BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Everquest is the Most Revolutionary MMORPG of All Time

Due to real life issues I need to make this round short and sweet. It's currently 2am and I need to be up in 6 hours for class...Thank you for taking this debate. 1. True, Everquest did blend elements of a much larger movement of MUDs and MUSHes with more advanced computer graphics. This fact alone is what makes Everquest so revolutionary. Everquest was the first game to blend the advanced elements of text based MMORPG's with 3D graphics. The changes Everquest brought to the online world are revolutionary because they changed the way MMORPG's are now played. Everquest did start a revolution, a revolution of advanced, graphically advanced MMORPG's. Everquest was the catalyst that led to the newer and extremely popular MMORPG's of today such as WOW and Everquest 2. 2. The so called "revolutionary" features of WoW would not exist without the introduction of Everquest. WoW was developed off the revolution and popularity of Everquest. WoW is a great game that gives users great content, but it is only here because of Everquest. This fact again makes Everquest revolutionary. 3. My opponent mentions some features that WoW has brought the online gaming world, most notably instanced dungeons. First of all, Everquest came out with instanced dungeons over a year before WoW was released with its Lost Dungeons of Norrath Expansion. This expansion was released in September of 2003 whereas WoW was released in November of 2004. Furthermore, the idea of instanced dungeons was actually developed in the 1990's in order to solve the "mob" problem in Ultima Online. http://pc.ign.com... http://www.gamershell.com... The facts above are evidence enough that Everquest is the Most Revolutionary MMORPG of All Time.
Everquest is the Most Revolutionary MMORPG of All Time

I'm re-posting this debate because the first person who accepted it has basically conceded the debate. Since it's launch in April of 1999 the online computer game Everquest has captivated the minds of millions of players worldwide and revolutionized the MMORPG industry. Before Everquest there wasn't a single game out there that allowed a player to interactively explore a 3D world along with thousands of other players simultaneously. The MMORPG's that did exist only allowed a player to explore a 2D world and had nowhere near the content that Everquest did. Today, most of the major MMORPG's employ some of the same features that Everquest introduced to the gaming world. These features include, but are not limited to the following: -3D Character Modeling -First person viewing capabilities -Interactive NPC's with advanced AI -Complex economic systems -Advanced Tradeskill Platforms -Mobs requiring massive raiding parties Without Everquest, the MMORPG's of today would be nowhere near as sophisticated as they now are.
Everquest is the Most Revolutionary MMORPG of All Time

A slip of the fingers does not invalidate an argument. EverQuest is neither advanced nor revolutionary. By my opponent's own definition a revolution must be "a sudden, complete or marked change in something." EverQuest in no ways fits these descriptions. The graphics used in EverQuest had been present in other first person shooters and even in stand alone personal role playing games before EverQuest was conceived. The style of multi-player online roleplaying was already present in a number of tile graphic games and in a rich and complex text based medium. The simple combination of these two elements without any other advancements or new ideas is not a revolution. Again, my opponent constantly confuses the terms revolution with innovation. EverQuest was an innovative game, for it combined several different elements existent in other genres to create a brand new genre. But that does not make it revolutionary. A revolutionary game must be one that brings about "a sudden, complete or marked change in something". Warhammer is again a far better example. The idea that the game world can be completely reshaped through player interactions is completely new and creates a markedly different playstyle and game. World of Warcraft also had some revolutionary elements, their inclusion of flying which completely changed the notion of travel and interaction with the world. GuildWar's could be considered revolutionary as well, as their business model was a complete change from the status quo set by EverQuest. The above are all examples of revolution that moves beyond simple innovation. While I in no way diminish the effect that EverQuest had on creating a larger Western market for MMORPGs, that in and of itself is not a revolution. And that is all that my opponent has been arguing for much of this debate. Whether or not you are a fan of MMORPGs in general or EverQuest in specific it is wrong to hold EverQuest up as "most revolutionary" given the other revolutions of equal or greater magnitude that have taken place since its release.
Logical-Master Should not close his account

