BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wii U is the best games console of this generation

The first being the aspect of family. Nintendo consoles have always specialized in games such as Mario and Zelda that can offer fun yet challenging experiences for younger kids and adults alike, which is something they continued with the Wii U. However, there is still a good mix of mature titles for the console, such as ZombiU, and the soon to be released Fatal Frame. Meanwhile, and PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, many of the most popular games focus solely on themes that many parents may not find suitable for their children, such as killing and sexuality. When a child is playing PlayStation 4 or Xbox One, the parents don't know if what their child is playing is appropriate, while on Wii U they can be certain that they are playing something appropriate. The second reason is local co-op. While in this day and age, it is very easy to simply go online and talk to people from around the world using a mic, the aspect of having all your friends in the room with you, playing on one screen while you're all talking and having fun is something that can always be enjoyed. However, several games on the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One offer only single player campaigns for non-offline modes, and if you wish to play with others you often have no choice but to go online. Whereas with the Wii U, nearly all games for the console include a though-out and fun local multiplayer mode. The third reason is the price point. The current cost of a Wii U bundled with one game retails at $299.99, with an Xbox One console with one game retailing at $349.99, and the PlayStation 4 at $399.99. Nintendo has marketed their console at the lowest price point, allowing families to get a new console without making too much of a dent in their wallet. The fourth reason is the exclusives. Nintendo's new games you can only get on the Wii U. These include great games such as Super Mario 3D World, Legend of Zelda Wind Waker HD, Mario Kart 8, Super Smash Bros, and the upcoming Super Mario Maker. Meanwhile, many of the best sellers for the other consoles such as Call of Duty are not available on both consoles, they are also usually available on the consoles form last generation and the PC. Many people still have their last generation consoles, and almost everyone has a PC, so many of the best games for the systems you don't even need to own either of the other two consoles to play. My fifth and final reason that Wii U is the best game console of this generation is backwards compatibility. The Wii U can flawlessly play the majority of the Wii library without any bugs or hiccups. This allows access to all of your old games you had gotten over time. Meanwhile, the Xbox One only recently added backwards compatibility, and even still they are very slowly adding the Xbox 360 titles you may play to the list, while the Playsation 4 has no backwards compatibility whatsoever.
Assuming there is no god, morality is subjective and laws are unnecessary

Instead of calling it an "objective morality" you should say you dont believe there are a set of intrinsic behaviors one could call morals that objectively exist between all humans. I am playing devils advocate here, im not sure how I feel about A. But B I do personally believe in. a.) there is an objective morality that doesnt come from a god (in healthy individuals); As a result of evolution, certain behaviors result in a cascade of neuro-hormone secretion that can serve to mimic the feelings others are experiencing. If one were to see another fall and break their ankles we flinch even if we had never had that exact experience. Endocrine glands, the brain, and blood serve to produce hormones, neurotransmitters, and transport them to cells to respond in such a way that it mimics the response the person falling has. Corticosteroid secretion, hypertension, and general activation of the flight/fight response. Even without language, a sense of right and wrong is seen in apes as a result of our ability to mimic each others states during stress. If a primate witnesses an attack their body reflects that. When helpful behavior is displayed, and witness, a subject will secret similar hormones and neurotransmitters in response. http://www.sciencedirect.com... http://www.cell.com...(07)00057-5 http://www.sciencedirect.com... https://www.nature.com... b.) laws are necessary. Because these objective morals arise as a result of biology (just as ALL ideas do, thoughts and the brain cannot be independent of each other); UNHEALTHY individuals will deviate from the mean of accepted moral standards. Because so many individuals ARE unhealthy, laws that serve to regulate immoral behavior must exist. Just because you own a weapon and carry it around does not mean others do. Many important people do not choose to do this. Many are underage and CANNOT do this. If laws regulating immoral behavior did not exist, rates of these immoral behaviors would go up such as child rape, kidnapping, stealing and more. The law serves to deter through potential punishment as well as executing the actual punishment.
Assuming there is no god, morality is subjective and laws are unnecessary

