BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Undertale Genocide Or Pacifist

'You like killing people HUH?' I actually don't. Where's your proof for this claim? 'Genocide is the worst thing that could ever happen to life,What if you were a monster in that world?' Genocide is actually not the 'worst thing'. I assume by 'life' you mean real life, in which I say many other things can be just as worse or as bad as genocide, such as war. ' I do agree that Sans is the hardest boos like,EVER harder than asriel or flowey but in my sight, chalenge is not the thing we require to have a wonderful experience in playing undertale,In this game if you didn't know already' Then I assume you've never played the game then, and only watched Youtube videos of it. Challenge is what makes any game entertaining. If a game is too easy, you get bored of it. If it gets too predictable, you get bored of it. You need to switch up the game in some way- such as adding the Genocide run. While you may feel horrible, it is still fun to play because of the challenge. Even then, if the Pacifist run or the Neutral run was easy, you would still get bored of the game. Which means it is definitely required for any game to have challenge. 'WE ARE CHARA,NOT WE THE CHARACTER But do oyou think even the worst person can change? That CHARA can be a good guy?' The player gets to name Chara, bot you play Frisk. So technically we are Frisk, as we control their actions instead of Chara's. I'm not sure what the first question is trying to ask, but what i will say is that we still do not know the whole story of Undertale. Have you heard of W. D. Gaster? We still don't know much about Chara, but we can definitely find more things about him in the files. For the second question, he could. You nor me know the whole story.
Undertale Genocide Or Pacifist

You like killing people HUH? Genocide is the worst thing that could ever happen to life,What if you were a monster in that world? I do agree that Sans is the hardest boos like,EVER harder than asriel or flowey but in my sight, chalenge is not the thing we require to have a wonderful experience in playing undertale,In this game if you didn't know already WE ARE CHARA,NOT WE THE CHARACTER But do oyou think even the worst person can change? That CHARA can be a good guy? I'll leave the next round up to you
Undertale Genocide Or Pacifist

I will be arguing that the Genocide run is better than the Pacifist run. Thank you for instigating this debate. I'm assuming that the first round is for beginning arguments, then subsequent rounds are rebuttals. Genocide run is a much more challenging run than the Pacifist run, which can make it funner for many players. Especially with Sans, the bosses prove to be harder to beat than the pacifist run, as you must defeat them rather than having them spare you. You also learn much more of the first fallen child. (Officially named Chara, but can be named by the player to something else) The True Lab in Pacifist run gives small parts of it, but the player in the Genocide run gets to meet Chara himself by the ending. You are also able to kill Flowey in the Genocide run, which has been many player's wishes by the beginning of the game.
PC is better than consoles for gaming.

For the max potential of PC games you need a good internet connection and a lot of download. this adds to the cost. also with games like world of warcraft thousands of dollars are spent on subscriptions, in-game purchases and premium type memberships. Also most consoles have virtual consoles or emulators so you can play games from classic consoles. Portable consoles are a whole new ballpark. A good laptop is usually quite big and to take it with you all over the place can be a hassle. Portable consoles such as the 3DS and PsP are small, compact and offer a well rounded gaming experience. Touch screen games are fun to play and the 3DS in particular offers a revolutionary "no glasses" 3D experience. There's also the issue of compatibility in PC's, because PC's require an extensive knowledge to operate whereas consoles are simplistic and need virtually no tweaking and in depth knowledge to operate. The releases of next-gen consoles show how far they have come from the early gaming years and show the industry is constantly moving forwards with their technology. Consoles are also great for family and friends, such as the XBox kinect. Rather then have multiple PC's hooked up with LAN and have your family sitting scratching their heads over how they can press all these keys and how they play the game, you could just set up the kinect and use your body as a controller. It's simple, fast and offers great exercise. most of these PC exclusive games require hours of time, dedication and cost of download when you could just play a fun console game for an hour or two and simply save and shut off when you want to go play fetch with your dog (just an example)
PC is better than consoles for gaming.

See, PC's are actually much cheaper in the long run. It might cost 500-700 dollars for a good rig, but on Steam good quality games can be on sale up to 90% off, like the Summer and Winter sales can blow games out of the water in cheapness. 50 dollar games games for 15 bucks happens almost all the time. We also have modding. Modding can make a bad game good. Skyrim on PC compared to console is PC hands down. We also have Halo and such exclusives as StarCraft 2, World of Warcraft, Total War, League of Legends, Team Fortress 2, etc.. We are also able to buy games form 20 or so years ago. Next Gen consoles coming out???? Forget spending 500 dollars plus controllers and new games. Pop in a new GPU (if you even need a new one) and play the games you already have. Also the quality is SUPERB compared to consoles. Have you even played a game on a good gaming PC? It looks a million times better than console. And have you used a mouse and keyboard? It is much more precise and diverse to play on.
PC is better than consoles for gaming.

