BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Call of duty is the most frusterating FPS ever.

COD is the most frustrating FPS because there is too many fanboys, FaZe trickshotters who brag and show off too much, campers, quickscopers, trolls, hackers, annoying little kids who always get stuck on my team and they suck, people who all they use is one weapon or all they do is knife, tryhards, and MLG geeks who think competitive gaming is a sport. COD is always laggy, the devs try to suck every living dollar out of everyone, they don't care about the community, the games always suck, and COD ghosts stole from battlefield.
Donald Trump is not racist

I accept and look forward to a good debate with Pro.On December 7, 2015, Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States".[1] That is clearly discrimination against Muslims. Note that his proposal does not just apply to illegal immigrants, as Pro claims, but to a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims", which discriminates against all Muslims.The United Nations officially recognizes discrimination against Muslims as a form of racism. [2]ArgumentPremise 1 - Donald Trump campaigned to discriminate against MuslimsPremise 2 - Discrimination against Muslims is internationally recognized as a form of racismConclusion 1 - Donald Trump campaigned using racismConclusion 2 - Donald Trump is racist.1. https://www.donaldjtrump.com...2. http://www.un.org... (Point 17)
Donald Trump is not racist

A non-discriminatory policy would be a ban on immigration of people considered high-risk. But that's not what Trump proposed on December 7th, last year. As Pro stated, Donald's policy was "a ban on Muslim immigration", all Muslim immigration. This policy is discriminatory, and thus racist.Merriam-Webster defines discrimination as:The practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people [1]P1: Trump's policy unfairly treats Muslims differently than other groups of people.To prove this I first need to show that the policy treats Muslims differently than other groups of people. Because there's no proposal to ban Christians, Buddhists, or Jews, it treats Muslims differently than other groups.Next I need to show that it does so unfairly. Banning the immigration of a Muslim newborn child, but allowing the immigration of a Hindu newborn child is unfair. This is because there is no greater threat from the Muslim newborn than there is from the Hindu newborn. Since Trump's policy unfairly treats Muslims differently than other groups of people:C1: Trump's policy is discriminatory against MuslimsI have already shown that discrimination against Muslims is an internationally accepted form of discrimination. [2]C2: Trump has campaigned using a racist policyC3: Trump is racist.Pro has not refuted my argument, and I have shown Pro's arguments don't negate mine.
Donald Trump is not racist

The ban does not have a set time and the ban does not revolve around a time: It will be set up until the screening process can be improved. The ban could last a week or a year. This is not a ban on muslims, this is a ban on muslim immigration while the screening process can be improved so that terrorism is less likely to be imported. The majority of muslims immigrants will come from majority muslim countries such as Iran, Pakistan, and Syria where islamic terrorism is commonplace. Muslim immigrants are more likely to move from a muslim country to a western country rather than move between Western countries.
Donald Trump is not racist

Pro accepts that Donald is calling for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States". Then Pro attempts to dispute this statement as being racist using two different tactics.#1 Pro implies that this policy is somehow not racist because it would be limited in duration. Racism is racism regardless of the duration. Limited discrimination does not make it not-discrimination. #2 Pro states that this policy is not racist because it is aimed only at immigrants from countries with terrorism propagated by IslamTo this I have two responses:Donald's statement says "total and complete shutdown of Muslims", and does not mention limitations to any particular countries. Pro's argument is not backed by the text in Donald's statement. Furthermore, changing from a racist policy to a non-racist policy later does not make his original policy non-racist, nor does it make Donald not-racist.Finally, Pro has not address my argument at all, and it still stands.- Donald Trump campaigned on a policy to prevent specifically Muslims from entering the United States, which is discriminatory against Muslims.- Donald Trump campaigned to discriminate against Muslims.- Discrimination against Muslims is internationally recognized as a form of racism-> Donald Trump campaigned using racism-> Donald Trump is racist.
clonin with biotech

Biotechnology is here taken to mean "the discipline of science concerned the experimentation and manipulation of organisms and organic matter in order to create new applications and products", and cloning is taken to mean "the creation of genetically identical living organisms from existing organisms". This is not the true definition of cloning; the actual definition is much broader, and includes methods which occur naturally. However, the reference to biotechnology implies that only the form of cloning defined above is relevant to the debate. Further context: both living animals and dead animals have been successfully cloned, in the latter case at times many years after the creature's death. The process is very expensive currently, and is often not successful. Often it can take many hundreds of attempts. Cloning does not, repeat, DOES NOT result in an identical copy - only a genetically identical copy. Human cloning is a controversial issue. The cloning of a human for reproductive purposes - that is, for it to grow to be a person, is almost universally condoned and banned. However, cloning to create embryos is much less prohibited, and can be used to aid other areas of research, i. e. Stem cell research.
Toilet humour is funny

