BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Black ops is "better" than MW2

I argue that Black Ops, (BO) is a more entertaining and "realistic" online gaming experience than Modern Warfare 2 (MW2). 1) The killstreak system in MW2 seriously disadvantaged newer players in that it allowed more experienced players the quickly stack killstreaks with often ridiculous results (see YouTube, "fastest nuke") This is totally frustrating for the newer players (cattle) as constantly respawning only to be destroyed immediately by a hail of chopper fire and predator missiles is totally lame. This system is also frustrating for those smugly conquering the team that wasn't fortunate enough to be populated with the experienced players only to have to opposition rage quit. 2) The cod points system is more balanced and fun than the MW2 system because it allows players to more readily customize their loadouts to suit their style and the tactical situation. 3) The most common argument in favor of MW2 is "quick scoping" This was dumb, unrealistic and detracted from the competitive nature of the game. BO patched it in anyway so the whole thing is a wash.
Freedom to speak

Well the limit factor sounds acceptable but, society is like a bully if they take away a piece of freedom they will keep coming back for more. So if they limit our rights to speak, because of our feelings to protect people against verbal offense, then society will take the limit and turn it against us. Opening the door for society to take away more of our rights. Therefore what people meant for good, society will reverse it, so they can have excuses to take away our rights. You see this world is full of manipulation, so if they limit our right to speak, we have to think about the people who are really suffering and need to be heard; people like the labor force, homeless, middle class, children in abusive homes, inhuman cop cases, racism, street violence, deaths, court cases, justice and inhumanity. Most fail to realize that society's actions of taking a way rights is a form of power. Power says "we control your right to speak and you will do what we say". See here is what you have to understand, is when people or individuals have power they can either use for good or abuse it. And here lately former leaders, who had power over people, have been abusing it; people like Hitler, Binladin, the Pope, the Mexican drug Cartels, and thousands of others over the course of history. My point is that having power over people, gives the society power to: become rich, enslave people, be unrealistic, take full control, kill, steal, destroy, and much more. I believe having to much power over people will begin to destroy them as a nation, so henceforth it will become a new people abiding under the rules and tyranny that was set. But I do here what you are saying, but I believe if most of us had the freedom to speak in the middle class, we would address a lot the wrong we see society is doing to bring down the nation.
Freedom to speak

Okay so first lets just say I believe freedom to speak IS somewhat okay, I believe it has to be to a limit. If you have an opinion go ahead and speak it but, most people get offended by what the person comebacks is going to be. If you're going to speak you're opinion accept the other persons point of view. I don't believe you have the right to put people down. Multiple suicides have occurred because of what people say. I know because I was in a mental hospital for suicide attempts because of what people were saying and doing.
Babe Ruth is the Best Player to Play in MLB.

Well...I suppose I'll post some reason as to why Ruth is the best, though I plan on starting this debate again, so I'm not giving away my argument. Babe Ruth's career OPS+ is 207, which is the best of all-time. He's also had 10 seasons with an OPS+ above 200. Keeping in mind that 100 is average, and 150 is excellent. (1)(2) OPS+ is the lgOPS divided by a player's OPS, and multiplied by 100. (1) = http://www.baseball-reference.com... (2) = http://www.baseball-reference.com...
Babe Ruth is the Best Player to Play in MLB.

Ha, every person who I've debated with about baseball has ended up getting banned. This is the third time it's happened in the middle of the debate. I'm probably the only person amused by that, but meh... Anyway, my opponent opened with the following point: <"Babe Ruth is dead therefore anybody alive today is better than him at everything!"> Whether he's alive or dead is entirely irrelevant. The resolution: <"Babe Ruth is the Best Baseball Player to Ever Play in Major League Baseball."> The part where it says "to Ever Play" clearly illustrates that the resolution is pertinent to the history of Major League Baseball, which means my opponent's argument is clearly semantical, which means he essentially forfeits. Me: <"Upon accepting this debate, my opponent agrees that no semantical arguments will be used; if they are, the person who does so automatically forfeits the debate."> And, uh, well....his second, third, and fourth points aren't even relevant to the debate. Whether sports or stupid or not, table tennis, and Ruth's name spelled backwards have nothing to do with the resolution, which is about Babe Ruth's place among the all-time best players to ever play in MLB. I didn't even need to point that out, since clearly my opponent has forfeited, but meh. That'll be it for now.
Babe Ruth is the Best Player to Play in MLB.

