BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Battlefield is better then COD

Thank you for that. I really liked that. When i say casual i just meant no hard feelings you can elaborate all you want. So online. One thing that is truly remarkable in BF is that they have bullet drop. You actually have to aim and make calculations to where you have to fire. There are game modes that make it an epic challenge and team challenge for players. the buildings fall apart and if you hid in cover it eventually (depending on what it is) WILL fall apart. The sprinting part of the game is very well made. You can sprint for as long as you want but, if you notice, you start to slow down a little bit until it really doesnt have any benefits. This is a true fact. In the real military they can run that long so its a nice touch. the fact that you can destroy buildings is ridiculous. you are no longer safe in buildings forever. instead off hit boxes you have what they call SUPPRESSION. This is when your fired at and it almost hit you but it didnt. you get a blurred vision so its harder to fight. The vehical combat in online is awesome as well. This is because in choppers you can give air support and even destroy the buildings for youre team. In COD there really isnt any. Another neat feature is that the more you use the vehicals the more that you can unlock for them. to the voters i thank you for listening to my rant. to my competitor i just want to take the time and say thank you for all this i appreciate this, thank you for taking the time to do thiss with me. its fun!
People should Comment Below to Wish Debate.org Users a Happy New Year's!

Alright. I oppose you on every level I can think of!!! I am going to go line by line in reverse order on each statement you made, starting with the last one. "Note: This is a 1-round debate." >>This insinuates that my round is equal to your round. However feeling that my round will be more profitable I want to consider it entirely different from yours. Therefor I oppose you and call this a 2 round debate! "My opponent, however, opposes season's greetings and should not be voted for." >>This is simply not true! The resolution states -People should Comment Below to Wish Debate.org Users a Happy New Year's!- my only burden in this debate is to oppose this resolution which is what I am about to do. "This is also the best for me or anyone else to provide such a forum on debate.org, and as such, each person should reply below to wish everyone a Happy New Year's." >>There are many flaws with such a statement. First off you have not provided debate.org users with a forum, simply with a debate. Secondly lets examine exactly what you are saying here. "wish everyone a Happy New Year's" Notice that apostrophe s! Apostrophe s ('s) is used to show possession therefor your statement makes no sense at all! I have sat here like many fellow debate.org members for hours trying to figure out exactly what we should be wishing everyone. A happy new year's resolution? A happy new year's day? A happy new year's weather storm? What are you saying!?!?!?! I don't understand! This would be like walking up to me and saying "hey we should pray for bob's." Bob's what!?!?!? "I am in favor of providing a forum to wish other members a Happy New Year's!" >>....... 's..... enough said. Therefor I will give our spectators, judges, voters, my voting issue today. As the resolution states what it states I am going to offer a counter plan that does not fall under the resolution. Counter plan: People should comment below to wish debate.org users a happy new year! A wonderful New Year's Day and great resolutions to boot. Thank you. =)
People should Comment Below to Wish Debate.org Users a Happy New Year's!

I am in favor of providing a forum to wish other members a Happy New Year's! This is also the best for me or anyone else to provide such a forum on debate.org, and as such, each person should reply below to wish everyone a Happy New Year's. My opponent, however, opposes season's greetings and should not be voted for. Note: This is a 1-round debate.
Judge sets a dozen accused free after Crown lawyer is late

You give them an inch, and they will take a mile. Western Jurisprudence is based off of precedent. Being late to a trial projects the notion that in a court of law timely attendance is unimportant. That was the tangent -- its the same topic we were always on. The judge was following the letter of the law. It's not like there won't be a new trial. All I'm saying is that the judge, by following the letter of the law is justified in his actions. Barely, but that's how law can work. I would rather have a h-onky judge than a judge who has no respect for how the law works. We all know what's going to happen in the next decade (hint great, GREAT, depression), and s-hit is going to get real. I would rather have this judge than the nazi judges whom allowed someone like Hitler to gain even more power. You think we are far from a militarized totalitarian state, but there you are wrong. We have no rights when they prove inconvenient for the government. Remember the G20. All I'm saying is that judges like this d-ouche protect us from even worse d-ouches. That's it. I'm not stupid, I get this whole victims have rights, judge should have cut a side-deal with prosecutor, and etc. Whatever. You are sticking up for the wrong team. Right or wrong, it's not hard to really see why the judge might have done what he did.
Judge sets a dozen accused free after Crown lawyer is late

