that kid's meals are used for a reason: to lure in children with clowns and toys and such. I think that is poor business ethics to market a product that parents buy for their children to the children themselves. Parents are usually the ones that purchase fast food for their children, but kids DO get allowance. Kids have every right to go into a fast food restaurant and purchase food, and they do. And the primary option in kid's meals has always been a soda and fries. Usually, you have to ASK to change your order. The other problem I see with marketing to children is that children build habits in their childhood they take to their adult years. If a kid grows up buying fast food, there is a pretty good chance that kid will buy fast food as an adult.I'm only talking ethics here, it is not illegal by any means to sell things to children, but I think that intentionally endangering the lives of millions of children is fair grounds for a lawsuit. Don't you?I will also repeat what I said: The nutrition facts on food are very vague. I plan to become a physician, and I still do not know off the top of my head how much saturated fat is recommended for a 2000 calorie diet per day. I do, however, remember that a Big Mac contains 88% that daily value: http://caloriecount.about.com...The Chicken McNuggets are not much better: http://caloriecount.about.com.... The numbers are lower, but this is part of a kid's meal. Change the numbers to reflect a 1000 calorie diet, and you have a horrible meal there. And this is just the main course. Even with healthy options, this meal will reach about 450 calories...for one meal.Fast food is bad for you, nobody labels things with Daily Value percentages, and they market directly to vulnerable consumers. They should make healthier food in general, or stop marketing to children, but if fast food companies decide to keep operating as they do, they should get sued.
Suing Fast Food Restaurants due to Obesity is Wrong.

-Children are young and defenseless, and will generally do whatever they are told….. The child has no power to purchase fast food, but his or her parents do.In this statement you are saying that the defenseless children depends on their parents to make the decision for them. If the parents are wise and knowledgeable they would know not to feed their children such unhealthy quality food. You said in your statement that parents just buy in to their children’s complaint and buy them the food anyway. I have to disagree with that. Yes, a lot of people don’t know how to care for children now a day but there are good amounts that do. When I was a kid, I would whine to my parents for things I wanted and they would tell me no and that’s what I would have to accept. If you are saying parents can’t handle their kids then that’s a whole new issue that needs to be worked on. As stated in my opening argument, there are laws being instated that will enforce the nutritional info be provided to their customers. If parents choose not to look at this info and feed their children junk that’s their own problem and they will have to deal with the consequences.-Kids Meals are used for a reasonAlso in most fast food restaurants I go to, I notice that there is a kids menu. These items are significantly smaller and sometimes provide healthy stuff such as fruits and juice boxes instead of soda. Obviously the kids menu is much less calories than normal menu items and should be taken into consideration. If parents choose to buy a massive burger for their child instead of a small item from the kids menu that is just idiocy on there end and really isn’t acceptable.
Suing Fast Food Restaurants due to Obesity is Wrong.

In most cases, my friend, I would agree with you. In this instance, however, I must argue that there is at least one case in which suing a fast food restaurant would be acceptable. Namely, when children are involved. Children are young and defenseless, and will generally do whatever they are told. If a fast food restaurant makes commercials marketed to children and airs them, I think that that restaurant deserves some of the blame if the child in question becomes obese or diabetic. The child has no power to purchase fast food, but his or her parents do. The parents do not have to purchase the food for their children, but in the end, the parents will do whatever the child wants to get them to shut up. I also note that unlike cigarettes, fast food does not have a warning symbol on it. Most menus do not have Daily Value numbers for food. Not many people know how much saturated fat is recommended per day. A Big Mac has more than 88 percent of the Daily Value for saturated fat, but the nutrition facts on the Big Mac box do not mention this. Fast food restaurants do not tell you this because they know that if people knew EXACTLY how unhealthy their food was, they would never come back.Fast food restaurants target the innocent and selectvely inform customers of the nutrition facts of food. They deserve to be liable. Futhermore, I can personally atest that many of my friends are overweight, including my best friend. He eats fast food three times a week, but he also hikes with the Boy Scouts constantly, works 12 hours a day on his feet during the summer, and is on my schools wrestling team. He still weights north of 200, and he's 5'6. Exercise unfortunately does not work for everyone.Besides all this, what exactly would be the harm of suing a fast food restaurant? The profit margins of McDonalds are sufficient to pay out 50 million a year and come out smiling.All in all, I really don't see what point you are trying to make here. Those restaurants need to pay.
The Jesus Interpretation of Quantum Physics is Sound

Thanks again to my opponent for the humour.I will answer your main question which seems to rely on two premises as the actual arguments are ludicrous, so there is no point addressing them. In the same manner you pointed out that "my opponent still has not gone through absolutely every single one of my arguments, leaving each of them standing and not disproven." This is true but all your arguments are based on a faulty interpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation as I pointed out in my first rebuttal. As such any argument after the initial flawed interpretation is wrong and so is not worth addressing, especially when my opponent does not understand the math. As for answering my question "Why does the wave function need to be observed by an external observer and hence collapse?" saying that "wave function collapse is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single eigenstate after interaction with an observer." is not an answer.I would agree with my opponent Joseph Fritzl could be a great physicist, however he has never written a book on quantum mechanics or for that matter studied it.(1) So why would I believe someone who has no understanding of a very technical subject, like my opponent?Lastly saying my opponents sources were great, was listed in the section of my initial rebuttal as other "gibberish and well trolled". When you cite the 4chan /b/ thread as fact then you are giving away your troll nature.Thanks again for some entertainment, I just wish we could move this debate over to the humour department.(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...