BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video Games Are Art

In the April of 2010, renowned film critic Roger Ebert released a think piece on his website entitled "Video games can never be art". This multi-piece argument emphasized that due to the financial incentives behind game development, a lack of culturally significant titles, and the conventions of video games being more similar to sports than other art forms automatically discredited video games as a considerable force in the movement of artistic expression. Reception to this article from "gamers" was understandably unenthusiastic. Only a few months later did Roger Ebert apologize for his piece, conceding that it was rash and his arguments were not well organized or thought out. Saying that he was without a clear-cut definition as to what "art" is and admitting to not playing many games to give him confidence in his claims that commerce and entertainment are emphasized more than anything of artistic value. Seven years later and with plenty of thinking on my end along with many controversies in the gaming industry either it be the Gamergate movement, or for a more recent example, the push for lootboxes in big name titles, has led me to believe that it's about time this argument is brought back from the dead. I stand by the claim that video games are NOT art. Neither by the technicality of dictionary definitions nor by the more abstract notion that art can be anything in the eye of the beholder. My arguments, which I will further explore in subsequent rounds emphasize that the elements that make video games "artistic" do not belong to the gaming medium, that gamer culture itself discourages games with artistic value, many critically acclaimed games are purely for fun, and that the financial incentive in modern games undermines artistic value with commerce (but not in the way Roger Ebert argued). To anyone who accepts this debate, this first round is open to your opening statements and arguments you wish to present in subsequent rounds. As far as pure 'argue/rebuttal' goes, that will be entirely dependent on which points you wish to address, as you do not need to find a counter argument to every claim I make and the same goes for me. And finally, I want to clarify that while I completely and unironically proclaim that the video game medium is not an art form, that does not mean that I do not see all games as devoid of artistic value. I will be bringing up games that I believe fit that bill in order to support my own arguments. That, and I wouldn't actually go out of my way to tell people to stop calling video games art. Because that would make me a jerk. I also encourage that those who will eventually be voting do so by the quality of our arguments, and not by if you agree or disagree, as I understand that my position is a pushy subject. Also, please only accept this challenge if you are willing to commit to all 5 rounds. I await a challenge!
The Lives of Human Beings are Not Pre-Determined

Okay so if I'm understanding you correctly, I think you're basing it on the presupposition that fate exists - then you go into what exactly fate is, In this case involving previous/future timelines and how these things relate to karma. I'm a little confused as to what your actual argument is, As well as any evidence you have to support it? It sounds like you have an interesting theory, I'd love for you to extrapolate on it a bit more. My contention is this: karma, Good or bad, Does not result from us abiding to our own timeline based on our previous ones. I believe karma is a whole other debate, Which can be defined as either (a) random disconnected events that we perceive have a meaningful connection to our prior behaviors or (b) events whose qualities or outcomes are directly related to the nature of our previous actions or behaviors. However, I digress - this is not what I meant to debate today (although this is an excellent idea for a future debate). So, To get back on topic: Fate is defined, According to the Oxford Dictionary, As the development of conditions beyond a person's control, Regarded as determined by a supernatural power. I reject this notion, As I previously stated, Because I believe the evidence of universe expansion directly correlates to the magnitude of the number of newfounded parallel realities the are created each second. If everything occurred in conditions related to a high power, Therefore, There would be no choices. Therefore, No parallel realities would be created - and if no parallel realities were created, The universe could not be expanding. Now let's say for instance that you're making the argument regarding the Big Bang and the Big Crunch, Cycling over and over again. That the universe started out with the Big Bang, Will continue to expand, And then will collapse back together into the same pin-size mass of infinite density that will explode into the Big Bang again - creating the exact same conditions that this universe is in today. And while, Regarding creation of matter that may be true - in that it will form celestial bodies that can support life, I believe that the expressions of these celestial bodies and the inhabitants of them will be different every time. I can't speak to a statistical model of this, Since we have no way of knowing what occurred in previous models of our universe. However, I believe it is incredibly unlikely that matter being flung out into the universe in a giant explosion and subsequently coming together to form the exact planets and inhabitants that exist now is incredibly unlikely - if not impossible. In this case, Things will always be different each time. It is not pre-determined by this Big-Bang, Big-Crunch theory as it relates to fate.
The Lives of Human Beings are Not Pre-Determined

"Destiny, " "Fate" - many terms are used to define the notion that human beings are not in control of their own lives. There are varying degrees to this belief however; some conclude that humans have control over individual thought and smaller choices we believe to be inconsequential, But larger life events are not within our control. Others believe everything down to a human being's very essence is predetermined. Whether this belief is rationalized by the existence of some anthropomorphic entity, Or simply cogs that make up the universe, They all boil down to the same thing: pre-determinism. I reject this. I believe in such things as free will and unique, Independent thought. The universe is in a constant state of expansion; expanding faster than the speed of light. I believe this expansion is to accommodate the creation of parallel realities - trillions of which are created every second. These realities are created by the choices every living being makes; to stay home, To go to work, Etc. If everything was pre-determined, There would be no parallel realities (or at least far fewer) and no expansion because there would be no choice involved - simply living out one's mapped out existence like a wind-up toy. Thoughts?
The LG Voyager is the best cell phone by Verizon.