I feel that we are getting off onto another tangent. The key issue in this case is that the crown was late and the judge set the accused free. The crown coming 2 minutes late is a conflict that should have been resolved with the judge and the crown, not the accused. The judge should have waited and heard the reasons why the crown was late. In this case the crown apologized and the reasoning for being late was that he was studying the prisoner's psychiatric report. Lawyers are human beings and there are circumstances like a crown getting into a car accident, should the judge set an accused free of murder because the crown acted wrongly by coming late? Let's say person A steals 1 million dollars and in the criminal code the sentencing is 5-10 years. Person A ends up receiving 5 years. In another court, person B is being tried for stealing 1 million but since the crown is late, the judge sets him free. This violates the fundamental principles of equality of law. If the higher courts allow this, the scenario I have just given would be allowed. There are future implications if such thing is allowed such as the judge setting the accused free because the crown was 1 second late. The judge should have waited, given recess or rescheduled for another date and heard the reasons why the crown was late. Then the judge could have taken appropriate action after hearing the reasons for the lateness whether to give the lawyer a fine or to revoke his licence etc. Let me remind you that the crown was 2 minutes late and the severity of this case is minimal. The accused should have been sent to another judge or court for trial since some of the accused already pleaded guilty. This issue regards the judge and the crown not the accused and the judge or the accused and the crown.
Judge sets a dozen accused free after Crown lawyer is late

I understand your position, but my entire conumdrum I'm facing involves the first principles of this legal debacacle. As I see it, this case involves the right of a state entity versus the right of an individual(s). As it occured, the state tried to exercise its right to be late, to be powerful, and to be indifferent to lives at stake. I won't argue that victims of crimes were negatively impacted; people that were innocent in every sense of the word. What I'm stressing is that people are what matter, and even if a person is evil, their evil is nothing compared to the organized sadism of a government. Governments act to redistribute wealth. Intellectual, moral, and physical wealth. Redistribution is theft, and theft is immoral. I get it, I get you, and get this whole ordeal. But it is still wrong. I should probabely care more about nitty gritty legal details -- but no one is so naive to believe that a law is sacred. Laws can be changed easily: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been suspended before. I don't have anything else to say on this small, but somehow important matter?
Judge sets a dozen accused free after Crown lawyer is late

Have to step my devil's advocate up, and remember to respect the knowledge of a law, and society major. That being said, let's remember that the nature of the legal system is not to protect the society. The law only exists to safeguard the elite through conditioning of the masses, and if that fails provide justifiction for force (police). The primary concern of the police force is to protect the state, and my surname isn't Canada: neither is yours. When the G20 riots came to the climax it was due to police interference, and sabotage. Remember that burning car? That was a false flag, a police plant that gave the state's protection force justification to round up peaceful protesters, and undermine their right to freedom of assembly. Case, and point: the crown needs to be checked, and balanced. Showing up on time is just one example of a check, and balance. On a final note, let's try to stay away from these hyperbolic buzzwords such as 'stability of society' in this case. The US's impending default on its 13trillion debt, the Euro collasping, and China's ghost economy, those are destabilizers of societies. Not a man whom may have stolen 1.2 million, piecemeal in comparison to what the government takes from us on a daily basis. I do respect your opinion with this all said, and yeah I'm a little paranoid.
Judge sets a dozen accused free after Crown lawyer is late

I agree with you that due process and individual rights are very important and you make a very good point referring to The Charter of Rights and Freedoms s .11(b) to be tried within a reasonable time However the purpose of a legal system is to protect society. Let me remind you that "the accused included a man deemed to be a violent schizophrenic, a spouse charged in a domestic abuse case, a disbarred lawyer charged with fraud and a robbery suspect. Some of the dozen prisoners set free included accused who had already pleaded guilty and who were awaiting sentencing." The domestic abuse perpetrator and the debarred lawyer who is responsible for defrauding 1.2 million dollars from 21 clients are a danger to society. There are victims in these cases and the perpetrators I have just stated have been released into the public. Who will bear the responsibility if these criminal reoffend? Two minutes does not outweigh the stability of society. Lateness and stalling in courts is very common and let's not forget that there are over 92,000 cases still awaiting resolution at least 8 months after charges were first laid as records indicate by the auditor general in 2010. In R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 SCR 1199, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the guideline for delay is 6 to 8 months. More recently in R.v. Morin, [1992] 1 SCR 771, they set the benchmark at 8 to 10 months which is still the precedent today. Does the lateness of a case make a difference? Of course. Dismissing a case that is 48 months late is reasonable, dismissing a case because the crown was 2 minutes late is not. Let's not forget that the judge was late himself. I wonder what the judge would have done if the defence counsel was late. Would the judge have automatically convicted the accused? This case raises many red flags like blackmailing and bribery and there should be a thorough investigation on Justice Howard Chisvin.
Contradiction Debate - MIG's Tournament