Agreed,we shall argue on whether or not toilet humour is mature or not. While I do appreciate nearly every form of comedy whether it be science jokes or even humour that may be controversial to some like toilet humour for example. With that notion stated, I personally don't believe that this form of comedy should be frowned upon as it in fact pioneered comedy itself. Believe it or not, but the first joke ever written (or so far the oldest discovered joke) was based on the concept of flatulence. The joke goes: "Something which has never occurred since time immemorial; a young woman did not fart in her husband's lap." - (http://uk.reuters.com...) Where does the contention of "maturity" come into this? The aforementioned joke was written by the Ancient Egyptians, who as we all know, were highly innovative people with strong manual and intellectual acuity which ultimately enabled them to devise inventions that we still use today such as the door lock and toothpaste. (http://science.howstuffworks.com...) If the Ancient Egyptians were immature, then they would have not had the manual and intellectual capacity to devise such significant inventions. Reason being, the word "Immature" is defined as being "Not fully developed" immature: 1. Not fully grown or developed 2. Marked by or suggesting a lack of normal maturity http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Also, toilet humour has been employed in many of today's media. Shows such as South Park and Family Guy and even a few Seinfeld episodes as well as comedians like Benny Hill have recurring jokes pertaining to toilet humour. While I do not exactly know where to cite that notion from, if it imperative that I must provide a source for that statement I will include it in the next round. I bid luck to my opponent with their rebuttal. To be whimsical in this debate, I will post links of YouTube videos dedicated to toilet humour in each round:
printers ink why is it so expensive

Let me first note that my opponent has asked a question, rather than made a statement.I have absolutely no idea what being "Pro" or "Con" to "[P]rinters ink why is it so expensive[?]" means.Can you be Pro or Con to "How far is the moon from the Earth?" I don't think so.Regardless, I decided to answer.Why is it expensive? Technological costs.Printer ink is expensive because it requires a lot of investment to continue to increase printer ink and printer printing quality, on the size of $1 billion annually for HP [1]. HP then transfers these costs to the consumer, in order to continue to pay for more investment. (Admittedly, HP's printing does make $24 billion in profit annually, but just ignore the greed for now [1].) Furthermore, printer cartridges are complex, and manufacturing them does take money [1].As Thom Brown, marketing manager at HP, states:"Inks must be formulated to withstand heating to 300 degrees, vaporization, and being squirted at 30 miles per hour, at a rate of 36,000 drops per second, through a nozzle one third the size of a human hair. After all that it must dry almost instantly on the paper," [1].I don't know about you, but that's pretty damn impressive.As Robert Mitchell, journalist at ComputerWorld, states:"HP has come a long way since its first ink jet printer came out in 1985. At that time that state-of-the-art unit had 12 nozzles in the print head and fired droplets at a rate of 10,000 per second. The technology in today's Photosmart 8250 uses 3,900 nozzles to deliver 122 million drops per second onto the paper," [1].Again, I don't know about you, but that's a rather big improvement. 12 nozzles to 3,900 nozzles is a 0.9995% increase. 10,000 dps to 122,000,000 dps is a 0.99992% increase. Your money is paying for something.And here's an image sample, as to what this increase means for image quality: Image is from [1].That's the difference between an abstract eye-like image and near-photographic detail.ConclusionI have answered Pro's question, and I'm pretty sure that fills the BOP in this kind of "debate"Thanks for this, er, debate.Reference[1] http://blogs.computerworld.com...;
printers ink why is it so expensive

why is printers ink so expensive scientest have just checked it out more expensive then caviar ,more expensive the the best champayne,they have even written a book about it ,and the manufactors will or wont tell us,it cost nearly 50 pounds per 100,sheets of paper,to print,for 50 pounds you should get at least two gallons of ink,what is in it to cost so much,
The Trinity is supported by the Hebrew Tanakh

Accepted. Thanks to Truth_seeker for initiating this debate, and for selecting me as his opponent. As Pro has stated that the first round is for acceptance, I will proceed with outlining my (opening) argument in round two. By using "external" and "internal" evidence, this should make for an interesting debate. To clarify my stance: I will be arguing that the Trinity is in fact not supported by the Hebrew Tanakh.
The Trinity is supported by the Hebrew Tanakh

See "Debate settings" for list of judges. I will prove the doctrine of the Trinity from the Tanakh from the ancient languages along with ancient rabbinical writings from the Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and other writings. Brief introduction on Textual criticism: Textual criticism seeks to re-construct the originals based on the existing manuscripts. Using several different fields, Textual critics tend to correct scribal errors to find the original message. Elimination of unlikely changes are made as critics compare all variant manuscripts. Internal and external evidence must be weighed. Inferences based on the changes made are also drawn on the manuscripts. External evidence - Manuscripts are judged based on dates and relationship to other sources. Majority usually rule although sometimes the earliest manuscripts can also be a determining factor. Internal evidence - The text itself is also a factor in determining the original reading. Now in textual criticism, there is really no one single manuscript which makes up the O. T, there are thousands, however it essentially has a "self-correcting" system by which scholars can remove minor scribal errors. I may use textual criticism to validate my claims in the Scriptures.
Personality is most influenced by nurture more than nature.