The opponent has clearly stated herself how the prices range... just like the features and styles of a phone..meaning a phone is the best only if the buyer sees it that way. In few words the LG Voyager is not the best phone. The best phones are the ones that suit the customer...not what the opponent has stated... Thus, after an interesting debate I still urge a strong strong vote on the negation of this debate. :) Thank you!
The LG Voyager is the best cell phone by Verizon.

No, thats not all true...the Voyager for me cost only 80 dollars.....its gone down a lot since last Christmas. And in fact you are wrong about the Kraves price....its actually $129.99 i dont know where you got 50 dollars but you probly a discount depeneding on how many phones you have in your plan. And at ER went over 400 dollars the highest was 400.
The LG Voyager is the best cell phone by Verizon.

In that case the opponent should have stated that for the topic, but because the topic clearly states "The LG Voyager is the best cell phone by Verizon." rather than something along the lines of "The LG Voyager is better than the Samsung Sway" or any other phone the opponent would have chosen to debate about. My case still stands strong. The LG Voyager is not the best phone by Verizon. There are many others with the same if not better features. Take the Motorola Krave ZN4 Black from Verizon for example...it has bluetooth, weighs 4.6 oz, it's 4.1 in in height, Touchscreen, etc. It has the same features. The only difference is the prices. The LG Voyager is $549.99 and the Motorola Krave is just $49.99. That's a very good price for a phone that has the same features as the LG Voyager because in these economic crisis, a phone like that is way better than the LG Voyager. Thus, the LG Voyager is not the best phone from Verizon. I stand in the strong negation of this debate and urge a vote against the affirmation.
The LG Voyager is the best cell phone by Verizon.

Well......you do have a very good point there but if you were to buy a phone from Verizon what im saying is that I would prefer to get the LG Voyager. Since it may sound too confusing we can say that I am debating that the LG Voyager is better than the LG dare. There are many reasons for this, the LG Voyager has a touch screen and a full keyboard for easy typing, and the LG Dare only has a touch screen which is hard to type on at many times. Although the Dare has a better camera you dont need to have that good of picture quality from a ceell phone.....thats what digital cameras are for!!.... Ive never had the Dare only the Voyager but many of my friends and family say that it doesnt have a lot of battery power....the voyager lasts for almost 24 hours not needing to be plugged in at all which is a great feature. Also, I personally think the Voyager looks way better than the Dare.....If LG was trying to copy the iPhone they should of made it look better,bmake it a little smaller, and way skinnier its just too heavy.
The LG Voyager is the best cell phone by Verizon.

My opponent's argument is to persuade everybody that the Voyager by LG is the best phone by Verizon. My argument will be that we cannot simply say that one phone is better than the rest. Each phone is different. People have different opinons about the phone that they prefer, also what will benefit them. Thus we cannot just simply say one is better than the rest because it varies with people. I will go into more detail in the next round and do all the rebutal in the last round.
The LG Voyager is the best cell phone by Verizon.

The Voyager by LG is the best phone by Verizon. It has an awsome touch screen and a full keyboard at the same time. You are able to get onto the internet and check mobile email aswell whenever you want. It has a 2.0 megapixel camera so it has very good quality whenever you want to take pictures. Also, you are able to take videos so whenever something important happens just record it with your phone. Please someone start a debate with this I would really appretiate it. :)
The United States should NOT Legalize Marijuana

Alright, so let's take a look at your case. You first claim that marijuana could become a major cash crop. I am not going to deny this. However, that alone is not enough to legalize it. You never disregarded my statement that a government is obligated to protect its people. So, if marijuana still poses a threat to the people, the benefits of selling do not outweigh the safety costs of legalizing it. Basically, if I can prove marijuana is still harmful, this contention can be disregarded. You address my first contention by saying there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence to prove that marijuana causes cancer, and that there is a substantial amount of research to show it cures cancer. While that may be true, you never address my full contention. That was merely one of the reasons marijuana is harmful, but if you look back at my argument, I have evidence that it also increases accidents, lowers life satisfaction and increases job turnover. Then, you say that legalizing it would severe our ties with drug cartels. However, in my case I showed how legalizing marijuana would increase illegal activities related to it. As you never refuted that it must be assumed that you agree with it. Therefore, this contention of yours can also be disregarded. Finally, you say that if we legalize marijuana we won't have to waste police on possession charges. The police don't focus on marijuana possession charges. If there is a bigger case, they will focus on that. So your argument contains a logical fallacy. For these reasons, I still urge an affirmative vote.
The United States should NOT Legalize Marijuana