Alright. This is for MIG's tournament. Good luck to both of us.http://www.debate.org...==Rules== (Formed in a PM)My opponent's rules.1. No Confusing Questions2. No Profanity My rules.1. Cons asks pro questions.2. Only 10 questions per round.3. Contradictions can be introduced whenever you want, except for the last round.4. No new questions in the last round.5. Pro must answer 10 questions with a "yes" or a "no, unless if the question does not have any answer.5.a. If so, Pro will explain why.6. If either side breaks a rule, all 7 points are forfeited.====I await your questions...
Contradiction Debate - MIG's Tournament

==Contradictions==1. Dropped2. Dropped3. Actually, not all conservatives believe in offshore drilling. Many political groups have their views split [1].==Questions==1. Have you made contradiction?No2. Should we occupy the gulf of Adden?No3. Do you support Santorum?Yes4. SHould we eliminate the penney?No5. Should we legalize pot?No6. Do you support Ron Paul (not the user)?No7. Should we support human trafficing?NO8. Should we ablosish Obamacare?yes9. Do you like ice cream?Yes10. Should the U.S. adopted a Lassez-Faire type of economy?NoSources [1] http://americansforprosperity.org...;
Contradiction Debate - MIG's Tournament

ContadictionsConseratives believe in off shore drilling my opponet said both he's conservative and he doesn't believe in offshore drilling.1. Have you made contradiction?2. Should we occupy the gulf of Adden?3. Do you support Santorum?4. SHould we eliminate the penney?5. Should we legalize pot?6. Do you support Ron Paul (not the user)?7. Should we support human trafficing?8. Should we ablosish Obamacare?9. Do you like ice cream?10. Should the U.S. adopted a Lassez-Faire type of economy?
Contradiction Debate - MIG's Tournament

==Clarifications==1. Thanks for clarifying who the Phelps are, and no, I do not support them.==Contradictions==1. I never stated that I was republican in this debate.2. Wow. This is such faulty reasoning. There exists a minority in California that believe Obama is bad. To prove me wrong, Con will have to provide evidence that 100% of California supports Obama, which is blatantly false.==Questions== 1. Have you made any contradictions.No, I have not.2. Do you prefer off shore drilling.No.3. Should we focus on alternatives energies.No.4. Will Putin put us in another cold war?No.5. Do you prefer Putin as Russian president?No Opinion, because I do not care who is the Russian president.6. Are these questions worthless since I can't bring up contradictions in the final round?No, because we still have 2 more rounds. Also, you can still defend your contradiction in the last round.7. Am I a good guy or a bad guy.Not a yes/no question8. Did you support Bush?Yes9. Do you support Rommney?No10. Are you a dawinist? Yes
Contradiction Debate - MIG's Tournament

1a. Phelps are the people who have signs saying Obama's the anti-christ and God hates america. 8. Republican party is wanting to help the rebles in Syria, he says no. My opponet says Obama is bad but however the state of California (which he lives) voted storngly at that. http://commons.wikimedia.org... 1. Have you made any contradictions. 2. Do you prefer off shore drilling. 3. Should we focus on alternatives energies. 4. Will Putin put us in another cold war? 5. Do you prefer Putin as Russian president? 6. Are these questions worthless since I can't bring up contradictions in the final round? 7. Am I a good guy or a bad guy. 8. Did you support Bush? 9. Do you support Rommney? 10. Are you a dawinist?
Contradiction Debate - MIG's Tournament

1. Do you believe in the Phelps?Not sure if you mean "Micheal Phelps". If so, then NO, I do not believe in him.2. Are you a Christian?No.3. Do you believe in Affermative Action?No.4. Is ACTA reasonable?Yes5. Should the PATRIOT act be repealed?No.6. Should we pull out of the middle east?No.7. Should we go to war with Iran?No opinion. But my best answer would be Yes.8. Should we help Syrian rebles?No.9. Is Obama good?No.10. Do you prefer Dragon Ball Z over Family Guy?No.
Contradiction Debate - MIG's Tournament

1. Do you believe in the Phelps? 2. Are you a Christian? 3. Do you believe in Affermative Action? 4. Is ACTA reasonable? 5. Should the PATRIOT act be repealed? 6. Should we pull out of the middle east? 7. Should we go to war with Iran? 8. Should we help Syrian rebles? 9. Is Obama good? 10. Do you prefer Dragon Ball Z over Family Guy?
Contradiction Debate - MIG's Tournament

