BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wonderking is good!

You're seriously kidding right? Dude, everything on earth is based on comparisons. For example, if there was a guy that had 50 IQ and another with 150 IQ, you would say that the guy with the 50IQ was retarded compare to the other person. If there weren't any people to compare it to, then what would the guy with 50 IQ be called? Same with Wonderking and the other games. Wonderking, I am positive does not have thousands of players, since it has only 2 servers and you probably did not even play it at all. And not just compared to maplestory, but many many other games, they have millions of players. And as for your response to my questioning of Wonderking having a limited choice of leveling, mature party quests? Really? Let's see, in maplestory, there are jump quests, quests where you have to collect certain amounts of items, and even better, party quests, where you can team up with your friends and go through a set maze or dungeon until you reach the boss. Yes and that is very mature right? (sarcasm) Next, you ARE basing your argument only on the fact that Wonderking has thousands of players therefore it must be god which makes no sense whatsoever. How do you know that every single person in that game likes it and finds it fun? Maybe some join it just to chat with their friends? And still others can play it just to try it out? Finally, fine, I won't use WoW nor Guild Wars since apparently you know nothing about any other games that have thousand times the quality of Wonderking's crappy graphics. As an example, you can look at Combat Arms ( don't worry its free). Its quality is more or less the same as Call of Duty, and if not, definitely better than Wonderking. You can also go on gameogre.com to find more games that have better graphics. Furthermore, Wonderking is exactly the same as the horrible graphics that were on gameboy advances years earlier. What's the point of paying a retarded game that looks exactly like an ancient console game when you can play much better graphics?
Wonderking is good!

First off, the only argument you have here is that wonderking have thousands of players. Also, all debates start from opinions. If they were based on fact, then there's no point in a debate, eh? Second, thousands of players compared to millions of players in maplestory is just bs. I can find many forums bout how wonderking is a plain rip off of nexon's maplestory and how many players dislike it. Furthermore, I really have to disagree with you at how computer games are supposed to have bad graphics. Instead of researching flash games, maybe you should look at some popular mmorpgs. Look at WoW and Guild Wars, their graphics are like god compared to wonderking. Even grand chase and maplesotry have better grahpics than wonderking. Also, the gameplay is horrible. The classes are horribly unbalanced. Finally, maplestory has more freedom and more variety to it. Wonderking does not have any real party quests, and the only way to level is to grind on monsters or do pointless quests. Although many say that it is easy to level in wonderking, there is no point in getting to a high level in one week since you didn't place any effort into it.
Wonderking is good!

Opinion require evidence to back them up though. I used Evidence to back up that wonderking is played by thousands. While my opponent may think wonderking is bad, in essence, if so many play it, it must be good. Most internet games haves bad graphics, that's just the way it is. My opponents goal in this debate is to show me how this internet game is "bad". Apparently this game must be good, because it is so commonly played by many. Bad meaning detrimental to society, or generally harmful, how is this game "bad", besides your opinion of its gameplay? How does this game make anyones life worse, and adversely affect them? This game has not been forced upon us, and is only played when we click the site. So I fail to see how this game is hamrful to society. thankyou, -philosophical
Wonderking is good!

and "obviously" this debate is about the majority of opinions, not one single opinion. If that was the case, then millions of the debates on this site would be of no use eh? And "obviously", you got your information as a secondary source, so I can tell you, from my own personal experience (primary source), that wonderking lacks many, many things. Its graphics is horrible, classes are totally unbalanced, and it look way too much like a console game from gameboy. If you researched more, you would find millions of maplestory veterans disliking this game and many other people. Furthermore, just because thousands of people play this game doesn't mean it is good. Many people go to try out this game.
Wonderking is good!

Wonderking doesn't exist on this site. I have thoroughly checked plenty of times, and I can assure you he is not on this site. Wonderking: Non-existant, so presumed imaginary in this debate. Good: 1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man. 2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health. 3. of high quality; excellent. 4. right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good. http://dictionary.reference.com... A1: Wonderking is good. The individual un-known as "wonderking" has not done anything that I know of to be be bad. Every human being starts out innocene, or "good" as my opponent phrased it. So if, Wonderking is non-existant, and has still yet to come out of his innocent stage and do harm, then he cannot possibly be bad. In this sense, Wonderking could in every way shape or form, be good. Resolution debated. Thanks, Philosophical.
Age Restrictions Should be Removed

age restricted laws are made for safety. and of course, you absolutely cannot be more mature by violating laws and regulations including age restricted laws. can you be more mature just by drinking beers under the age of 18? of course not. you'll feel that you're more mature though, but in real life you're not. being mature means that you're responsible for your actions and drinking beers below the age of 18 is totally not responsible at all. how can they be mature if they are still living under their parent's house. i say age restrictions should never be removed because if it's removed some teenagers will start on doing things on their own. such as premature sex.
The bible has Archaeological evidence to support that some events happened.