Resolution: Babe Ruth is the Best Baseball Player to Ever Play in Major League Baseball. Due to Babe Ruth's prowess both as a position player and a pitcher, I think he is quite clearly the best player to ever play in Major League Baseball. Upon accepting this debate, my opponent agrees that no semantical arguments will be used; if they are, the person who does so automatically forfeits the debate. Moreover, the terms "better" and "more valuable," and anything else to that effect, are synonymous; my opponent also agrees with is when they accept. The criteria for value that will be used for this debate are pitching, hitting, fielding, baserunning, and durability, all of which will be measured with statistics. I'll go more in depth when I actually get an opponent, so whoever accepts can use their opening round just as some sort of introduction if they please. Babe Ruth: http://en.wikipedia.org... Major League Baseball: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Donald Trump won the presidential election because of racism.

Since pro agrees with my sentiments, there isn't much room for debate. However, I will state a few reasons why I believe the way I do. Point Number One In the 2008 and 2012 elections where Barack Obama won both, an overwhelming majority of blacks voted for him. The numbers across the board was above 90% of the black voters voted for him. If the same percentage of blacks voted for Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump would not have won. The same goes for women voters. Donald Trump won the women voters as well. Point Number Two The Liberal media and Liberals in general will tell you that Donald Trump is racist because he talked about building a wall on the border of Mexico and the U.S. This is a lie perpetuated by the left to make low information voters and the over all "dumbed-down" Americans believe Trump is truly a racist. They don't want you to believe that a secure border has nothing to do with race and everything to do with keeping a country (in this case the United States) secure from its enemies and continue its success. Racism is defined as a hatred for another race due to their racial makeup. "rac"ism G2;rāG6;sizəm/ noun the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior" -Google definition of racism. This definition would indicate that Donald Trump wants to build the border wall between Mexico and the United States because he believes whites (Caucasians) are superior to Hispanics (Mexicans). This is not true. What is the duty of the United States government? What is their job? Well, according to the Constitution, set up by our founding fathers well over 200 years ago, it is to uphold the Constitution and keep the borders safe from enemies both foreign and domestic. Building a border wall would help to stop illegal activities from happening between the two countries, or at the least, slow it down significantly. This includes slowing down, if not stopping completely, the amount of illegal people from crossing. Donald Trump did not win this election because there were a lot of racist white men voting. No, on the contrary, he won from the combined effort of Conservative Americans, along with Moderate Americans, and even many Democrats who felt betrayed by a man they elected into office twice because he promised a better life and a better country. It didn't happen.
Donald Trump won the presidential election because of racism.

First of all, I don't wish to cause any offence in my arguments. I don't have anything against the people who voted for Trump, I myself preferred him over Hillary. I joined this debate with haste because I wanted to debate the issue. In doing so I didn't realise the instigator was con, so I must confess I accidentally joined the wrong side and personally agree with ChadIrvin. Nonetheless, I will debate the affirmative side to the best of my ability and do my best to see both sides of the issue. My arguments will revolve around the fact that average, working class (white) Americans feel as though their situations aren't ideal. They are losing low-skilled jobs to countries like China and Mexico with cheap labour as a result of globalisation. This starts a mindset that white people are 'losing' to other races and deserve to be treated above them, as they are the majority and came to America first. This, by definition, is racist- putting one race's needs above another and viewing the world in a racially segregated way, one race vs. another. The mindset of these people is difficult to break down because isn't one of factuality, rationality or clarity, but simply of resentment to people different to them. So, these people are 'racist' by definition and America is 'full of them', as the working class (many of whom resent other races) is estimated at around 45%. This factually proves the statement. You have said candidates aren't elected on racist beliefs, but Trump won because the working class didn't like the status quo, and racial resentment is largely behind that.
Donald Trump won the presidential election because of racism.

I'll start off by saying I look forward to debating this topic with my challenger. I look forward to a civil debate. I'd like to begin the debate by stating that while I have supported Trump in the general election, I did not support him in the primaries. The fact I supported him in the general election was largely due to the fact he was running against Hillary Clinton and I had no intention of supporting her for president. I hear and read it all the time; "Donald Trump won this election due in large part to the rampant racism in this country. And the 'evil' and angry white man voted against Hillary and the vote for women." This is absolutely ridiculous and I can argue that fact overwhelmingly. The issues I personally have with Trump has nothing to do with race. The issues the majority of white men have with Trump has nothing to do with race. Supporting a candidate based on race rarely comes into play for the overwhelming majority of Americans, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, or any other minority not mentioned. In the next round, I will prove that Donald Trump did not win this election due to racism or just "a bunch of racist rednecks who hate blacks and women." I will prove that he did not win because America doesn't want a woman president. I will prove that many minorities that voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, voted for Trump in 2016 and therefore allowing him to win this election. I look forward to hearing your opening statement and later your arguments and rebuttals.
A fork is superior to chopsticks. (For eating of course).

