BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
ROBLOX is better than Minecraft

Minecraft is good. That doesn't mean it's better. First of all, both games provide features to learn architeture, but ROBLOX is the next level of that. Instead of just building with blocks, you can carve a block and make it a whole new mesh, then build it up to create something entirely different then just a house. Second of all, Minecraft is not better for kids. It has almost as much "bullies" and hackers as ROBLOX has. The whole community is cringy, and it can teach kids bad things, especially since there is no filtering. Third of all, yes. Minecraft has infinite skin possibilities. But what if you could mash up multiple skins to create a whole new skin and share it with the world?! That's what the catalog does. Unlike Minecraft, you can create your own personal look that can look like you, your friend, something fictional, and even an animal. Minecraft doesn't allow that. In Minecraft, it's always "here, get this skin and don't customize it to look what you want it to look like".
ROBLOX is better than Minecraft

ROBLOX is better than Minecraft because it offers a WAY easier coding platform than the game itself. It has a ton of users, games, and groups, and not as many 5 year olds as Minecraft has. Minecraft is a childish game. It's hard to make servers, but with ROBLOX you can create your own worlds in a very short amount of time. Not only that, but there are many customizables that Minecraft doesn't have, like T-Shirts, Packages, Hats, and even Animations. It also has audio to play, decals, and handy tools that you can download to use in your game to make everything easier, such as a radio or a tycoon kit. In ROBLOX, the possibilities are endless!
Public Nudity Should Be Legalized

=== ARGUMENT === Harm Done: I contend that the anti-nudist policies are unjustifiable due to them causing more harm than any it could have stopped. Indeed, I say, being naked does no harm. I ask you, what harm does nudity cause? None. Does it cause pain? No. Is it assault? No. Does it involve violence? No. Will people be traumatized--will our children be ripped of their purity? That's ridiculous. The policies on the other hand--are they violence? Yes, absolutely. This entirely innocent person is taken into custody be police, which could potentially involve being tackled, beaten, cornered, tazered and shackled. This person who did harm to no one is then deprived of their liberty through violence and often have property confiscated in the form of a fine. I could link to various sources dealing with the punishment that is given to "indecent exposure" but unfortunately they all contained pictures of people in the nude. It seems the very anti-nude rules applied to this website have harmed the fabric of this debate. I will expand this argument later if necessary.
Public Nudity Should Be Legalized

=== INTRODUCTION === I affirm the proposition that any person should be free to choose whether to wear cloths or not in either a personal or public environment without any threat of legal action against their decision. Con will be arguing that people should be forced to wear cloths in public places rather than be allowed the choice to go naked. I recognize that I have the burden of proof in this debate. === DEFINITIONS === Public place: 1. A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose. [1] 2. Any social space such as a town square that is open and accessible to all. [2] Nudity: 1. Having no clothing; naked. 2. Permitting or featuring full exposure of the body. [3] === SOURCES === 1. http://definitions.uslegal.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
There should be no voting age

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for her affirmation. Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I affirm that there should be no age restrictions when it comes to voting on our federal, state, and local officials. Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define any terms in either your affirmation or supporting information that may be unclear to readers and/or your opponent. You can also explain what you mean about points in your affirmation if they could possibly come across as unclear Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why there should be no voting age. This should include factual information (Please cite your sources), logical reasoning, and all the benefits such an action would cause. You can also refute any reasons you might think could be brought up as a con Thanks and good luck on the debate!
There should be no voting age

There should be no voting age. If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote? The argument that youth "should not vote because they lack the ability to make informed and intelligent decisions is valid only if that standard is applied to all citizens." But yet this standard is not applied to all citizens, only young people. "We do not deprive a senile person of this right, nor do we deprive any of the millions of alcoholics, neurotics, psychotics and assorted fanatics who live outside hospitals of it. We seldom ever prevent those who are hospitalized for mental illness from voting.
There should be no voting age

Extend my position You don't have this straight. Again if you are unclear or have any questions PM me, or ask me them in the comments section. I want you to do everything I stated in Round 1. It couldn't possibly be any clearer. In short: 1. Make a clear affirmation 2. Define any terms in either your affirmation or supporting information 3. Cite all points you make that aren't merely logical ones with a direct link to what you are talking about 4. Make logical points about why there should be no voting age. Your only points so far only emphasize why there should be further restrictions on voting, not why there should be less. The reasoning you have given makes no logical sense. You are basically saying: "We let tons of other incompetent people vote, so lets increase that incompetency by letting children vote too" To which I respond, shouldn't we be striving towards more competent voters, not less competent? Show me the benefits no age restrictions etc. Could newborns vote? Could anyone that speaks vote? All valid things to put in your explanation.
Racism is perfectly natural