Consoles are better than PC's for gaming. Consoles offer a wide variety of games and require no internet connection to play most of them. PC's usually require internet connection to download games even if they are bought from a game store in disc form. The cost of gaming on PC far exceeds that of a console, there is the cost of gaming subscriptions, internet download, and the costs necessary to prepare a PC for efficient gaming. PC's when bought from the store are usually not up to standard to play most games. They will most likely need RAM upgrades and new graphics cards to run games better. PC boasts higher graphics quality but this is usually at the cost of slower game-play. Consoles provide a balance of good graphics and steady game-play with the added bonus of local multi-player. PC's can easily get virus's if not taken care of properly whereas consoles are reliable and can't get virus's like PC's can. Consoles are also much cheaper than PC's and require no added costs to work at their fullest potential.
PC is better than consoles for gaming.

you've actually pointed out the major flaws of PC gaming right there. all the good PC games have bad single player modes and most of the time you will only get solid gameplay when you turn down the graphics settings. consoles offer a balance of the two and have much better single player games. also kinect opened up a whole new way of playing. people were able to mod it to do amazing things and yeah this was all on a PC but you have consoles to thank for that. you also have consoles to thank for controllers because competing with those guys on BF4 with a keyboard can be tough and takes time to learn. also you seem to think wi-fi is a given but it's not. most people can't afford it because it costs a lot to keep, but with a console game you can have fun with up to 16 friends without even going online, you also get to it next to them all rather then waste even more download on skype and teamspeak. and i can't even begin to describe how much you would have to spend on your computer to get the optimal gaming experience. also one thing i left out; PC's can replicate older games with emulators and such but what most people forget is that it's illegal. piracy on computers has gotten to the point where people don't even know that downloading paid games for free is illegal. PC's have a lot of potential but unfortunately that doesn't make up for the amount of negatives. also i said PsP not PsP vita.
PC is better than consoles for gaming.

First off, i'd like to say thank you for your valid points. Secondly Kinect sucked. Flat out tragity. No good games bad functionality. And when the NSA said they used Kinect to spy on consumers. Hot damn that set off a fuse. Also, about PC being complex, i'd like to say, with a LITTLE learning and effort the experience is MUCH more rewarding than a PS Vita that just has crappy games. And most developers are now putting lower quality settings (Riot Games, Valve, Blizzard) That can play on almost any computer. About the internet, most if not everyone I know has Wi-Fi. How else are games like COD and BF4 supposed to be fun? Single player is a JOKE in those games, the developers don't even care about it. Speaking of BF4, 64 players, 1080p, mouse and keyboard support, and amazing textures it's obvious all FPS's are best on PC. What's that? No controller? No problem buy a 360 controller or a PS4, PS3, heck even Xbox One controller, plug it in, and play games with it.
Pippa Middleton should appear in a porn movie and then donate her fee to London's homeless

I will concede that that is likely the conversation that occured. However, again, I must say that the method provided is not ideal. If Pippa is going around allowing the homeless to grab various body parts and providing "special handshakes," that will only increase the population of homeless as people with homes will sell everything they have to flock to the streets for their opportunity. I still contend, that using the funds to create a porn industry, starring famous people and the homeless would provide jobs and pleasure to the homeless, and thus, be a better solution to help them out.
Pippa Middleton should appear in a porn movie and then donate her fee to London's homeless

Firstly, I must insist that the homeless in London are the most appropriate recipients of Pippa's appearance fee because, unlike other good causes, they are subject to a government-sanctioned clampdown on charitable giving. The minutes of the Tory's policy committee meetings are not made public but, judging by the proposed legislation, the deliberations must have gone something like this: "It's disgraceful that there are still homeless people on the streets of a developed nation in the 21st Century. " "Yes, they are appallingly dressed and often quite whiffy too. They bring down the tone of respectable neighbourhoods such as Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster where over-privileged posh people such as ourselves live. Why don't they just fvck off and die? " "Because charities and so-called bleeding heart do-gooders insist on giving them food and shelter. " "Then they must be banned from doing so forthwith. Then the homeless will either starve or freeze to death and we won't have to look at them anymore. " "Yes, quite right, champagne and fois gras all round! " "Hoorah! " My opponent points out that charities skim a bit off the top of donations to cover their expenses, but this is irrelevant as charities are to be banned from helping the poorest and most desperate members of society by providing food and shelter under the new Tory laws. Instead, I propose that Pippa distributes the cash amongst the homeless personally so that they can buy their own food and pay for their own accommodation, as this is not prohibited under the Tories' crackdown on homeless people. She should tour the streets of London at night, giving out cash to rough-sleepers. Furthermore, as many tramps, vagabonds and hobos are unlikely to have any recent intimate sexual contact with a woman, she might also, out of the goodness of her heart, offer homeless men a grope of her arse, a fondle of her t! ts or even give the more deserving cases a quick one off the wrist. It's not like she wouldn't have the time or resources to achieve this task, and although she couldn't solve the problem of London's homeless alone, she may inspire other over-privileged upper class women to embark upon careers as porn stars and distribute the proceeds amongst the capital's rough sleepers. Thank you.
Pippa Middleton should appear in a porn movie and then donate her fee to London's homeless