The only benefit of using a fork as opposed to chopsticks is that its faster and easier to use. That makes the score Forks:2 Chopsticks:0 Now here are the benefits of chopsticks: 1. Chopsticks are biodegradable. It sounds like a silly point, but if you think about all of the silverwear that gets thrown away from houses and and restaurants, you can only imagine just how much silverwear is forever buried underneath us. Now metal is not that harmful to the earth, but the wood that the chopsticks are made out of is beneficial to the enviroment. It will decomspose and become fertile soil. Metal forks cannot say that. So point one: Chopsticks are more enviromentally friendly. 2. Chopsticks increase hand-eye coordination. Its super easy to stab and scoop. So easy that it has no benefits. Chopsticks require more finger and hand coordination. It requires a bit more concentration. Over-all, it makes you more coordinated....at least as far as eating goes. 3. Chopsticks, believe it or not, help you manage your weight and health. With a fork, food is consumed at a much faster rate. With chopsticks, food is consumed much more moderately. Eating slowly has a number of health benefits such as: a. Weight Loss b. Greater Food Enjoyment c. Better Digestion d. Less Stress e. Less Inclination Towards Fast Food (http://zenhabits.net...) Chopsticks are actually better for your health!!! 4. Chopsticks are a novelty in the US and Europe. People love to use them because they are different and even more fun. I can sum this point up with two questions. How many people think using a fork to eat is fun???? How many people think using chopsticks is fun???? I think I will rest my case with these polls. (http://chinesefood.about.com...) (http://www.sazze.com...) In the first poll. 81% of the people who voted, prefered chopsticks of regular cutlery. In the second poll, 55.17% of people preferred chopsticks over forks. Now if I've done my math right, including all of the benfits under subtopic 3, and the benefits of the other 3 points... That makes the score: Forks: 2 Chopsticks: 8 Seeing Chopsticks have many more benefits than a fork, I think Chopsticks ARE, in fact, superior to Forks.
ODT: Pollution--Rothbardian Property Rights vs. Mainstream Decreasing Negative Externalities

AnalysisMy opponent and I essentially agree that strong, well-defined private property rights are important in combating pollution and that government ownership and poorly defined property rights are the main sources of pollution. However, my opponent does have a few errors in his reasoning.The fundamental flaws in my opponent’s case:1) It involves a state regulating and taxing industry, which is likely to generate more negative externalities than it attempts to “solve”2) His rebuttal to my case is built on the fault premise that Rothbardian Property Rights advocate banning pollution completely. This is rhetorical nonsense.RE: My proposalMy opponent’s plan involves taxing the polluters, which would be found ostensibly through regulation (i.e. an environmental bureaucracy). He hasn’t elaborated much on the true mechanism of this tax plan, so until he does we will assume, for the sake of argument, that a governmental bureaucracy administers this process. Bureaucracies are inefficient political institutions that do not solve problems, as that would decrease the size of the institution. Instead they prolong the problems and even expand them to grow the size and power of the bureaucracy. Furthermore, they are ineffective regulators that have political incentives to become corrupt with industry. His plan will not be a pareto improvement, but will lead to more negative externalities. His plan also involves taxing, which is a violation of private property, a logical contradiction in his case.Rothbardian Property RightsRothbardian property rights do not advocate banning pollution altogether, but allowing the market to function with strict property rights and private law that oversees damages cases in pollution. The market acts as a disincentive itself. No regulator is necessary.
ODT: Pollution--Rothbardian Property Rights vs. Mainstream Decreasing Negative Externalities

In case it wasn't clear, Pro is defending the property rights side and I'm defending the externalities side. Decreasing negative externalities- This approach would be to reduce pollution by offering incentives not to pollute (like taxes, for example), rather than the Rothbardian approach of attempting to stop pollution completely, as we would other violations of property rights (murder, theft, etc).
ODT: Pollution--Rothbardian Property Rights vs. Mainstream Decreasing Negative Externalities

Rules1. Debates must be 4 rounds. 1st round is acceptance, definitions, and clarifications.2. 72 hour debate rounds3. 8k character limits4. 1 week voting period5. All debates must be headed with ODT (Official DDO Tournament)---Ex: ODT: Global Warming is Awesome6. The first forfeit in any round of the debate, forfeits the entire debate for that debater. Resolution: Better sollution to polution: Rothbardian Property Rights vs. Mainstream Decreasing of Negative Externalities. Pro argues for RPR and Con argues for DNE. Definition: Rothbardian Property Rights--Rothbard’s definition of ownership is control over resources, and legitimate ownership as control over resources that are either (a) inalienable, that is, inseparable from one’s person, such as one’s body and mind, or (b) homesteaded, that is, acquired from a state of nature and transformed by one’s own labor. Ownership of a thing thus acquired can only be transferred by a voluntary transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner (the title-transfer theory of contracts). These deceptively simple deductions from the axiom of self-ownership make possible the systematic derivation of the “rights of man”; that is, the entire libertarian system of law and justice.
Android based Phones are greater than Iphones