As an atheist, I do not believe in a god. Since I don’t believe in a god, I don’t believe in any kind of objective morality. Since I don't believe in objective morality, I don't believe there‘s any purpose in having laws to enforce one morality over another. Con will need to prove either a) there is an objective morality that doesn't come from a god, or b) laws are necessary. Definitions: God: a supreme being Morality: a sense of right and wrong Arguments: 1.Everyone doesn't have the exact same sense of morality. If everyone’s sense of morality was the same, morality would be effectively objective, but that is simply not the case. However, people who live close together are likely to have similar moralities. That’s most likely a survival instinct: humans aren’t very strong compared to other animals, but we’re smart enough to figure out how to ‘play nice’ so that we can work together in order to survive. 2.Laws used to be necessary, when it was important for humans to work together in order to survive. Now that we know how to build a functioning society, laws only get in the way of natural selection by protecting stupid people. For example, I carry a gun, and it is usually in plain sight. If an unarmed person were to attack me, they would be considered stupid, in my opinion. If I were to shoot them and they died, I would most likely be arrested for murder. This would dissuade me from shooting to kill, which would leave the stupid person alive to do more stupid things and to produce more stupid people. Natural selection exists for a reason. We need to allow the people with no common sense to be killed, rather than protecting them and allowing them to breed. 3.The concept of revenge destroys the idea of an objective morality. If one can break one’s moral code in the event that someone else breaks it first, what’s to stop one from breaking it whenever one wants, and why doesn’t one like it when someone takes revenge on them for taking revenge (perhaps because our morality is selfish… but that I’m and of itself goes against some people's moral codes)? That would make all morality subjective, since one would be saying ‘I can break the moral code in order to punish you for breaking the moral code, but I don't expect anyone to punish me for doing the same thing’. 4.With a subjective morality, everyone decides for themselves what’s right and what’s wrong, so laws aren’t necessary and only serve to try to establish a certain morality as superior to all other moralities without offering any reason as to why that morality is any better (because it’s not; it's all subjective).
Death penalty should be supported.

Disappointingly, nargiz_gab has once again forfeited his opportunity to advance his arguments. I, however, will reiterate why the death penalty ought not be supported.Humans are not omniscient, thus uncertainty as to someone's guilt will exist. If the death penalty was instituted, miscarriages of justice will occur, miscarriages which, by their very nature, are irreversible and irreparable. Therefore, to maintain the legitimacy of the justice system, the death penalty ought not be supported, however expedient it may be.Thank you, once again, to nargiz_gab for initiating this debate.
Death penalty should be supported.

I am disappointed that nargiz_gab has forfeited this round.However, I would like to present my argument for why the death penalty ought not be supported and to do so I would like to explore the reasons that the UN’s General Assembly gave in support for its 2008 moratorium on the death penalty (UN resolution 62/149).I quote:"Considering that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity, and convinced that a moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement and progressive development of human rights, that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable." [1]The reasons the UN gives in support against the death penalty are thus:a) That the death penalty undermines human dignity.b) That not using the death penalty would strengthen human rights.c) That the deterrent value of the death penalty is inconclusive.d) That any miscarriage or failure of justice using the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable.The thrust of my argument will rest on d), that any miscarriage or failure of justice using the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable.We, as humans, are liable to err (we’re not omniscient) and therefore miscarriages of justice will occur. We are, in a word, fallible. Now, if the death penalty was not instituted and an alternative, say, life imprisonment was instituted instead, then we allow ourselves an opportunity to rectify any miscarriages of justice that do occur. What good is it to the innocent person, who was wrongly executed, to know that a court, upon further examination of existing or even new evidence, found that person posthumously not guilty? It is, therefore, irreparable since the, later found, innocent person is already dead.Consequently, however expedient the death penalty may be, we ought not, on the principle that humans are liable to err, support the death penalty since miscarriages of justice will occur and that any miscarriage of justice using the death penalty, by definition, is irreversible and irreparable.I eagerly await nargiz_gab’s response.---[1] United Nation's General Assembly Resolution 62/149, http://www.un.org...
Death penalty should be supported.

Thank you, nargiz_gab, for initializing the debate. I accept and will be arguing that the death penalty ought not be supported. I request that for the second round we each advance our arguments in support of our respective positions and that for round three, the final round, we counter argue the each other's argument in the previous round in addition to summarizing our respective positions thereby concluding the debate. I invite nargiz_gab to advance his argument as to why the death penalty ought to be supported.
The Jets are Two Positions Away from Contenders

You didsay that but I felt I had to put It in there. Also there guards are horrendous. They are absolutely atrocious. If you watch when they pull they are always a step slow and often miss a key block. Their Right Tackle has allowed too many sacks this year and is an inconsistent run blocker as well. Amaro has done more bad than good thus year. I believe Mariota wille decent at best but like you said thats a matter of opinion. Their linebackers have had good moments but are very inconsistent and and very below average in coverage. Their running game has gone down a bit but it is still good for the most part. Overall, the Jets are very far away from even making the playoffs let alone being a super bowl contender.
The Jets are Two Positions Away from Contenders