Pippa Middleton, the younger sister of Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, has recently been offered $5 million to appear in “just one explicit scene” of an adult movie. In a letter sent to Pippa on 6th May, Californian pornographer Steven Hirsch wrote:"As far as I was concerned, you were the star of the recent Royal Wedding. As I watched a broadcast of the event, I couldn't help but think that with your beauty and attitude, you could be an enormously successful adult star. This week, after seeing photos of you having a great time at a party, I decided to offer you a role in one of our upcoming movies.”http://www.hollywoodreporter.com...There were probably hundreds of thousands of men across the world who ogled at Pippa’s pert little arse when the Royal Wedding was on television that would happily crawl a mile over broken glass just to masturbate over her shadow, so I have little doubt that Mr Hirsch will recoup his investment by distributing a porn film featuring Pippa posing for 'open-flap shots', 'think-of-the-money shots' or including footage of her having her back doors smashed in by a well-endowed black man, although personally, I would prefer to see her in a lesbian shag fest with DDO's very own Danielle and Vi.Whatever, since Pippa only works two days a week monitoring her parents’ company’s website, she would have plenty of time to fit a couple of hours filming into her schedule, even if she had to fly to California and back for the shoot.Now Pippa lives in the über-posh Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where the average property sells for £880,000 (US$1,450,000), in a luxury apartment which her parents bought for her, so she doesn’t need to worry about being thrown onto the streets for not paying the rent or mortgage.http://www.thisislondon.co.uk...http://www1.landregistry.gov.uk...However, thousands of her fellow-Londoners are not so fortunate and, being homeless, have to rely on charities for their accommodation.The situation for these unfortunate people is becoming more desperate than ever now that the viscous, spiteful ultra-right wing Tories are back in power. Their political philosophy has always been to protect the privileges of prosperous people while punishing the poor for being impoverished, and is why they are not only axing public funding for homeless shelters, but also making it illegal for anyone to "lie down or sleep in any public place" or to "deposit bedding". Furthermore,the heartless Tory bastards are also banning charities and private individuals from distributing free food or drink to homeless people.http://www.guardian.co.uk...That’s why it is so important that Pippa Middleton accepts Steven Hirsch’s offer to appear in one of his movies and then donates her fee to London’s homeless.Thank you.
Allah is a red guy with horns and a pitchfork

R1:"Ok, I am going to need to clarify my argument, the god that the Muslim terrorists, the Muslim nations, and the original group of Muslims, I.e. the people who FOUNDED Islam, worship is Satan"That couldn't be any farther from the Truth. Satan is condemned in the Quran, worship anyone other than God is not allowed in Islam: “And never let Satan avert you. Indeed, he is to you a clear enemy.”[z-Zukhruf 43:62]( http://quran.com...;)Monotheism is also advised in the Quran, making even more implausible for Muslims to worship Satan:“Indeed, We sent Nuh (Noah) to his people and he said: “O my people! Worship Allah! You have no other Ilah (God) but Him. Certainly, I fear for you the torment of a Great Day!” [Al-A’raf 7: 59] (http://quran.com...)“And I (Allah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me (Alone).” [Az-Zariyat 51:56](http://quran.com...) “And indeed when we heard the Guidance (this Qur’an), we believed therein (Islamic Monotheism), and whosoever believes in his Lord shall have no fear, either of a decrease in the reward of his good deeds or an increase in the punishment for his sins” [Al-Jinn 72:13](http://quran.com...)R2: "I do not believe that the Christian god at the very least would in any circumstances order such acts as these people claim he does, who do you know of that chops off heads?"Beheading was considerd one of the most humane forms of punishment in France, hence the logic behind the Gulliotine [1]. Decapitation has a long history all throughout Medival Europe. With King Henry the 8th (the same King that brought Anglicinism), beheading the heads of six of his wives [2]. Conciousness in decapitation is usually lost within 2-3 seconds, making it one of the most humane execution methods until the creation of lethal injection. [2]Sources:1. https://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org... R3:"Well there is the Mayans (pagans and Satan worshipers), then there is the anti-Christ (Satan), it just so happens to be that these people call him "Allah", do all Muslims do this, no, But as we all know, being an accomplice of a crime is just as bad as doing it, and not protesting a crime or detesting it is being accomplice to it, the Christians, Jews, and Buddhists openly protest it, why not the Muslims?"Pro has failed to give any proof or evedince to this statement. Hence, I cannot sufficently rebut, due to the sheer lack of proof.
Allah is a red guy with horns and a pitchfork