I would also like to wish them good luck. I would like to get started by talking about stats. (I will be using mostly the Android phone The Incredible to the IPhone4). Also I will be using the service plan of Verizon so that there is no service advantages. First off its camera. I would like to blantly say that the Incredible has a 8 mega pixel camera while the IPhone has a 5 mega pixel camera. This is coming from verizon. com Secondly the processor. The Incredible has a 1GHz snapdragon processor, while the IPhone is clocked at around 800MHz. As you can see this does make a difference when surfing the internet. Although the IPhones speed has never been written in stone I had to get that information from an image off google of the Phone clocking itself at 800MHz. Thirdly the application store. We have all been to the Apple's app store and we all know that there are thousands of apps that are absolutely pointless, most of which have minimal reviews and continue to remain at the top of the page. Androids app store is all the goods without the crap. It's right down to the point and you will have no problem downloading important apps. Also there is some games on the Android app store that are free and most of these apps cost money on the Apple App store. Forth and last thing i'm discussing in this round is value. The Droid Incredible you can get with a 2 year plan for around 149.99. The IPhone you will have to pay 199.99 now you would think that the one that costs more must be better, right? That's were you are wrong if anyone who cares about their knowledge and money would look at the statistics and notice that the IPhone lacks in some characteristics. I hope that someone picks up on this topic and we can have a wonderful debate. But please don't vote because you have an IPod and you think your sweet because you play pointless apps and really only do one thing on your Phone. Also don't vote if you love the product please actually read the debate.
Android based Phones are greater than Iphones

I will also summarize the debate as it has come. The Incredible - (as my opponent has stated) 1) files that are easier (as of his opinion, not mine) 2) more down to as a business phone 3) and widgets The iPhone - (as my opponent has either let go or admitted defeat in) 1) sharper sceen resolution 2) better standard battery life 3) better free market for apps 4) more standard memory 5) far better customer service I'll the voters decide which features that they believe are better. Thank you,
Android based Phones are greater than Iphones

I will indeed like to make this a summary round, and as I have to leave very soon for spring break I will make it short and sweet. Things to look back on: 1. Files that you can easily download and keep into a folder for offline use. 2. The Android Market is more down to business at the moment 3. There is battery extensions that you can buy if money isn't an issue 4. Widgets that are a great tool if you are on the run, and do in some cases make your phone more appealing 5. Well this one is just for fun thought I would throw in a video from more than trustful people http://www.youtube.com... (I guess you can disregard the number one reason if you wish. Thank you and hope to see the results once I get back. And I would also like to thank Con for making this my second debate. I hope that I have many more of this type because I have learned about new things and ideas.
Android based Phones are greater than Iphones

My opponent states that having these downloading apps for his ipod (I personally don't care if it is jailbroken, I worked for apple as ipod touch and iphone tech support and I refused to get an iphone with AT&T) is "more than a minor inconvenience." Appart from being a personal opinion rather than a factual opinion, I can only say that the only reason to jail break an ipod touch is to alter the software (as opposed to for the iphone, it was mostly to get away from AT&T and not alter the software). Altering the software can effect how apps work on that device. My opponent also states that with the widgets, you can take the concious effort to save battery life, which is true, and is encouraged for pretty much all smart phones as they all have battery issues (as mentioned earlier). And pretty much all smart phones have battery extention cases. The one that my opponent points to is $70 bucks (minus 1 penny) and that will actually bring the cost of that phone to more than the iPhone 4. Regarding the word "moot." I am using it with the meaning of "doesn't matter" (I think that was #5 in the link). The iPhone has the ability to tether, just like the Incredible, however AT&T locked that feature because they didn't believe that their network could handle it. Other carriers in other nations have opened up tethering with the iPhone. Since this is a debate about the device, and not the service providers, any limits placed by those providers doesn't matter to this debate. Thank you,
Android based Phones are greater than Iphones

I plan to make my part of this round short because I have some small things I would argue about, and questions. 1. I would like to say on the files point that i have a jailbroken IPod(yes i know). I have over 12 of the downloading "apps" that say they will allow you to download files. Now i will tell you this is more than a minor inconvenience. 3. My widgets point I would like to say that widgets do improve the look of the phone but, they also help. I would like to begin by saying they are self updating and that you don't have to click on them or access an "app" to view them. This can be very helpful for a business person or someone on the run(1). You just have to be smart when activating widgets and keep your battery life in mind. But you know you can alway buy battery extension packs which are not that bulky and you don't have to switch them out or attach any cords(2). Now my question you said in an earlier round the word "moot" now by this which on of the terms did you mean(3)? (1) . http://www.zdnet.com... (2) . http://shop.htcpedia.com... (3). http://dictionary.reference.com...