BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
After-life doesn't exist

Hello once again. Well, I hoped to talk with a Christian about the actuall physics of the after-life, but anyway lets continue in your way. Your statement that someone live in someone's memory is wrong. Memory of a person is electrochemical data saved in the nervous system, in our brain. Memory doesn't survive death, except if you actually copy someone's memory (that technology doesn't exist jet). In fact it is saved as long as the nervous system lives. So after nervous cells die-off, your memory literally disappears. It's nothing new, every animal with a central nervous system loses all memory or experience saved there, after death. You said that we live on in someone's memory. That's stupid. Your life doesn't continue there at all. The only thing is that a person knows that there was a other person. Electrochemical data in the person's nerve system "memory" its not meaning that someone lives on. The basic definition of life rejects that. What if there is no one to remember you? And memory gets with time forgotten. And you don't remember an ancient bacteria from Kazakhstan? If you have a picture of a person, that died. The picture doesn't present his after-life, he doesn't live. Simply imagine that you wont live after death. It isn't that hard, what was there of you before you came to this world? And in the previous round I didn't deny only the religious after-life, I was just focused on it. Anyway Good luck.
After-life doesn't exist

1. After-life does not imply heaven or hell, it merely implying that there is life after death. 2. In my arguments, I define a person as the combination of his brain and the information in it. My opponent is attempting to prove that the religious after-life doesn't exist. I, on the other hand, argue that this is merely one perspective of the meaning of after-life and instead will attempt to prove that the statement "the after-life exist" can be valid. First of all, the self of a human being is constantly changing through his life therefore at no point, during this process, can one be qualified as his true self. A true measure of life must encompass the totality of it This means that persons life must be evaluated through every single facet of their humans experience which includes the past. The human experience is caused by a person (see definition 2) interacting with the physical world. Therefore, a person's death doesn't not mean that the entire human experience is over. His personality, feelings and thoughts still live on in the memories of others. Therefore, a part of his life still exist after his physical life is over which makes the statement the after-life exists possible.
Students may not bring toys to school.

Students cannot bring toys to school with them. If they are kindergarten or 1st grader, teacher would bring them a toy. But if students bring it, even teachers told them to put it away, they will just hide in pocket. It can be a hard stone that divide children and learning. And even they are harmful, some other children will tell to teacher. And it will make a big problems to everyone. If teacher did not let them bring it, and some one did, then when teacher talk to them, other is wasting their time for studying. Only beacause of one student.
Students may not bring toys to school.

I think students SHOULD be able to bring their toys to school, because to separate them from their toys would bring great harm to them. Everyone here knows that a boys favorite toy.................. Is his own penis. Many boys play with them every day, and they often play with it for hours and hours on end. Some boys cant get up in the morning without playing with it first, and some boys cant go to sleep without playing with it first. ALL men play with it, and thanks to recent advancements in medicine now even old people can continue to play with it. A boys favorite toy is his wienie, and if you force a boy to leave his wienie at home and not bring it with him to school, then you are causing him great physical pain. Therefore students should be able to bring their toys to school. Back to you pro :)
Starcraft 2 is a better game than MW3

My opponent thinks starcraft two is a tower defense game. This may sound insulting but that is not even close. next about the ratings. (. http://www.metacritic.com...) Starcraft has higher ratings and all 82 critics gave the game a good review. IF you want to talk about how it extends the campaign then go right ahead because of starcraft 1, starcraft:brood war, starcraft two wings of liberty, starcraft two heart of the swarm(coming in 3 or 4 months) and starcraft 2:legacy of the void. The campaign for starcraft is just so much better. extra's:"You don't need to know all of this strategy and know where to put your towers and stuff like that. " I have said this multiple times. In starcraft 2 you play with people of your skill level. In MW3 it is entirely based on ping to the host. This means that the games will have a better chance of getting a close game than in MW3. My opponent has ignored twice how much better the custom games are just for fun. I would venture to say than most people do not play spec ops exclusively and with your comment on multiplayer as the most important this opinion just strengthens. Some people do just play custom games. This is not to get better. This is all the fun they need because starcraft 2 has training and pure fun and a way to make your own games and maps. Multiplayer: My opponent again ignores professional gaming. He has dropped this multiple times. I will put the lag issue into perspective. I can play starcraft 2 on my computer but I cannot play MW3(. . http://answers.yahoo.com...) This is jut more people that say what I am saying. other:My opponent completely misses my point in that in mw3 it is much harder to find close matches. He says that swinging wildly is good but a game where it is either ROFLSTOMP or get ROFLstomped is just not fun. "Although Starcraft is a large game it can still experience a good amount of lag for a cheap comp therefore not everyone can have as much fun. " I can play sc2 on my pc and not mw3. I personally loved black ops and that is why i bought MW3. MW3 was garbage. That is why black ops 2 sales are down. The sales of a call of duty rely entirely on the rap of the game before it. 4. My opponent again ignores longevity. My opponent has ignored my pro gaming argument, my longevity argument and the purely fun side of custom games. He ignores the better matchmaking of starcraft in the 3rd round.
Starcraft 2 is a better game than MW3