1. Are you rasicst?Hmm. This is a broad question. I suppose my answer would be YES.2. Do you like annime over animation?What is "annime"? From my experiance, anime and animation are the same thing. So NO.3. Do you believe in the freedom of speech?No.4. Do you believe in the minumum wage?No.5. Do you like the KKK?No.6. What's your opion on Affermative action?Not a yes/no question.7. Are you Conservative or Liberal?Not a yes/no question. (Psst, conservative. I'll let this one slide)8. Do you believe in Global Warming?No.9. What's your opion on hockey?=.= Not yes/no question10. What's your opion on Targeted Killings?Not yes/no question.
Contradiction Debate - MIG's Tournament

1. Are you rasicst? 2. Do you like annime over animation? 3. Do you believe in the freedom of speech? 4. Do you believe in the minumum wage? 5. Do you like the KKK? 6. What's your opion on Affermative action? 7. Are you Conservative or Liberal? 8. Do you believe in Global Warming? 9. What's your opion on hockey? 10. What's your opion on Targeted Killings?
Lord's Supper/Crackers served in Church is actually not in bible.

let us conclude this debate:"Relevant other fact from other sources are irrelevant. "Once again, I am confused by my opponent's choice of words. "The subject is Crackers\Unleavened bread being served in Church/Temple not being in the bible. Not the Hebrew nation's history who served idols most of the time and forgot their true God=The Root of David. "Yet my opponent fails to understand that Jesus (and all of those in the surrounding region) were deeply rooted in Hebrew culture. And so, in the case of this debate, it would only be wise to use examples that stem from ancient Hebrew culture- as they would be a matter of historic fact, rather than a matter of Biblical interpretation- like that of my opponent's sources. "So if not in the bible of God then not of God. Or Satan Worship! "All of my rebuttals come from the Bible. None of which, my opponent has adequately refuted. Lastly, I don't understand my opponent's excessive use of out-of-context verses from the Bible. I would ask my opponent to forgive me if they actually are in context, I have had difficulties interpreting Con's arguments thus far. I have sufficiently negated the resolution in question; I have proved that Jesus would have used Matzo bread (crackers) during the Last Supper, and thus, proved that the Lord's Supper/Crackers served in Church is actually in the Bible.
Lord's Supper/Crackers served in Church is actually not in bible.

Relevant other fact from other sources are irrelevant. The subject is Crackers\Unleavened bread being served in Church/Temple not being in the bible. Not the Hebrew nation's history who served idols most of the time and forgot their true God=The Root of David. Who was/ is a Son of David. So if not in the bible of God then not of God. Or Satan Worship! 1Co_11:18, For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 1Co_11:19, For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 1Co_11:20, When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 1Co_11:21, For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 1Co_11:22, What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. Jer_4:22, For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. Eze_13:2, Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say thou unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the LORD; Eze_13:3, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! Eze_13:4, O Israel, thy prophets are like the foxes in the deserts. Eze_13:5, Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD. Eze_13:6, They have seen vanity and lying divination, saying, The LORD saith: and the LORD hath not sent them: and they have made others to hope that they would confirm the word. Eze_13:7, Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The LORD saith it; albeit I have not spoken? I rest my case.
Lord's Supper/Crackers served in Church is actually not in bible.

As much as I would like to address his arguments in detail, I simply cannot until he provides credible, relevant sources. Otherwise, I would be forced to debate against conjecture. "I said clearly Crackers served in 'CHURCH"! Christ had his "Crackers" in an upper room. Not a temple. Christ used a dining hall made for food. "What difference does this make? "It was the day before the Passover week, because the 7 day feast week Christ was on trial, then on a cross and then in a tomb. "I have already logically explained how the Last Supper took place during the Passover. I would ask my opponent to please provide relevant sources to support his claim, such as I have. "Christ is Lord of the Sabbaths (Yes two Sabbaths! ) because He died on His annual Sabbath and rose on the weekly Sabbath=Saturday=The Seventh Day. "My opponent is using the Gregorian calendar to state his claim, when it is completely irrelevant in this case; the Hebrew calendar can only be used here. I still contend that Jesus used Matzo (Crackers) during the Last Supper- negating the resolution. "I use the bible for my facts, not false traditions set up by man. "Then please provide solid evidence to confirm this claim; such as conflicting dates within the Hebrew calendar. "I know what I say is not popular because, i know my true purpose is to stand against false teaching=Satan worship in ignorance. 99.9% of all religions serve Satan in ignorance. "This is simply my opinion, but I disagree with you. My opinion does not affect the outcome of this debate, however. As for your sources, I appreciate that you have provided a Biblical account of what you believe to be two separate suppers. But I say to you, what if they are one in the same? What if they are simply two separate accounts of the same supper? Please provide solid evidence that proves otherwise. Onto Con.