Alright, I'm gonna make my response nice and swift. First, I would have to dispute this claim that this "Logical-Master" fellow is indeed one of the best debaters on this site. He mostly takes up silly debates and catches his opponent's off guard with cheap tactics. For instance, observe this debate: http://www.debate.org... This is one of the most loaded semantic arguments I have ever seen. There is a reason he is currently losing this debate. Also, look at his recent debate with theLwerd: http://www.debate.org... She caught him dead in his tracks trying to cheat through violating the character/time limit. In no way is Logical-Master one of the best. To Logical-Master, I would have to say "Mada Mada Dane." Now since him being one of the best was what initiated your claim that he should leave, I have hence proven that he shouldn't leave. Furthermore, I would have to say that not closing his account wouldn't necessarily make him a liar. After all, he could have very well simply change his mind. Of course, you're free to cross examine him to determine otherwise. ;) So when considering all of the information, there is really no reason for this Logical-Master fellow to close his account. Rather, he should keep it open and perhaps serve as an incentive for others to get a high number of debates on this website. And that's all for now.
Logical-Master Should not close his account

I believe that Logical-Master should close his account. He has had a considerable amount of debates on this site and his time has come. The departure of Yraelz supports his departure, for they are the two best debaters on this site (next to beem0r). Also, he has claimed to close his account, and not closing his account would mean that he is a liar, and since lying about yourself on the internet isn't a good thing, he should be forced to close his account. Logical-Master should close his account.
The LRA caused more terror then Al- Qaeda

I only have time for one argument this round, and its a rebuttal to every single point Con made last round.He seems to be of some illusion that Al-Qaeda is responcible for every single death that happened in Afghanistan and Iraq.R1: Al-Qaeda had no connection with Saddam Hussien, and him suggesting that we got into a war with him over Al-Qaeda ia absolute nonsense. It just is.R2: Same thing with Afghanistan. Almost all the fighting was done with Taliban forces, and even though they started a chain reaction, they are not nessecarily 100% responcible for our involvment, or does it make them as terrible in the slightest.So, since I find my opponents arguments incredibly weak, I will extend mine.
The LRA caused more terror then Al- Qaeda

Estimate of Casualties from LRA Insurgency: 65,000+ killed (Northern Uganda only http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Resistance_Army_insurgency Deaths: 32,000 Injured: 0 Missing: 30,000 Displaced: 2,100,000 http://jasper-cs373-wc.appspot.com... Now it's Al-Qaeda's turn. Al-Qaeda has probably had somewhere around 5000 direct casualties. http://npsglobal.org... On first glance, it appears that Con has won this debate. However, if you stick with me a little longer, I will prove that this is not the case. It turns out that Al-Qaeda has had a TON of indirect casualties. Al-Qaeda's September 11, 2001 Attacks resulted in the War on Terror. The US Government's foreign policy became a policy of combatting terrorism wherever it may pop up. Here are a few of the places that the US has invaded as a result of the War on Terror: Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present) http://www.cfr.org... Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://news-basics.com... These wars resulted in: (Note: total casualties in each of these conflicts are most definitely at least slightly higher than stated) Iraq: 103,160-113,728 civilian deaths in Iraq from violence, 24,219 dead and 117,961 wounded on the Coalition Side, and a total of 28,821-37,405 Iraqi combatants dead. http://en.wikipedia.org... Afghanistan: 16,725-19,013 civilians dead, 14,846 Coalition forces dead, and an unknown amount of Afghan insurgent deaths. http://en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present) Con is probably tapping his finger impatiently, saying that Iraq was a war against Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party while Afghanistan was against the Taliban. And he's right: neither of these wars were directly against Al-Qaeda. But consider this: would a single soldier have stepped foot in Afghanistan or Iraq in 2001 and 2003 had 9/11 not happened? Thus, Al-Qaeda is indirectly responsible for more deaths than the LRA's direct deaths. ALSO, may I add that Al-Qaeda actually is fighting in Iraq? http://en.wikipedia.org... Now, let's bring up another subject: Definition of Terror: a very strong feeling of fear something that causes very strong feelings of fear : something that is terrifying violence that is committed by a person, group, or government in order to frighten people and achieve a political goal http://www.merriam-webster.com... Let's see...the suicide rate has increased since 9/11, due to our many recent wars http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com... http://blog.mysanantonio.com... I'd say that this proves Al-Qaeda and its effects on the world have caused sufficient terror Trillions have been spent on fighting terrorism http://nation.time.com... This also proves how terrified we are of a few bearded Muslims with bombs. Also... http://www.splcenter.org... I'd have to say that many of these Islamophobic people are afraid of Islam and/or its followers. Either that or they just want revenge against someone. I await Con's response.
The LRA caused more terror then Al- Qaeda