I gave you two instances of natural tribes who weren't racist, but you don't seem to worry any about them. See, folks, he can't give a good argument. He uses bold words and stuff. I don't agree on racism being natural. I think that it is an evil constructed by man. There are no instances of it in nature. Anthropological studies show that, before mankind turned to agriculture, and lived in small hunter gatherer tribes, there was no racism, because society had not yet been invented. With society, there comes class, and the ability of one man to dominate another. But, ten thousand years ago, when we foraged across the land, all tribe members were considered equal. Not only was there less racism, but also less sexism, because both men and women were portrayed as equal and did equally important things. Thus, when we say that cavemen were big apes who dominated their wives, we are doing them a great injustice. Times were better when people were cavemen. Modern civilization is the creator of all inequality. This is an undeniable fact, and proves that racism is not a natural constant. It is created by the mind, and only by the mind, and we must never forget that. Racism is not natural. There are not segregated bathrooms in nature. There are not concentration camps in nature. racism was created when the first Mesopotamian king rose to the throne. And you, Masterful, are a fiend to advocate the despicable practice of racism. You say you're not, but you are, by considering it a universal law. It is not a universal law. We have stopped it, and that proves that a society can function without it. Vote for me, not just because you don't believe in racism, but also because I make more sense. If you want to vote for Masterful, go ahead, but your conscience might plague you for the rest of your life.
Racism is perfectly natural

In Con's attempt to refute one of my arguments being "tribal prejudice" Con admits this prejudice is natural. Admitting it is natural supports my main premise which is "Racism is perfectly natural" Keep in mind that racism is racial prejudice [1] Con then proceeds to give a speech about how racism is "a strong injustice" and how "it must be overcome at all cost" This means Con and I agree on racism being natural and racism being bad. As I am not advocating racism, I'm only saying it's natural for humans to be racist. Considering Con has conceded their stance as Con to “Racism is natural” there is no longer any point for me to go into my other arguments, as those arguments only support the now agreed upon topic. This is the quote from Con- "Tribal prejudice, while it may be "Natural, is still a strong injustice"" I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. If he or anyone else is interested in hearing my remaining two arguments that support "Racism is natural" then send me a PM. [1] https://www.google.co.uk...
Racism is perfectly natural

As you suggested in the comment section, I will cover two of your arguments here, instead of only one. You say that tribal prejudices are an evolutionary defense mechanism against opposing tribes. However, we can always overcome our prejudices and put ourselves in someone else's shoes. As a race with relatively more brain matter than other species, we have the ability to see the world from different perspectives and look at the world in different ways. Tribal prejudice, while it may be "Natural," is still a strong injustice and must be overcome at all cost. I can think of many examples in which different tribes lived in a kind of harmony. For instance, the Bantu and pygmy peoples of middle and south Africa, and the Wari and Tirawaku tribes of South America, and a few others. These tribes had different beliefs, and were very primitive, but they still managed to live in relative harmony. The Bantu people even called the pygmy people the first people of the Earth and treated them as superior, even after they had settled in pygmy territory. We cannot excuse prejudice as a natural process. It is a choice made by the brain. Personally, if I saw a red person, I would be a bit frightened at first, but unless he attempted to murder me, I wouldn't do anything rash. I would try to interpret his language and then think about who he was and where he came from. Another thing I feel I must establish is that we are no longer primitive. Humans have entered the modern age, and so racism in modern times is a ridiculous concept. In the 1800s, although America was only a slowly developing nation, we were still modern. We had trains and smelting and telegrams. It is inconceivable to have slavery in a nation like that. A nation cannot be racist and civilized at the same time. Racism is something that naturally becomes extinct. And to think that, in the 1950s, there were different parts of town for each race, brings to mind some kind of twisted alternate dimension. As for your argument that animals have racism, I deny this as well. Animals do not have the ability to be racist, simply because there is no reason to, and due to their inability to create civilizations of any kind. Lions and tigers may fight over a piece of land, but this is not racism, because both types of cat are separate species. This would be like a man fighting with a bear. It makes perfect sense. Animals are not racist. This is an absurd statement and I'm not sure exactly what you mean by it. I await your last argument, where you will rebut my animal argument and then move on the the next topic, and then I will cover the last argument during my closing argument. I'm all set.
Racism is perfectly natural