Alright I actually have not played Starcraft 2 but I have watched a video in it and it looks pretty clear to me that it is a tower defense considering you defend your city. I also found your tone rather insulting the way you refuted. Campaign: You got your rating from 1 place and that does not mean that it is accurate. The ratings are true but that does not mean that everyone likes the Starcraft campaign better than MW3's. the campaign also leads off from the campaign of MW2 which most players enjoyed. This also benefits the campaign for MW3 because the players can enjoy an extension of a great campaign. Extras: I understand that there are more ways to play in this mode. You said that you can learn from others and people that are better and you can as well in spec ops survival. You can play with good players and learn the maps as well as good technique. MW3 is a fairly basic game because it is a shooter. You don't need to know all of this strategy and know where to put your towers and stuff like that. You need to know the maps and know the good guns and that's about it. I would say being able to work side by side with masters will help you just as much as Starcraft. I think there is a tie here. Multiplayer: Nothing for me to refute here my points still stand in what I said in round 2. Other: Like you said sometimes you will do well in MW3 and some games you do bad. This is actually benefiting me because it makes sure that you are not always doing great. There will always be challenges to make the game enjoyable. And what you said about the handicap system is not true. The game paired you up with an even team so that you will not be doing great every match. What I said about the Xbox live connection is true and cannot be refuted. Although Starcraft is a large game it can still experience a good amount of lag for a cheap comp therefore not everyone can have as much fun. Also Starcraft 2 is fairly old and they haven't come out with a new game in a few months which is why people still play it. And not everyone is playing black ops 2 yet a lot of people still like MW3. I can also say the same thing to you about how nobody plays Starcraft anymore. You were exactly right when you said that people bought MW3 games because past games were good. If this one was not good then explain why people still buy and play it.
Starcraft 2 is a better game than MW3

First off I will laugh at starcraft as a tower defense. You have no idea what the game is if you think that the game is tower defense. campaign: You say that a longer campaign does not make it better. I also gave proof that the starcraft campaign is better via higher rating. Starcraft wins points here. extra's: You say that spec ops has ways to get better and prepare for the multiplayer. You ignore starcraft master which prepares you for the real game micro situations and peep mode where you can learn from players in leagues higher than yourself. This helps you prepare for the multiplayer as well as if not better than the spec ops missions. Now you can look at the many other parts of the custom games with fun games such as nexus wars and many others. Multiplayer: My opponent completely ignores my argument on the far superior professional circuit of starcraft two. This is another bonus to starcraft two. "Your not supposed to play multiplayer on your very first time playing the game." This may be true but when you first start multiplayer you will more than likely be on the bad side compared to somebody who has been playing for a while. The league system has a far better way of making competitive matches than MW3. "You would only experience lag on MW3 if your Xbox live connection is low thus not the games fault." "Some people call it Lag Compensation but the truth is that Its a built in HANDICAP SYSTEM unique to MW3 no other FPS has it besides MW3.This Handicap system allows everyone to do well from time to time, its totally random like map selection, Notice one game you'll be the hand of god smashing down enemies with a mere burst then the very next game you are on the other end of it not being able to even respond to enemies until you see the last bullet." This is a problem unique to MW3 and does not have to do with the system it is a problem for the game. Starcraft also has a very small minimum computer needs and because you get to choose your own graphics. It can also be some of the best graphics out there. My opponent also ignores the great longevity that starcraft two has while most MW3 players are playing black ops two already. My opponent says how the game has sold so much and that's why it was a good game. The game sold so much because MW2 was good and black ops was very good. Just because a game is called call of duty does not make it a good game. I would also like to ask my opponent if he has played both games. I have and just would like to know if my opponent has the same knowledge.
Starcraft 2 is a better game than MW3