I don't know if I said it yet, but we were not counting coaching and fronta office. Also, Willie Colon is a solid o lineman as well. Even if you can't count upside, Amaro has shown great physical ability this year to go up and get the jump balls. He just needs to work on his hands. I do believe that Mariota will be a good NFL qb but that is a matter of opinion. Their linebackers have shown to be good this year and obviously their defensive line is dominant. They have a solid running game, quite similar to the ones in their AFC championship runs. They're defense looks bad because Rex calls blitzes that put a lot of pressure on the cb. If they had people that actually play the position, their defense would be giving up much less points than they are right now.
The Jets are Two Positions Away from Contenders

I knew I forgot someone (Harvin). But anyways, their receiving core still isnt that great. Decker is underperforming and Harvin is only great if you can use him right. You said that Amaro has huge upside so they are good at TE. Never ever, assume that a player will reach his potential especially when its as questionable as his. As of now they have no one at TE. Their offensive is not good. Ferguson and Mangold are the only good ones on it. The other 3 are all horrendous. Their safetys have been doing solid but they arent playing well enough to consider them legitimate. Sanchez did get them to the AFC championship twice but only because they had a great defense then. Mariota and Winston will not be good in the NFL. They need to get 2 or atleast 1 good corner because their corners are terrible. They still need outside linebackers. They still need a middle linebacker because David Harris is getting too old. Oh and they need a new offoffensive play caller too. Jets are not even close to being a super bowl contender.
The Jets are Two Positions Away from Contenders

You said that Decker is their only receiver. Maybe you haven't seen this yet, but they have traded for Percy Harvin this year. Harvin really adds a deep threat to keep the defense in check and free up Decker. While I agree Amaro has had some drops, he has huge upside and has also made some really good plays. Their offensive line is great but they could definitely make a postseason run without that hurting them too much. The safety position is definitely a questionable position as well, but the have been decent this year based on the fact that are expected to do things they can't with the corners they've been provided. It is clear that quarterback is their biggest need. I believe if they get a good qb in the draft, Mariota or Winston, they could be in the playoff hunt. Add a high class corner depth chart like the one they had in their AFC Championship runs and they are super bowl contenders. Remember, Mark Sanchez was able to get them to two AFC Championships. Imagine what a Marcus Mariota could do with this team. You can also look back at last year where their corners weren't horrendous, and they were able to win 8 games with Geno Smith at quarterback. Get back some decent corners and add a solid qb and it should equate to at least 10 wins.
The Jets are Two Positions Away from Contenders

You say that the Jets are only 2 positions (QB and CB) away from being contenders. Well I say thats completely wrong. Yes I agree that they desperately need a QB and also need a CB but there are other positions they are missing. Their right side of their offensive line is a complete joke. In reality D'brickshaw Ferguson is their only good offensive lineman and Nick Mangold is a solid center too but other than that their offensive line is a joke. They have no TE. Amaro is too inconsistent and drops way too many passes and Cumberland is a solid blocker but not a receiver at all. While they do have Eric Decker thats all they have. Once a team locks him down they have no one to throw to at all. Defensively they are decent. They definitely would also need better safeties to be a super bowl contender and get better pass rushing outside linebackers. The Jets are very far away from being Super Bowl comtenders.
The Jets are Two Positions Away from Contenders

Now I know what you are thinking, the Jets are 1-8 how can they be only two positions away from being a contender. To answer this question I must first give the positions in question, and then review why the other units are ok. The first position that needs a change is obviously quarterback. Geno Smith is completely incompetent and John Idzik should be fired for even thinking he could be good. The second position is corner back. This is different from the past Jets (see Darelle Revis and Antonio Cromartie) but three of they're starting corner backs are either hurt or went AWOL (Dimitri Patterson). Safety is close to being a need, but they are good enough for now. If you count general manager and head coach then they are a need, but we'll just stick to on the field aspects. Now round 2 will be on how to address these needs. The next units I describe are all good and do not need to be addressed. First up, running back. They have Chris Ivory, Chris Johnson, and Bilal Powell and have a high ranked rushing offense. There is no need to address this unit as of now. Wide Receiver. The wide receivers were definitely a big question going into this year, but they have acquired Eric Decker, Percy Harvin, and still have Jeremy Kerley. The reason they look so bad is that Geno Smith has been their quarter back. Tight End. Jace Amaro has had an on rookie year but has had some bad drops. Jeff Cumberland has been decent this year and is a decent run blocker when needed. Offensive line. Their offensive line has been somewhat of a disappointment this year, has they haven't been able to stop the pass rush effectively. But they have excelled opening holes for the running backs. Defensive line. There's really no need to talk about them, Muhammed Wilkerson, Damon Harrison, and Sheldon Richardson help form one of the leagues top run defenses. Finally, the linebackers. They have also helped contribute to their ferocious run defense, and have definitely added to the pass rush.
European films are better than american movies