Hey everyone! This has been a very controversial topic as of late so I thought it would be fun to debate it. Just to be clear CON will have to argue that the US should legalize marijuana. Round 1: Acceptance - CON...just post "I accept" as your argument Round 2: Constructive - You may only post things that benefit your case, and you may NOT attack your opponents case in this round Round 3: Rebuttals - This round is for refuting your opponents constructive Round 4: Conclusion - Final Remarks, voter issues are allowed Thanks guys and I'm looking forward to a good debate!
Euthanasia

I'll state my position and then my contentions. My position is that Elective Suicide is Okay. My position is that Assisted Suicide is Not Okay. My contention is that power of attorney is too easy to abuse and people can be coerced or end up with a person who doesn't have their best wishes at heart making the decision. My contention is that there is not good way to fix this problem and therefore Euthanasia is immoral. That is not to say that I am against the elderly killing themselves. Your floor.
Euthanasia

For those who do not know, Euthanasia is also recognised as assisted suicide or medical suicide. It is the act of ending a life, If the person requests it, To relieve pain and suffering. I am for euthanasia. I believe that people should have the right to decide when their own life should end. It should only be done by medical professionals in a hospital setting, It goes without saying. Why should people have to live in pain? That is no life. Whose family wants to watch them suffer? You should be allowed peace. As long as you are mentally assessed and proven to be mentally stable and capable, You should be allowed to make this decision.
Fascism is the best system of governance

Alright. I'll give you the win for the first two paragraphs. But the others... It appears that you're contradicting yourself. You say Fascism is for the people, yet you are willing to oppress and detain any citizen who opposes your rule, whether they be an intellectual or a common fool. Have you forgotten Albert Einstein--he who deliberately refused to return to Germany BECAUSE of Nazism? Has he not contributed more to science and achieved more miraculous things in America? Einstein, a pacifist, WANTED The Allies to brace for war against the Germans. Surely if Einstein was in your class you would have had him thrown out with other disruptive/thought-provoking pupils. With that said, I shall repeat: the Nazis WERE NOT passionate about their own people, but only their party and people who supported them, citizens or not. The only reason Braun was accepted into the inner-circle was because of his knowledge, nothing more. He wasn't enthusiastic about the party, and even if he was, it was all a ploy for the welfare of his life/career--not true enthusiasm. Ultimately, Nazism does not truly represent the core of Fascism or nationalism nor was it for the people, meaning all Nazi-based sources and arguments are void. And again, it did not "take all of the allies to defeat Nazi Germany". Simply because they were involved does not mean the Soviet Union wouldn't have crushed them alone--which they would have as proved before. Meaning, by your terms, that the Soviet Union was the most formidable, not Nazi Germany. Simply because I ask for my friends' help to clean my room doesn't mean I need their help, as I could easily do it by myself, but within a longer period of time. And now for my actual stance in the debate. There are many forms of Fascism, and it seems you've chosen the most extreme form of it--detaining opposing views, restricting free press, using Nazism as an example, etc--and therefore I must form a statement against that version alone. However, I don't need to, as you have already shown and proved that Fascism (your version) in not the best form of government for it is not a government, but a rule of separate management enforced among the weak or the different by brutal force and/or oppression. No wonder my so many "Nazi" generals plotted to kill Hitler. For if it were a government, then it would attempt to unify all people by conversion, not oppression. Thus, you have proved your own declaration to be false.
Fascism is the best system of governance

Fascism or National Socialism is the best system of governance. With National Socialism, as it was in Germany, the country sought to band its citizens together in a sense of unity based on their shared identity. I contend that this is superior to the democratic, capitalist, laissez faire system. In Germany, the National Socialists provided excellent transport, the most advanced thinkers of the day and mandated public health. They looked after their own citizens. Naturally, the genocide that they brought about is thee major sticking point, but I posit that you cannot reject the political system on the basis of the evils that its progenitors committed. I assert that a publicly mandated physical fitness program is something that all western societies should have. I assert that the sense of common purpose, unity and kinship fostered under such a system is something that all responsible and forward thinking countries should strive to attain. Finally, I assert that the benefits to be had from such a society are superior to that of democracy. Furthermore, I believe the active role that a fascist government takes in the lives of its citizens is, in the long run, less oppressive than the democratic / capitalist method.
Fascism is the best system of governance