I would like to start first by stating that the bible contains no archaeological evidence in and of itself. Now, since the topic is somewhat vague, and there were no arguments made by pro in round one, I will save any arguments until pro presents his first round. I look forward to a well thought out argument by my opponent, and hope to be able to rebut intelligently. Good luck to my opponent, and may the best argument win.
It's not possible to lower gas prices by boycotting the two major companies.

You are trying a tactic that I thought I was the only one on this site smart enough or unethical enough to use. However, you don't know that I always plan for every possibility. It is possible to lower gas prices by boycotting the two major companies and threatening to boycott any company who engages is buying oil from them. If the boycott was big enough, at least a few chain-companies would give in the buyers' demands. The media of course would have a field day with the major companies.
It's not possible to lower gas prices by boycotting the two major companies.

I didn't answer your argument because your argument has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is that "it's not possible to lower gas prices by boycotting the two major companies". If you would like to address that for you final argument go ahead. You talked about why people might boycott companies and how that can be effective, but that has nothing to do with the topic or with my original argument. Your move rev.
It's not possible to lower gas prices by boycotting the two major companies.

"First I'll start out by saying it wasn't very smart of you to state your entire argument in the very first round." Who says I have stated my entire argument? "People rarely boycott a product/service/company/etc to lower the price of it." But that's the point of this whole "plan", you must have seen the emails or heard about these people on Facebook/Myspace. The idea is that you could boycott Exxon/Mobil and force them to lower their prices and then the other companies would be forced to lower their prices to stay competitive. However, this idea shows a clear ignorance of the American economy. As we run on the law of supply and demand all that could and will happen is what I have previously stated. That company will plummet, the rest will rise and then by people's will to save money the prices will even out, or Exxon/Mobil will simply sell their extra barrels to the companies who are reaping the benefits and in that way Exxon/Mobil's and every other companies prices will stay the same. The idea behind this plan is inherently flawed. It has nothing to do with morals as you have suggested, their plan is about lowering the gas prices and the plan will not work.
It's not possible to lower gas prices by boycotting the two major companies.

First I'll start out by saying it wasn't very smart of you to state your entire argument in the very first round. Then I'll say that you're right in some sort, but extremely ignorant in another. People rarely boycott a product/service/company/etc to lower the price of it. They boycott it because of the provider/company policy/company history/etc. In this case it is that people don't want to help fund terrorist groups by supporting oil that comes from foreign nations. You also said that the companies will just sell it to other companies. That is correct, but at least now we're not the direct cause of the terrorists getting enough money to blow their village up so badly it doesn't land until the next decade. Let me give you an example of a boycott- African-Americans did when they were forced to sit in the back of the bus. Not because the bus ride cost a quarter more than the bus down the street. IAMS pet food buyers are still boycotting IAMS because the dog food killed thousands of animals. They want IAMS to check dog food more for poisons. It wasn't because IAMS dog food cost a dollar more than the store brand.
It's not possible to lower gas prices by boycotting the two major companies.

One of two things will happen if you try this and neither will get what you want and it will only hurt the economy and every American citizen. First if you stop buying oil from one or two companies then you just buy more from another company, they're prices skyrocket and the two companies you didn't buy from plunge. Eventually everyone else in the country buys from the really cheap companies so the other companies have to lower their prices and now the really cheap prices start to climb up again. Within days everything evens out again. Only now investors see how idiotic people are and stop using the dollar for their investments and move to the euro. That'll help the economy. The other possibility is that they would just sell their barrels of gas to other companies and by that way nothing would change because the demand stays the same and the supply would be the same. The only way you could lower gas prices would be to stop using gas altogether or to get on your representative to lower taxes on gas. Even if you did stop using gas altogether the market would falter, we'd hit a recession and inflation would overshadow, by far, any savings you make on lower gas prices.
Homosexuality (Round 2)