This argument is similar to the "Tribal prejudices as an evolutionary defence mechanism against opposing tribes" argument. However, it focuses more on skin colour and other differences between certain races. There are huge differences between white people and black people, at least on a physical level. We shall begin by looking at the obvious, skin colour. The argument here can be referred to as “the outsider argument." I believe that all humans are equal. However, I understand that instinctively, if someone were to see a strange man with red skin colour, they would be alarmed. Not just because it's unusual to see a man with red skin, but because that man with red skin, is clearly not of the same "tribe" as the observer. This red man would be perceived as an outsider and the observer would be wary of a threat, as would the red man of our observer. The obvious visual difference is re-created as an instinctive threat in our minds, this cannot easily be ignored by our observer, as this is a natural bias. It serves to be a survival advantage when one is careful around visually different beings, or "outsiders." There are of course other differences other than the visual, such as bone density and muscle mass. Typically blacks will have denser bones [1] As a result, blacks are less capable when swimming compared to whites. This tells us importantly, that black people have undergone a slightly different evolutionary detour from white people. Suggesting the "outsider" argument is more than just a skin deep argument. Rather, it seems to be bound biologically, even if the differences are subtle. To conclude this segment. Correctly or incorrectly identifying a potential threat should not be considered racist, it's instinctive human nature, bough about by evolution to serve as a survival advantage. It's a part of who we are. [1] https://academic.oup.com...;
Racism is perfectly natural

Ok. Only three rounds, but I'm sure we'll be able to manage. First, as you said, we will discuss clear visual and biological differences between white people and black people. Here is my argument, which you will counter in the next round, and then you will move on to the next topic: There are no clear visual or biological differences between black people and white people. Any differences between the two are, at most, quite subtle. The only true difference between the two is skin color, and besides this, the anatomy is very identical. Consider this for a moment, sir. We are the same species. Both black and white people belong to Homo Sapiens. Thus, we have much in common. It would be understandable to classify people by anatomy if neanderthals still existed, but at the moment, there is only one kind of human on Earth, and it is us. Since creatures of one species must, by biological law, share the same anatomy, this rule must apply to us as well. The sole difference between white people and black people is their skin. And even this is unimportant. Skin color is only a result of where certain tribes of humans, spreading out across the world, settled in. Nearer to the equator, black skin was developed, as a way to cope with the extreme heat. Farther North, humans didn't need so much protection, so less pigment was released. Skin color is nothing more than the end result of evolution, and while we cannot deny it, we should not regard as something that causes any change in the nature of a person. Both types of skin have the same anatomy, with small hairs poking through the epidermal layer and blood pumping through the veins. Nothing is different between black and white people, anatomically or psychologically, and to assume this is a great folly on the part of anyone. I await your next argument.
Racism is perfectly natural

I firmly believe being racist is normal. The reason for that statement is because we give racists such a hard time, when they're just being normal human beings. My message to the readers is, Don't hate racists. -My opponent will be arguing "Racism against blacks is not normal by any standard." -I will be arguing "Racism against blacks is normal." Key points that I will touch upon will be, 1. Clear visual and biological differences between white people and black people. 2. Tribal prejudices as an evolutionary defence mechanism against opposing tribes. 3. Instances of racism within in the animal kingdom.4. Racism existing in every country around the world.Definition of racism:https://www.google.co.uk...Definiton of black people: https://www.google.co.uk...:Ask if you want to debate me. I have locked the debate because I am currently being harassed by FanBoy Mctroll.
twilight books are really messed up

Hello, I would like to debate with you, in a friendly matter so I hope you don't take offense to anything I say and I will not with you. I will be honest I am not the biggest fan of Twilight but there are some things I noticed that are very debatable in your description/introduction. Whether or not Vampires are suppose to sparkle Stephanie Meyer has a right to her own creativity she made her own version of vampires for entertainment purposes. I believe the reasoning for Stephanie Meyer making the character Jacob and Resenmee imprinting was for everyone to have a somewhat happy ending. Once again it was her choice and Stephanie Meyer can have her own creativity. The part of Bella leading two men on, one being a werewolf, the other a vampire is not at all messed up. Matter of fact this kind of plot has been going on for ages. The whole love triangle in general where someone is left out as a third wheel. For example, Pride and Prejudice, The Great Gatsby (which was in fact more messed up than what Bella did) even Titanic had a small love triangle. It's not simply about vampires and werewolves but the concept of a love triangle and the woman being in the middle or in some cases it's the man who has to choose not mattering if it means life or death. The fact that Edward is almost a hundred years old and Bella is only 18 is irrelevant a lot of classic vampire stories have a lot older vampires into younger humans and of course Resenmee is going to need blood she is a vampire herself. In fact the whole woman dies of childbirth thing is original as well. So for my conclusion on Round 1. It's not just Twilight there are several books out there including classics that have this same plot. Stephanie Meyer just tried to turn it around, small things of course like vampires sparkling, and the whole imprinting, to make it look like it came from her own creativity which some of it did.
twilight books are really messed up