I will compliment you on making a game as boring as Starcraft sound good. Starcraft is just a tower defense game with strategy. MW3 is an action game with quick thinking and always being ready for what is coming. 1. This argument was about the campaign. You said just because it is longer that makes it more fun. This is totally not true. Yes the Starcraft campaign is long, but a lot of people find campaigns of games boring. With a short campaign you can get better and move to multiplayer where the the game gets way good. 2. This was about spec ops. You said that because Starcraft had more variety of ways to play that this would make the game more fun. Spec ops is missions where you complete certain objectives and then there's survival where you go through rounds of killing people. Starcraft does not have this kind of action instead is a game where you build stuff them send wimpy soldiers to go dismantle other buildings. 3. Multiplayer is in the bag for me. Your not supposed to play multiplayer on your very first time playing the game. Same goes for Starcraft you will be creamed. The purpose of spec ops missions and survival is to simulate multiplayer. I played spec ops and campaign and did not go straight to multiplayer and I'm pretty good. And for the lag, it is easier for a computer to have more lag because different comps have harder times dealing with big games than others. You would only experience lag on MW3 if your Xbox live connection is low thus not the games fault. Now my own main points Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3 is the best game out there. It was released November 17, 2011 and December 22, 2011 in the U.K. Within 24 hours of going on sale, the game sold 6.5 million copies in the U.S. and UK alone and grossed $400 million, making it the biggest entertainment launch of all time.In just 16 days of MW3 being out it made 1 billion dollars. People are still buying the game today so the sales always go up and more people are playing. The reason more people are playing this game is because they know it is fun. Also Starcraft is way more complicated than a typical shooter game and it takes more time to get into and actually have fun. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org......
Starcraft 2 is a better game than MW3

I will go through many aspects of the games and I will show how starcraft two is better and will continue to be better than MW3. I will go through campaign, multiplayer, and extra's(spec ops for mw3 and custom games and vs AI for starcraft. 1.The campaign:(http://www.craveonline.com...)The Modern warfare 3 campaign was finished in less than 5 hours. (http://kotaku.com...) This shows that starcraft has more than triple the game play that Mw3 brings to the table. Lets take a look at the scores given to the campaign as well. Starcraft 2 is rated a 9.5 while MW3 was a 9.0.(http://www.gamespot.com...) Starcraft 2 has a larger and better campaign. This is an easy point for starcraft. 2.I will next move on to custom games against spec ops. Spec ops is no Nazi zombies even though they tried so hard to emulate it. The custom games are far more successful because of the fact that there are just so many of them. starcraft master,left 2 die, nexus wars, and the many tower defense games that are built into starcraft. There are near limitless options and even if you cannot find a game you like out of the thousands then you can create your own. This is by far superior to the spec ops missions. I will go on the the biggest part of this debate and that is the multiplayer. 3-a. My first argument is pro gaming. This is an easy win for starcraft 2. The event of NASL 4 had more than 35 thousand people watching on average. The game is more than two years old.(July 27, 2010) MW3 is not even on the mlg pro gaming circuit. Pro gaming for starcraft is far superior. 3-b.Starcraft is much better in the fact that if you are a noob in MW3 because this is your first Fps or something you just get wrecked over and over. If you get wrecked in Sc2 they put you in a league with people of you skill level and You can play and get better and not get discouraged. On the other end of the spectrum there is the best of the best and the people who are better than average. In MW3 you have almost no way to get really competitive. The league system makes this not so. Almost every game will be a hard fought game with strategy and mechanics pushed to the max. 3-c. One of the great things that starcraft has on MW3 is the lack of lag. One of the largest complaints of MW3 is the lag compensation. This does not happen if your PC can handle it while this would effect your MW3 play due to shoddy servers. 4.Starcraft has a longevity that MW3 just cannot have. Starcraft 2 still has 2 more expansions that can come out and almost all of MW3 players have moved on to black ops two. I await cons case.
Dogs Are Better Than Cats

"Dogs are batter companions than cats." You debate that dogs are better companions than cats, but you fail to say to who/what they are better companions to. I'll just assume you mean companions to homo-sapiens, but then how do we judge a species over another one in this category? Let's take a look at the official definition of 'Companion': noun a person or animal with whom one spends a lot of time or with whom one travels. So it isn't up to the animal but to the human, which is the better.
Dogs Are Better Than Cats

Dogs are batter companions than cats. Dogs are social pack animals that evolved because direct human contact with wolves. Dogs read human body language and emotion better and more than any other animal. Dogs helped us domesticate other livestock animals which helped spawned modernity. Dogs serve a more practical functional purpose for human needs: protector guard animal, hearding other animals, emergency search dog, service dog, etc. There is a reason why dogs are Man's best friend.
Being agnostic in regards to the historicity of St. Paul is justifiable.

ResolutionBeing agnostic in regards to the historicity of St. Paul is justifiable.As Pro I need to show that one can be justified in holding the position of uncertainty on whether or not St. Paul existed in history.Con needs to demonstrate that it one cannot justify the position of uncertainty on whether or not St. Paul existed in history.RulesRound 1 is for acceptance only.Round 2 is for opening case only, no rebuttals.Round 3 is for extending one's case and rebuttals.Round 4 is for rebuttals only, no new arguments.To VotersThis is a select winner style voting debate. You need to have a minimum of 2500 ELO to vote.
Spare the rod, spoil the child.