Case 1: Militarization of ChildrenThe LRA is notorius for capturing children and putting a gun in their hands. Kony found Children a better soldier, as people often hesitated before shooting them, and they were often easy to control and manipulate. The LRA had a practice of making children kill their parents with a blunt weapon, to take away any reasons they might have to be defiant, and to crush the childs values. They make up the majority of the LRA army, and are sent in combat first, with a leader far back. About 30,000 children have been recruited into the LRA. The scary thing is, that most of the kids are not even of teenage years. They are 7 or 8, and if your to weak, you would shot. The kids were never buried either, instead being stacked along the road or in a trench, in mass graves. http://womennewsnetwork.net...http://web.archive.org...Case 2: LRA Sex SlaveryThe LRA does not ignore girls either. Not only are some given guns as well, most become sex slaves. They are often beated and cut up, as they are sold to some of the worst people in Africa. Little girls are raped constantly within the LRA, and often in the most brutal ways. Something that goes against even the values Al-Qaeda possesses. http://news.bbc.co.uk...Case 3: Conduct of WarThe LRA is most famous for its brutlity in war. They survive on raiding, and after a battle, they commit terrible atrocities. They will mutilate dead bodies, burn down houses, rape survivors, and cannibalize the rest. Sometimes, they even force the kids they capture to engage in the same practice of cannibalism. Over 90% of the people killed in the LRA's revolution have been civilians, as they show no regard for human life. http://invisiblechildren.com...http://www.un.org...
The LRA caused more terror then Al- Qaeda

I will be arguing that the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) caused more fear and terror then Al-Qaeda. This is not centered on who got more media attention, but as who did more terrible things. Besides that, the rules are pretty explanatory. lords resistance army Web definitions The Lord's Resistance Army, also known as the Lord's Resistance Movement, is a militant movement, which is described by some as a new religious movement or a cult which operated in northern Uganda and South Sudan. ... http://en.wikipedia.org... al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda. a radical Sunni Muslim organization dedicated to the elimination of a Western presence in Arab countries and militantly opposed to Western foreign policy: founded by Osama bin Laden in 1988. "For hym was levere have at his beddes heed, Al-qaeda | Define Al-qaeda at Dictionary.com dictionary.reference.com/browse/al-qaeda
Animal testing does more good than harm

Given that people are going to be subjected to those compounds anyway, it is better to test it on an animal first, in case of any major side effects. After that, it could be tested on political prisoners in China, for instance. Animal testing provides a barrier between people and the really nasty things. It's not perfect, but until a suitable alternative is found, it's the best that can be done. Assume a zero-sum equation. We, as humans, want as much of that metaphorical pie that is resources as possible. Animals are eating up resources. We can either kill and eat them, use them as test animals, get power jollies by exercising power over them (http://www.debate.org...), or take them in as pets. The shorter lifecycle of the animals means that effects come to the fore more quickly than with humans, and corrections can be made. In short, animals are highly expendable and do not even factor into the equation, unless they are in limited supply. Using them as a barrier helps identify side-effects and whatnot before moving over to political prisoner testing, then dissemination into the general public. It may not be reliable, but it's better than nothing.
Animal testing does more good than harm

It is more than true to say that animal testing is dangerous. However, let's think about it this way. According to a study done by the magazine Popular Science, more than 88.7% of tests that were successful or unaffective by animal patients had the opposite or "different" effect on humans. Still not convinced? Doing their own research, The FDA reports that 92 percent of drugs approved for testing in humans fail to receive approval for human use. This clearly proves that what we test on animals are completely innacurate and thereby should not be used. So in this sense, I, myself care for my fellow man as well. Oh and thank you for clearing away that "personal" or sentimental part of this debate because I wasn't going to go much on about animal rights and whatnot. However, I'd like to give the voters this: Correct science is the most humane and safe. Correct science is science used for good and not on those who don't have the ability to say what's right or not. We cannot keep on experimenting on animals that are taken away without notice, to be used for study, or for something that does not benefit their species. How far are we willing to take animal testing as to taking away the whole animal race for our cruel and incorrect tests. (Note: I'm not those crazy animal activists whose working Peta or some crazy organization like that.)
Animal testing does more good than harm

Animals are not meant to be tested on. They weren't created for us humans to barge in an take control over. Animals were not bred to take part in a potentially dangerous experiment for humans' makeups, fashions, or tests. Heck, tests that are relating to humans aren't even the same when it comes to the question if it works on humans or not! I'm not one of those crazy animal activists, but I can say that if we want to advance our technology or products, testing on animals isn't the way to go. This is a clean debate, 1st and 2nd round for laying out arguments and the 3rd for refutations and ending arguments. I realize that this is a hard topic to argue, but be advised that I have many arguments and refutations to any argument.
Filthy, perverted child molesters should not be celebrated at Christmas