Bella strung along two men before choosing the one that wanted to kill her at one point. Edward is almost 100 years old while Bella is only 18. Renesmee literally needed blood to survive and nearly killed her mother. Jacob couldn't have Bella so he went after her daughter. I mean, I get that it's imprinting but come on! She's only a few hours old. And vampire's are not supposed to sparkle. I get that Stephanie Meyer did not intend for this plot to be messed up but it is.
twilight books are really messed up

To end this debate I will say once again that Book characters were not made to be perfect otherwise Stephanie Meyer's would have made Jacob say all the right things. Jacob had a temper yes but that's what makes him a legitimate character. Same as Bella. If you want to be technical about your "looking deeper into the story," then you would know that Stephanie Meyer put hidden meanings of her religion into the story and that was what it was all about. http://io9.com... http://fallintothetwilight.wordpress.com... I thank-you for letting me debate with you.
twilight books are really messed up

If the author made the whole series without complications and conflict and it was all just happiness many readers would not read the book. Majority of people read books because they want to know what happens next not read a book knowing how it's going to end. And to sum up this part, " Jacob once told Bella that he would rather have her dead than a vampire(aka happy) and she still kissed him is some pretty messed up logic, and she was engaged at the time." Once again the love triangle thing. In the Great Gatsby Daisy has a daughter and is married but still has an affair with her old love/boyfriend. Another story "A tale of two cities," by Charles Dickens is the same messed up concept. Lucie plays both of them and in the end Sydney Carlton takes her husband's place and gets executed. Lucie not even really caring that he did such a thing just for her happiness. Once again, read any vampire book nowadays and the age will be a huge difference.
will the montreal canadiens be the only canadien nhl team in the 2014 stanley cup playoffs

with the columbus blue jackets winning last night and toronto losing to winnipeg columbus now has a three point advantage on toronto and with columbus getting another win they will more than likely clinch with the amount of games left. now the vancouver canuks are for sure out so it makes it clear that montrea is one step closer to being the only canadien team left in the 2014 stanley cup play offs
will the montreal canadiens be the only canadien nhl team in the 2014 stanley cup playoffs

no Vancouver will not make the play offs because Vancouver like I said is playing almost every team that has clinched a play off spot and not to mention torts is a horrible coach he has embarrassed Vancouver by making a very bad losing skid and trading bobby lou was a bad decision because eddy lack sucks and he is there only option. and Toronto will not. also montreal will make it because they are in a strong hold on third and be the only canadien team.
will the montreal canadiens be the only canadien nhl team in the 2014 stanley cup playoffs

the montreal canadiens in my opinion will be the only canadien team in the nhl playoffs this season because toronto and vancouver are close but toronto is on a 8 game losing skid and the vancouver canuks play some hard games against teams who have already clinched a tight playoff spot but on the other hand the montreal canadiens are in third place and just a few points left to clinch
People that drive electric vehicles care about the Earth more than people that drive non-hybrid cars

< > No, that simply shows that they have more money to spend on such a purchase. Not everyone has the same luxury (or income). < > Many believe that it is more important to take care of their families and have to commute long distances in order to provide food and shelter for their loved ones. Would you have them suffer and die for their love of the Earth? It's a matter of self-preservation. They must put themselves first and do so under the impression that future generations will be able to repair the damage that today's society is inflicting on the planet. < > Yes, but most people have hectic lives to navigate through. Public transportation won't allow a single parent to drop off his/her kids at school on the way to the office that is thirty miles away, while allowing the family to get an adequate amount of sleep. The majority of these families recycle and conserve energy and do everything they can to care about the Earth, but it's unfair to say they care less than others because of their financial situations. < > Yes, unless they had commitments that caused them to make the tough choice. I believe non-hybrid auto drivers care for the Earth just as much as electric car drivers, but they just don't have the means of making the same kind of contribution to the environment. Thanks for the debate.