I think you are trying to wriggle out of the debate here. I don't see how "I would have back-handed them a long time ago. I'll bet they've never been spanked in their entire time of existing. How can she expect them to behave if she never disciplines them?" is advocating anything other than corporal punishment, whatever you want to call it. If you meant something else (which I don't think is the case) you should have been clearer in both rounds of the debate. That being said, I think it is obvious by the first two rounds and the topic itself that even though you don't advocate child abuse, you are obviously still in favor of corporal punishment. Just because you were spanked and turned out "alright" doesn't mean that that is true for the overwhelming majority of spanked kids. There are countless studies, some of which I cited earlier, that show the extent of the damage spanking induces. And, there are countless alternatives to physically hurting your child, in any way, spanking or otherwise. Look at the billion dollar a year industry that is parenting. The Furber method and others all prove to be more effective and don't involve hitting your kids. I realize that you don't advocate beating the living hell out of your kids. But, obviously, physical action of ANY kind is harmful, unnecessary and inappropriate. Keep in mind, we don't even have reason to believe that risking these bad effects has any counterweight. We have been offered no reason why spanking actually leads to better behavior, especially over the long run. So, whatever you advocate, physically harming your kids for whatever purpose is harmful to them, ineffective, and morally impermissable, especially in a time when there are so many modern, non-violent alternatives. Thanks. Nice Debate.
Spare the rod, spoil the child.

My debate is NOT about spanking! My debate is discipline! I'm not saying she should slap her kids around in public. I'm saying she should take charge and not be so lax about her children's bad behavior. "Spare the rod," is not litteral. Heavens. no! Don't beat your kids with a rod! I just took a quote from Scripture because I thought it was an appropriate title for the debate I'm presenting. In Round 2 I was just arguing against your statement about beating kids. I was spanked when I did something wrong and I'm not psychologically tormented. I'm just worried that these kids might end up worse in the future. Given my background and upbringing, if I never learned discipline, I might have gone down the path my biological parents did. That's my personal expirience, and I thank my adoptive parents in the long run. But again, it's not about spanking; it's teaching your kids respect.
Spare the rod, spoil the child.

You draw a fine line. But, OK, I'll change my terminology. I agree a parent should have the right to disciplne their child. I agree that pleading with the kids, probably would have gotten her no where. Despite this, you answer virtually none of my assertions. First, you don't give me a reason why spanking a child will make them behave. In my limited experience, children who spank end up causing a bigger scene and a more disruptive child, not to mention awkward looks from the dinner guests. Again, we have no reason to believe spanking leads to better behavior. Next, the alternatives. There are whole sections of book stores, whole companies whose sole dedication is effective parenting technique. This means that there are numerous viable and effective alternatives to spanking. Then, we have the reasons why we shouldn't spank. Despite the fact that spanking is less traumatizing than full-out beating your kids, it does have negative psychological effects on the child. This study shows that kids who are spanked are six times more likely to engage in physical violence later in life and eleven times more likely to become a juvenille delinquent (http://books.google.com...=). Not only that, children who are spanked are more likely to be psychologically disfunctional or anti-social. In addition to these effects on the child, it is just morally unjust to strike your child, whether its minor and in the name of discipline or not. So, we shouldn't hit our kids because it damages them, is immoral, and we have no reason to think it works. We definately shouldn't spank our kids when there are so many non-violent alternatives to it that don't cause these consequences. Parents should have the right to discipline their children, just not physically.
Spare the rod, spoil the child.

Let me just start in saying that "spanking" and "beating" a child are two different things. Spanking is not necessarily a traumatic expirience, and a parent should be able to discipline his/her own children, no matter how "advanced" society has become. The kids were annoying and terrible. The mother wanted with them to stop, but she won't get any results if all she does is plead with them. The parent should have authority over their child, especially if they're unruly. Otherwise, they'll end up as trouble-makers, or the back-wash of society. Or they'll get their a$$ kicked on a regular basis in high school. Allow me to also say that beating your child is abuse, and is illegal. There is no law against disciplining your child.
Spare the rod, spoil the child.

I would hope we are at a point as a society where corporal punishment is deemed unjust and unnecessary. Parenting is a multi-billion dollar industry. Each network has its own nanny show where kids are disciplined and behave well without being beaten. This proves there are countless effective alternatives to beating your kids. That being said, we should not result to beating our kids because it can traumatize them, have ill-health effects and is just, straight up, immoral. There is also no reason to believe beating your kids is an effective parenting method or any more effective than other methods. Maybe her kids were terrible because she is an apathetic mom.