"David Puttman, the chairman and CEO of Columbia Pictures from 1986 to 1988 and author of the The Undeclared War, said "It was clear that, for the most part, film-makers and executives in Europe were preoccupied with the creative art of production rather then with the business of distribution and marketing"."So European film makers in Europe focus mostly on the plot while American film makers dont prioritize it as high, yet Americans still make better films then Europeans do anyways.... Good to know"There are many many more american people related to the film productions than european, and therefore the numbers of acclaimed artists are higher."Ill take that as a concession that there are more American acclaimed artists then European ones...."In the 30's, America was full of actresses, but they still admire the europeans. Samuel Goldwyn, from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, "desperately wanted his own Garbo, his own Dietrich", refering to Greta Garbo, a legendary sweedish actresse, and to Marlene Dietrich from German."So what? the 1930's were literally 80 years ago, and American movies have been reigning supreme ever since. "In directors, Europeans presented Alfred Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergman, Roman Polanski, Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, Luis Buñuel, Michael Curtiz, Jean Renoir, William Wyler, Fritz Lang, Federico Fellini, Sergio Leone, David Lean,..."Hitchcock: Dead since 1980Bergman: Dead since 2007, inactive since 2005Polanski: Hasnt had a good film since 2005Capra: Dead since 1991, actually AmericanWilder: Dead since 2002, almost entire career spent in AmericaBunuel: Dead since 1983Curtiz: Dead since 1962Renoir: Dead since 1979Wyler: Dead since 1981, actually was americanLang: Dead since 1976Felini: Dead since 1993Leone: Dead since 1989Lean: Only made two movies, both of which were short films that arent even real films!So of the filmmakers that Pro has listed; almost all of them died years ago, many of which were actually American or worked their whole careers in America, and all of them are people who people have never even heard of in the first place! If European films were truly better then American ones, then European directors would be well known and more famous to everyone. Instead though it is the other way around, Americans like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, JJ Abrams, Clint Eastwood, etc are the legendary film makers while most people cant list a single European director who has done anything meaningful. "Nowadays, many directors choose to stay in Europe" That is a complete and utter lie. Time and time again directors have chosen to leave Europe and do business in America since American films are far better films then European ones ======================================================================Extend all arguments about how American moveis do better then European ones both critically and box-office wise....
European films are better than american movies

It is true that american movies leader the tops. However that does not prove that they have better plots.American movies also leader The List of the Most Expensive Films. In fact, here's the budgets, in millions, of the movies mentioned before.Avatar: 237 millionsTitanic: 200 millionsAvengers: 220 millionsDeathly Hallows Part 1 & Part 2: 250 millionsIron Man 3: 200 millionDark of the moon: 195 milionsLOTR Return of the King: $94 millionSkyfall: $150–200 million Dark Knight Rises: $250–300 millionPirates of the Caribbean, Dead Mans Chest: $225 millionhttp://en.wikipedia.org...Of course, a great amount of money is not enough to make a good movie, helps it, but is not enough.And there is more, because these numbers are merely estimates. Now cames the intrigant part:Producing in Hollywood takes so much money, but after the movie is done is not all profit. To sell a movie with a budget of $70.8 million - the average production budget of a major studio movie in 2007 - the studios spent another $35.9 million on marketing. David Puttman, the chairman and CEO of Columbia Pictures from 1986 to 1988 and author of the The Undeclared War, said "It was clear that, for the most part, film-makers and executives in Europe were preoccupied with the creative art of production rather then with the business of distribution and marketing". http://tvinteractiva.no.sapo.pt...Conclusion: Distribution and marketing do not affect the quality of a movie or, as matter of fact, his plot, since they came a posteriori. Yet, they still have an important role on the success of a movie._____________________________________Now let's skip to the people related to the film productions.There are many many more american people related to the film productions than european, and therefore the numbers of acclaimed artists are higher.However we had our share of stars throught the years, even if they choose to go to US, because, since in Europe is not about the industry but about the art, there they could turn international icons. Yet, they births' locations' remains in Europe and they are European talents. In the 30's, America was full of actresses, but they still admire the europeans. Samuel Goldwyn, from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, "desperately wanted his own Garbo, his own Dietrich", refering to Greta Garbo, a legendary sweedish actresse, and to Marlene Dietrich from German. In directors, Europeans presented Alfred Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergman, Roman Polanski, Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, Luis Buñuel, Michael Curtiz, Jean Renoir, William Wyler, Fritz Lang, Federico Fellini, Sergio Leone, David Lean,...Nowadays, many directors choose to stay in Europe (for example, Roberto Benigni, from Life is Beautiful) and, if the situation is appropriate, to make a few movies in Hollywood or with Hollywood.