I accept.Firstly, I will define a few terms so that we establish common ground as to what we are arguing for. I will try my best to define terms similarly to what Pro had in mind. I will be modifying the term "nature" because online dictionaries mainly refer to nature as "the natural world as it exists without human beings or civilization."-Personality (noun): the set of emotional qualities, ways of behaving, etc., that makes a person different from other people.http://www.merriam-webster.com...-Nurture (noun): rearing, upbringing, training, education, or the like, of a person.http://dictionary.reference.com...-Nature (noun): the setting in which a particular is nurtured.____________________________________________________________________________________________Pro is arguing that the nurture of a person influences a person's personality more than the setting in which the person is nurtured (nature). I will be arguing that the setting in which a person is nurtured (nature) influences the person's personality more than how the person is nurtured.Rebuttal:"People are more influenced by nurture because of their relationships with others whatever they are, and who they react with affect their attitude or thoughts which lead to differences in their personality"-I wish to point out that nurture is determined by nature. Pro is correct when he says that relationships with others affect attitude and personality. -But ultimately, it is nature that determines who they hold relationships with. Nature determines where a person lives, therefore it also determines who this person interacts with and hold relationships with. In other words, nature controls nurture.-If nature controls nurture, then nature must influence a person more than nurture. _______________________________________________________________________________________Now, on to my point:I have already established that nature controls every factor nurture controls contributing to a person's personality, because it controls nurture itself. Now, I will explain how nature controls and determines even more than nurture by providing theoretical but likely examples.-As established before, nature controls where a person lives, including but not limited to: weather/climate, temperature, nationality/ethnicity, surroundings, environment, biome, and wildlife.-If a person is raised next to the sea, the person would enjoy activities such as surfing and snorkeling, but if that person was raised near the woods, he/she would likely enjoy hunting and camping more than surfing and snorkeling. This certainly contributes to personality. -If a person was raised in a hot region, he/she would enjoy ice cream, but if the person was raised in a cold region, he/she would enjoy hot chocolate more than ice cream.-If a person was raised in a rural 3rd-world country struggling through a drought, this person's personality would surely be different from a person raised in urban civilization. -Depending on where one was raised, one would have different preferences concerning their favorite animals, food, activities, etc.Over to Pro.
Outsourcing. Sorry I had my tonsils out and was not able to respond to our previous debate in time.

I understand the idea of a tariff, and why i am advocating it is simply because there needs to be a level playing field in order to keep corporate greed in check. This is not an indirect effect it would be a direct effect if instead the profits were reduced in order to maintain that level playing field. It would be ideal for a CEO to make one and a half times what the average worker does. Seven is still too high,but seven is obviously better than 248 or 436. For the sake of debate a ceo should make more than an average worker, but he should not do so if it jeopardizes the greater good of society. Hence, sending jobs overseas to accumulate profits is not for the greater good.The discount may be seen in cheaper products, but with every job that goes overseas, so goes america's standard of living. if a factory worker making forty thousand dollars a year gets his job outsourced and has to work at subway it effects all of american society.To think that if a CEO invests his money in banks that in turn lend that money to those seeking loans, is somehow charitable is absolutely wrong. If a ceo invests his money recieved from cutting american jobs and sending them overseas for cheap labor in a bank or the stock market he does so in fact to make more money for himself, enhancing further his need to make money. When you talk of American music and movies being produced for the rest of the wold you are speaking of a small percentage of people who benefit. I am speaking of the outsourcing of MILLIONS, yes MILLIONS, of manufacturing "blue collar" jobs, as well as "White collar" jobs as well. American have special talents that these blue and white collar workers do not possess they are a small minority and all thought appreciated are not a useful argument in this debate. These manufacturing and technological jobs are "unjustly" exported because they ARE Americas to begin with and any American should fight to have them stay here for the good of the country. If you hire me to trim your hedges and find someone else to do i, IN AMERICA, then that is fine you are not hurting our society or another society by having Chinese people do it for a dollar. This practice, decreases America's standard of living and does not increase China's, which is a lose lose. You might argue thast this is basic economics, but we are humans first, Americans second, and economists third. I agree that wealth is a man's capacity to think, but what about the man with a below average IQ is he not entitled to some sort of wealth if he works hard. The ability to think, and a lack for hard work and a sense of responsibility to others is nothing, and should not be rewarded with wealth. thank you
Outsourcing. Sorry I had my tonsils out and was not able to respond to our previous debate in time.