Arguments: I'm going to assume that, since you have told me you are a Christian, you are planning on using the Bible's clear disapproval of homosexuality as evidence that it is wrong. Let me just preemtively point out that the Bible is far from a perfect moral guide, saying "Thou shalt not kill" and then going on to say that you should kill homosexuals and atheists. Also, you can't take anything in the Bible as fact, because as I recall, Adam and Eve bore only sons. How, then, are we here? Well obviously it's because the Bible is wrong outright. I'd also like to clarify that when I say homosexuality is okay, I'm asserting that it does not negatively affect people in a way that they have the right to claim it is morally reprehensible. Sure, some people find it "disgusting," and "unnatural" but I don't see how their personal opinions of how appealing something is determines what is right or wrong. If we based our concept of right and wrong on what we found to be pleasant or unpleasant, some people would advocate that underarm hair is immoral, or even that certain races are immoral! Oh, wait. They actually did used to think that whites had the moral high-ground, and that blacks were innately lesser people. They also argued against interracial marriage, saying they were trying to "Protect the sanctity of marriage" Doesn't that sound familiar? Conclusion: In layman's terms, I just want you, my opponent, to prove to me through reasoning and evidence, that homosexuality is wrong. I eagerly await your response.
Homosexuality (Round 2)

I have already debated this topic once, and frankly got my (Expletive) handed to me, but my opponent said that they weren't actually against gay rights, and just wanted to give me a good debate. I respect that, but this time I'd prefer debating someone who actually holds a position at odds with my own. My position, then, is that (once again) homosexuality is fine, and people have no right to tell people who they can and can't love. My opponent will be arguing that it is wrong for homosexuals to be allowed to be with other homosexuals. Thank you in advance to whoever accepts this debate.
Margaret thatcher is the best PM england ever had

Let me first start with the timeline of Margaret thatcher:1925: Birth ofMargaret Hilda Thatcher1946:became Preident of Oxford conservative association1950:Participation in the general elections1959:Became an MP (member of the parliament)1970:Appointed as seceratry of state for education and science1975-79:leader of opposition in the Parlament1979:Election as the prime minister1980:stepping down as PM2013:death I will now start with the achievements of margaret thatcher-1.she lowered direct taxes on income.2.she reformed local goverment taxes by replacing domestic rates.3.she became the first woman to lead a western political party.4.she banned labour unions.5.led UK to victory in the war of falkland islands.Synopsis- she challenged and did much to overturn the psychology of decline that had uprotted britian since world war II Now the synopsis- Margaret Thatcher's political career has been one of the most remarkable of modern times she served as British Prime Minister for more than eleven years (1979-90), a record unmatched in the twentieth century.During her term of office she reshaped almost every aspect of British politics, reviving the economy, reforming outdated institutions, and reinvigorating the nation's foreign policy. She challenged and did much to overturn the psychology of decline, which had become rooted in Britain since the Second World War, pursuing national recovery with striking energy and determination. In the process, Margaret Thatcher became one of the founders, with Ronald Reagan, of a school of conservative conviction politics, which has had a powerful and enduring impact on politics in Britain and the United States and earned her a higher international profile than any British politician since Winston Churchill. By successfully shifting British economic and foreign policy to the right, her governments helped to encourage wider international trends which broadened and deepened during the 1980s and 1990s, as the end of the Cold War, the spread of democracy, and the growth of free markets strengthened political and economic freedom in every continent.Margaret Thatcher became one of the world's most influential and respected political leaders, as well as one of the most controversial, dynamic, and plain-spoken, a reference point for friends and enemies alike.One of the major successes for Margaret Thatcher was the Falkland’s War. Before the War Thatcher was voted to be the worst Prime Minister that Britain had ever had, however after the Victory she became Britain’s most prominent leader, which essentially kick started her premiership.
Businesses have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason

Woah you did your homework. :D ever sence the civil war American people have strived for equality. and it seems to me that this will only tear our equality down. i'm sorry but I can see no positive outcome from kicking somone out of a business. you say it'll right out the kinks its self, and i agree after turning away more and more people all of your racist businesses will fail.
Businesses have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason

I apologize for the delay, but I have been rather busy lately. Anyway, I'd like to address the statement "any business that will deny on race or sex goes aganst everything America has attempted to create" first. I believe if our founding fathers witnessed people being sued for denying THEIR service to people on THEIR property, they would be horrified. The strongly believed in personal liberty, and that people do not have the right to be served by a private business, because it is just that: private. It belongs to them, and like anything else that belongs to you, you have (or should have) the right to do whatever you wish with it, as long as it does not inflict upon other's liberty. It is also your you decision to allow people to buy or have said property. Thus, people do not have the right to be served by you, regardless of what you wish to do, because in essence, service is property until it is bought by the consumer. Next, you state that "How would you feel being thrwn out of a returant or store if you were A Stupid Cracka, A Straghty, An non Believeing skumbag, even if something like that wouldn't ruin your day imagine it happining to your family because they live in the wrong neighborhood, or can't get married to someone you love due to racial or religious diffrences?". I admit, I would be disappointed to know that the owner refused to serve me, however, it IS their property, and they decide who gets to be on it, and who is allowed service. Imagine if someone walked up to your house, and sat on your front lawn. Do they have the right to be there after you tell them to leave? Of course not, because it is your property. Does it matter why you want them to leave? No. The same logic applies to businesses. If you went to a coffeehouse, and they told you to leave, they have the right to do so, regardless of why they want you to leave. Finally, you say "after allowing businesses to throw out who ever Government buildings and churches do the same". First of all, I'd like to explain why government buildings do not have the right to deny service to anyone (well, taxpayers). This is because everyone pays taxes, and thus, everyone pays for that building. In essence, you own a part of that building, however small, and have every right to be there. Churches, however, DO have the right to kick anyone out for any reason, because it is private property. However, right after that statement, in the same sentence, you say "now every day life has become a hassle". The good thing about capitalism and freedom is, it usually works out all of the kinks by itself. Imagine a member of the Klu Klux Klan owning a grocery store. Whenever a person who isn't white attempts to shop there, he tells them to leave, thus losing business. And if any white people saw that, and thought it was wrong, they would also leave, and he would lose more business. Realistically, kicking a large amount of people out of your business wouldn't be practical, and you would most likely go out of business.
Businesses have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason

O K Well, i Think any business that will deny on race or sex goes aganst everything America has attempted to create. How would you feel being thrwn out of a returant or store if you were A Stupid Cracka, A Straghty, An non Believeing skumbag, even if something like that wouldn't ruin your day imagine it happining to your family because they live in the wrong neighborhood, or can't get married to someone you love due to racial or religious diffrences? Or Think of this: after allowing businesses to throw out who ever Government buildings and churches do the same, now every day life has become a hassle. all because you let a business throw some one out due to race/sex/hair/or any reason at all!
Full Drug Decriminalization and Legalization

The Conclusion: The drug war is a failed attempt to keep potentially unsafe substances away from us. As many point out, the government cannot even keep drugs out of high-security prisons with armed guards. So what it boils down to is a multi-hundred billion dollar project funded on American tax money that counter-productively makes drugs more prevalent, potent, and unsafe. It provides cartels and criminals with funding and therefore power. As the United States Government should have learned during the early twentieth century prohibition, if the people want something, they're going to find ways to get it. This is how the Mafia took shape. To add insult to injury, the Federal War on Drugs has undermined our individual rights. Not only does the government tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies, they throw non-violent drug offenders in jail and benefit from incarcerating more. Remember, the government does not have constitutional authority to wage their “war.” So everything affiliated with drugs that the Federal Government enforces is illegal on their part. Keeping drugs illegal also hinders our economy. To put it into perspective, imagine if tobacco was outlawed. The economy would drop significantly. The modern man remains apathetic to what he believes does not concern him. The crackdown implies that the government knows how to live our lives, and they don’t. Prisons have been given incentive to jail more people in exchange for money. Those who require illegal medical drugs, like marijuana, can be imprisoned for using them. The drug war creates more crime and affects everyone, including those of us who don’t want anything to do with them. It’s time to dismantle the Federal War on Drugs in order to kindle a safer, more controlled society. By the way, not everyone that advocates legalization are uneducated pot-heads. There are legitamate, intelligent reasons to decriminalize.
Full Drug Decriminalization and Legalization

Greetings, and thank you for allowing me to debate on this topic. Let me first say that i understand Pro has good intentions in mind, but Pro has not considered at all the negative implications of such an action. Not only is Pro suggesting the legalization of every illegal substance, but also promotes the sale and regulation of these harmful substances to "boost" our economy and "lower taxes". This is a very naive solution to our economic problems. I strongly disagree that the proposed action would lower crime rates, dissolve violent drug cartels, or save our economy. On the contrary it would lead to a rapid deterioration of our society. If the federal government were to regulate and sale not just cannibis but opiates and hallucinogens the trade off would be condemning our future generations to addiction, poverty and suffering for a small cutback on our ever growing deficit spending. I will present my argument in greater detail in round two. I am eager to hear Pro's opposing argument.