Sorry for the forfeit. It was due to unforeseen inconveniences that were not of my will. In this last round, I simply wish to state that I have effectively refuted most, if not all, of my opponents arguments. Arguments such as: Nazis's brought an intellectual renaissance of some sorts, they were the most formidable army, they were a government for the people, that a sense of nationalism healed the debt, and many other sub-arguments. Furthermore, I feel that I effectively made my opponent contradict himself many times and rendered many of his points void. Although I don't believe my opponent understands this as he constantly restates void arguments. But to reiterate my final response: the form of governance that my opponent advocates is not truly a government for the people, but an oligarchy that oppressed all opposing and non-conformist ideologies. Which is why many "Nazis" plotted to kill Hitler. If it was truly for the people, then high-ranking members of your own party would not plot to kill you. Thus, National Socialism, by your definition, is not for the people. And in a broader sense, Fascism is not the best form of government for society will never accept it, meaning that the only way for a Fascist to get into power is from brutal force, as you've described, which I replied, is not for the people. The "best" form of a government is one that seeks a general compromise for all people, not just the few or the majority. Using fitness is not satisfactory as the U. S. has fitness programs during high school, and if an individual chooses not to exercise after high school, then having a government force them to will only lead to more problems. I could go on and on about the many social revolutions Fascism, especially Nazism, will cause, but my point has been made numerous times.
Fascism is the best system of governance

My opponent unfortunately never made it to the last round. This is understandable - there simply is no better system of government than a fascist one. The prospect of formulating an argument against it would send most people cowering away so I shall show empathy with my opponent. I believe that humanity should divine itself a purpose. Even if life is objectively meaningless, we have intellect, the ability to learn, do, become better, stronger, faster. I believe a life is wasted if it does not seek to fulfil and surpass its potential in every regard. I believe that a true and just government should be more than just an administrative force, it should also make the most of the people whom it governs. I believe a strong, unopposed leader who holds the citizens best welfare at heart and who has balls is the best a nation can ask for. I believe National Socialism, or Fascism in general, provides the answer. They are systems built on the advancement and betterment of the people and thusly the nation. That should be first and foremost in government business. Vote for me. Vote against wishy-washy, emasculated, greed-led democracy and vote for your brethren, for their health and happiness, for their true prosperity, for their virtue, for kinship, for your nation. National Socialism. The best style of government.
Challenge me.

This should be an interesting topic. I will begin with a critique of the implications of my opponent's first contention: A. Basically, my opponent is asserting that American lives are more important than any other lives. This sort of underlying viewpoint is the basis for America's hatred in today's world. No country should be able to say that their own citizens' lives are worth more than others--it creates conflict that can lead to more wars. B. The next thing that my opponent suggests is that there were two distinct options available to the United States. Look at my opponent's options. What's to say American soldiers couldn't have used firepower and technology to end the war quickly without using nukes? Furthermore, the assumption that firepower and technology is always better has no reason behind it. C. Alternative: We need to weigh the lives lost without saying one life is better than another. Therefore, it is best to look at how many lives were actually lost in the nuclear bombings in Japan. Hiroshima: 90,000-166,000 deaths Nagasaki: 60,000-80,000 deaths (. http://www.rerf.or.jp...) If my opponent cannot produce evidence saying more people would have died without using the atomic bombs than with using them, his first contention is a lost cause. Next, for the second contention: I'm not really seeing the point to here. Take an example: What if I were to say to my opponent, "I'm going to kill you if you don't concede this debate! !! " Pretend I repeat it several times. Unfortunately, my opponent decides to keep debating. Would I suddenly be justified in killing him? Am I really taking a moral high ground? My point is that just because you are nice enough to warn someone that you are going to destroy them, it doesn't mean you are taking a moral high ground. This contention is a mess anyway. My opponent has given no reasons as to why taking a moral high ground is important. We can have that debate, but I would not suggest it. Now for the final contention: This is a very interesting argument. However, I'm interested to see what my opponent thinks of modern-day America. Many people would argue that America is "not beyond attacking countries in the name of empire. " --Take the War in Iraq for example. The United States is essentially removing a government they don't like to put in one that they do like. What gives us the right to do that? It's all the same thing. It's just neoconservative ideology that allows for the killing of innocent people in the name of whatever priorities the government may have. If my opponent intends to win his third contention, he must explain why America isn't justified in nuking itself. I'll stop for now. Great topic, Amphibian. Thanks again for accepting, and I'm looking forward to our next round.