Ok, I am going to need to clarify my argument, the god that the Muslim terrorists, the Muslim nations, and the original group of Muslims, I.e. the people who FOUNDED Islam, worship is Satan, I do not believe that the Christian god at the very least would in any circumstances order such acts as these people claim he does, who do you know of that chops off heads? Well there is the Mayans (pagans and Satan worshipers), then there is the anti-Christ (Satan), it just so happens to be that these people call him "Allah", do all Muslims do this, no, But as we all know, being an accomplice of a crime is just as bad as doing it, and not protesting a crime or detesting it is being accomplice to it, the Christians, Jews, and Buddhists openly protest it, why not the Muslims?
Allah is a red guy with horns and a pitchfork

Allah is merely the Arabic name for God. If one reads the Bible in Arabic, it explicitly states in the first verse of Genesis "In the Begging Allah (God) created the heavens and the Earth." (Source: https://www.biblegateway.com...Here is a transliteration of the first verse of genesis in Arabic: فِي الْبَدْءِ خَلَقَ اللهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ، In it's transliteration it reads: " alabad' khalaq allah alssamawat wal'arda"Which translates to: " the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."The below image is how the name "God" is written in Arabic. Even if you cannot read Arabic, the word اللهُ can be clearly seen in the Bible verse. Furhtermore, type in "God" on google translate and you'll end up with the name "Allah": https://translate.google.ca...Allah also cannot be Satan, as shown previously, Allah is God, Satan and God are both seen as seperate entities in the Bible and Quran.
Allah is a red guy with horns and a pitchfork

OK, here is proof; John 10:10: "The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." In this case "the thief" is Satan and/or his demons. Mathew 7:16: "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" So if the Muslims fruit is stealing, killing, and destroying, and you can tell a tree by its fruit, then Islam is satanic, hence, their god, Allah, is Satan, A.K.A. red guy with horns and a pitchfork.
Allah is a red guy with horns and a pitchfork

R1: "one thing you will notice is that in any country where the population is predominately Muslim there is no freedom of religion with the exception of turkey,"Religious tolerance is ingrained into the Indonesian constitution [1],. Indonesia's population is roughly 80% Muslim along side being the largest country in the Muslim world by population.Morrocco (Another predominately Muslim country, this time with religious influences in law) has one of the oldest Jewish populations in North Africa dating back 2,500 years ago. Jews in Morroco are quite tolerantly treated, if Jews were persecuted there then they would have fled. Just like how Jews fled Spain after the Reconquista and instead went to Morroco (At the time called the "Idrisid Emirate") [2]The list of Muslim countries that provide religious freedom can go on and on, yet this argument cannot.Source:1. https://en.wikipedia.org...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...R2: "it doesn"t matter which one, every one of them is pure evil, they are oppressive to women, they are intolerant of other beliefs"It makes little sense to brand all Muslims evil, act intolerantly to Muslims, and then condemn Muslims for intolerance. If anything, it's blatant hypocrisy.R3: "and it is perfectly lawful to burn all your children alive,"This claim is followed by no evidence. Children under Islamic law are not considered responsible for there actions until atleast the age of puberty. [1]Source: https://en.wikipedia.org...R4: "And low and behold all of these nations worship a being they call Allah, this being justifies hose acts, so it is a perfectly logical conclusion, that Allah is Satan, and pulling up the fact that the Qur"an mentions a being which it calls evil, which is hence translated to Satan, does not mean in any way that Allah is good because it calls some being evil, which was translated to Satan. "As mentioned in my previous argument, Allah is merely the Arabic name for God. The names are almost completely interchangable, the only difference being in language. Pro has failed to address this point, and has instead contiued to carry on with the same assertion despite his lack of proof.R5:"christianity we have TRUE humanitarians arising and doing good things in the name of Christianity, like Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Teresa of Avila, Mother Teresa, etc."Martin Luther was more of a reformer than a Humanitarian. Martin Luther King's actions were not the result of religion, but the civil rights movement in America, Malcom X was a Muslim and preached a very similar message to Martin Luther King. Mother Teresa had lost her faith before dying, secretly becoming an atheist before death ( http://www.cbsnews.com... )In conclusion. Pro has failed to adequately prove most of his points, and also failed to meet the burden of proof along side failing to address any of my points adequately. Thanks to Pro for the debate, it was quite intresting.Therefore, vote Con.*drops mic*