I know this revelation might come as a disappointment and a shock to him but, unfortunately, it's true. However, he need not take my word for it, he can ask the US Postal Service who had to launch "Operation Santa" to intercept all mail addressed to "Santa Claus, North Pole" because they didn't want letters from innocent little children to end up the hands of a beardy old kiddy-fiddler. . http://www.timesonline.co.uk... In addition to that, here is photographic evidence of Santa whispering: "Have you ever seen a grown man naked, sweetie-pie" to a little girl: . http://upload.wikimedia.org... And here is a picture of Santa with a child who replied "No" when he asked her "Have you been a good little girl, my lovely? " . http://bumpaddler.com... Next my opponent questioned my facts with regard to Santa's preferred midnight snack, suggesting that in America it is milk and cookies rather than sherry and mince pies as I (inadvertently) implied, then helpfully informing us that milk comes from cows and also supplying a source for any voters who didn't know what a ‘cow' was. He said that only English and Australian people left sherry and mince pies left out for Santa. Well, let's look at this shall we? Here is an actual picture of a real life house in England on Christmas Eve last year: . http://cache2.asset-cache.net... And here is an actual picture of a real life house in America on Christmas Eve last year: . http://comps.fotosearch.com... You will notice that whilst the English folks left sherry out and the Americans did, indeed, leave milk out instead, crucially, both families left mince pies out. With this being the case I think that my opponent and I should share the points on this one. Moving on to the behaviour of shopping mall Santa's I did a Google search of my own using the keywords: "Santa"; "Claus"; "dirty"; "paedophile" and "scumbag" and the search engine came back with hundreds of thousands of links. Amongst them was this one: . http://www.thesun.co.uk... This illustrates just one of many cases where Santa impersonators have been locked up for molesting children. Here is a picture of another Santa copycat being led away after being caught touching up a little girl: . http://backspin.typepad.com... No, make no mistake, these Santa characters are not a very nice men at all. We only have to look at what they get up to in the spare time: A Santa caught loitering outside an all-girls school: . http://images.damncrows.com... Another Santa caught looking under the fence of a nudist camp: . http://farm1.static.flickr.com... And another Santa dresses up as a Catholic priest in order to gain access to the choirboys: . http://christhedon.com... While another Santa is spotted plotting terrorist atrocities in Afghanistan . http://www.freakingnews.com... Let's face it, Santa Claus is not a very nice character, is he boys and girls? So, in the light of all the evidence I have provided, we must surely conclude that my opponent is wrong to argue that filthy, perverted child molesters should be celebrated at Christmas. Thank you.
Filthy, perverted child molesters should not be celebrated at Christmas

Responsible parents do their best to make their kids aware of "stranger danger" and tell them not to talk to adults who they don't know and never to accept gifts from them. Over the years this message has been very successful in deterring depraved kiddy-fiddlers from stalking their juvenile prey on the streets and most paedophiles now "groom" their victims on the Internet instead. However, towards the end of December parents tell their children that they'd better watch out because a big, fat, bearded sex pest called "Santa Claus" is coming to town. They then add that this dirty, hirsute, red-suited sexual deviant makes a list and checks it twice and then breaks into all the houses on that list and helps himself to mince pies and sherry before going upstairs to the children's bedrooms to "see" them when they are sleeping. This Santa Claus fiend, who also uses the aliases "Herr Weihnachtsmann", "Pï¿½re Noï¿½l", "Father Christmas" and "San Nicolï¿½s" has spawned numerous copycats who can be spotted in shopping malls and department stores around the country. There they lure youngsters into their makeshift lairs (or "grottos" as they are known in the seedy underworld of paedophilia), sit them on their laps then ask them sickening questions like "Have you been a good little girl, my lovely?" and "Would you like a little present, deary?" and "Have you ever seen a grown man naked before, sweetie-pie?" Shocking! So what does this whole Santa Claus caper say to children? That it is wrong for dirty old men interfere with little kiddies except at Christmas time? This is a very dangerous message to send to vulnerable and impressionable youngsters and for this reason I affirm that filthy, perverted child molesters like Santa Claus should not be celebrated at Christmas. Thank you.