Daxitarian to your first point you are absolutely missing the point of what it is to be american. 1st the price of the goods produced does not have to go up, instead the salaries and benefits of the ceo and other upper management would go down. I am not advocating socialism just a decrease in this upper elite's profits. in every other country in the world a ceo makes seven times that of the average worker. In america the average ceo makes anywhere from 248-436 times what the average worker does this is not necessary and is caused by outsourcing. Hence the discount is not passed on to the consumer but is added to corporate profits. second, not going to war is not an incentive to "screw" the american worker out of jobs that were once his. Third i am not saying america should produce everything, but right now, due to outsourcing, India is producing the pizza's, china the stapelers, and america nothing because india and china can pay their workers a dollar an hour.fourth the american worker was entitled to those jobs because they were once his and were wrongfully and unjustly taken away from him. It would be different if the whole world had a minimum wage and workers benefits, but it does not and this makes it an unfair playing field.Also you do not stop people in poor countries from being poor, by giving them our jobs. That is absolutely assinine. Thank you
The Pokemon TCG is a better TCG then Yugioh.

- "...you stated the Pokemon games changes rules where you can not use the older cards and how the game is played also is slightly changed. But, this is a good thing because it provides a more unique experience..." That doesn't make any sense though. The game changes its rules regularly, and is thus "more unique"? Anyone with a lick of common sensr can trll you how desparate an attempt that is at refuting the point. - "You also brought up all the text on the Pokemon card but that just educates the player on the Pokemon and doesn't apply to battling and is just something unique and fun to read and look at." I just said it was "notably unnecessary." Which is true, as you yourself seem to agree with. "Second although you say the Yugioh TCG is the biggest, Pokemon has had a bigger following and is the older of the two and is far more superior." YTCG has a bigger following, but PTCG has a bigger following? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? The fact that it's older doesn't matter in the slightest, and has nothing to do with being superior. Furthermore, summoning is YTCG's equivalent of evolving, so that means nothing for difficulty. Remember, voters, vote on the argument, not preference. Thanks to my opponent for the debate. I enjoyed it very much.
The Pokemon TCG is a better TCG then Yugioh.

Again with some refutations, firstly, you stated the Pokemon games changes rules where you can not use the older cards and how the game is played also is slightly changed. But, this is a good thing because it provides a more unique experience, You also brought up all the text on the Pokemon card but that just educates the player on the Pokemon and doesn't apply to battling and is just something unique and fun to read and look at. As I stated Pokemon also involves many countless strategies like you said with Yugioh. On to my points. First Yugioh is far more complex due to all of the tribute summoning and the fusion summoning and along with the special summoning in the game itself. Pokemon is not as complex because you can summon any basic card you want during your turn and can evolve any Pokemon you have out once per turn as long as its the proper card and you have a had that Pokemon out for more then one turn. Sure there are lots of things in Pokemon like the EX cards that may sound confusing but really it's just a more amped up version of the original card with a better reward if you happen to knock it out. Second although you say the Yugioh TCG is the biggest, Pokemon has had a bigger following and is the older of the two and is far more superior. Conclusion: I hope you have come to realize the Pokemon TCG is far more superior then the Yugioh TCG. Thank you and good luck. Glad to debate with you.
The Pokemon TCG is a better TCG then Yugioh.

From Bulbanews: "A Pok"mon card shows not only the name and picture of the Pok"mon, but also a page from its Pok"dex entry, its HP, Type, Weakness, Resistance, Ability, attacks it can use (along with possible attack effects), retreat cost, artist name and its evolutionary stage," and even their height and weight. Yu-Gi-Oh! cards, on the other hand, have "the monster"s name, ATK (attack points), DEF (defense points), Attribute, Type and type of monster card, leaving a larger space for the picture." That much info on the Pokemon card is notably unnecessary. In the PTCG, cards are retired on a regular basis. You can't use cards from older sets because of constantly changing rules and regulations. What kind of card game changes its rules on a regular basis? In the YTCG, you can use the oldest with no change. Admittedly, there are certain restrictions on cards (to prevent the games from ending too quickly) but this is much preferable to having cards retired entirely regularly. You also bring up PTCG championships. That's all fine and dandy, but the YTCG is, according to Guiness World Records, the top-selling TCG of all time. That leaves more than a few people to play with. By the way, there are still YTCG championships as well, so that doesn't really count for anything. And I'm letting the difficulty thing go- that's totally subjective.