BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Roblox sucks. MINECRAFT RULES THE GAMING UNIVERSE!

Since you've forfeited, I will begin my points on why I hate Minecraft. Youtubers and their 'Let's play'. Youtube is filled with 'Let's plays', in which I don't enjoy and so do many other people. These 'Let's plays' are usually modded and have stupid 9 year old kids shouting into a microphone about what they're going to do next. Youtube is full of these 'Let's plays', I really hope someone does something about this because last time I checked... Youtube was for 13 year olds. 9 Year Olds. I hate this. Kids filled with bad grammar, influenced by the weapon slashing of the player. I usually feel they should be working on their grammar rather than learning things. These kids are mainly spammers and spam with their crappy grammar. They swear, they threat, they role-play as immoral people, they try to hack, they mod, they share information and many more things. Updates and the fanbase. Many of the fans claim they were there from the beginning of Minecraft, which to me is kind of disrespectful. Why was it disrespectful? Because I had been there for four years and they claim they've been there, supported them and watched the very things Notch did. No, no, I won't take that. And now the updates. Minecraft has evolved and is still evolving. I don't like how they keep updating it to keep the players rolling in to get more money. In the old Minecraft, you had to think outside of the box, you had to go past the limits, you had to stretch your mind. This is no longer, there is many things on Minecraft that do the thinking for you. SkyDoesMinecraft Butter! Butter! Butter! He's so annoying! He's too famous! His fans give him too much credit. I hope people with brains join youtube, in my eyes he's a wannabe celebrity. I know that he doesn't enjoy Minecraft, he does it for the money.
Roblox sucks. MINECRAFT RULES THE GAMING UNIVERSE!

Hajimashte, I have also played Minecraft for a while, four years to be exact. I first begin my argument by the way you've explained graphics. Roblox can have polygons and symmetrical items, that is what makes the game unique. It's graphics may be a little bit messy, but many don't pick on that since Roblox has thousands of fun, co-operative minigames. Minecraft is made out of blocks, I did get quite tired of that, since I used to go on mc.godworld, which is now closed. Roundness? Roblox has squares, hexagons, pentagons, parallelograms, decagons, nonagons and many other shapes. Texture packs? I find no difference with texture packs, you still have the same items with different textures. Many of them are disgusting and usually look like they have been made in five seconds. In Roblox, you can have many different blocks or make your own blocks. How long have you played the game? Hmm, seems like you just got the game, played one round of a game and uninstalled Roblox. Give the game a chance, the people are quite nice and you do get used to the 'round' graphics. Defining your age group, Minecraft is directed at your age group.
Roblox sucks. MINECRAFT RULES THE GAMING UNIVERSE!

So I was browsing debates today and I came across minecraft vs. roblox. I play minecraft and I have played it for at least 3 years. I am a certified pro. So I got roblox and played it. And as soon as I booted up the game I realized why it was free! The graphics are terrible!!! I was terrified to see all the roundness... its probably the worst game iv ever seen. I would rather play...anything else! But minecraft... its the best! There are so Manny mods, so many servers, so many texture packs! So if you dont like how regular minecraft looks you can just get one you like! Also if you dont know what a mod is? Then just get on Google and type in Orespawn. Enough said. But if you want to play with your friends? Just get on a server! There are millions of servers out there! Plus people say that you can impliment new things into the game with a script thing or something? Well in minecraft that is just called a command block. Just search LogDotZip on YouTube and look at his one block commands series. Anyway! I probably just converted any...robloxer? Hmmmmm... well I just converted whatever you call a person that plays roblox, into a powerful minecrafter!!! Before you go check out these videos:*I did not make these*Kewl Stuff
Son Goku (Dragon Ball Z) vs Post Crisis Superman (DC Comics)

My opponent will be arguing for Post Crisis Superman taking the win. Rules: No trolling, swearing, or insults. If you accept, you must do the research and no forfeiting on any round unless you give a good reason for doing so, and post your arguement for any missed rounds in the current round. Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: State your argumentRound 3: RebuttalRound 4: Final Arguments
Son Goku (Dragon Ball Z) vs Post Crisis Superman (DC Comics)

Greetings.My opponent points out Screw Attack's Death Battle between Goku and Superman. While the video was fun to watch, Goku's statistics were calculated incorrectly. They used the speed at which he could travel long distances instead of the speed at which he could react and fight. The Gravity Formula acts as though Goku only gets stronger when he trains at increased gravity which is not the case and it falls apart when applied to other saiyans such as Vegeta, Trunks, and Goten. Vegeta trained at 400x Earth's gravity for the Androids and was easily beaten by Android 18, but Trunks, who could barely handle 150x Earth's gravity, could hold his own against Android 18 fairly well. The feat with Goku only lifting 40 tons is extremely inconsistent when in Dragon Ball, Goku managed to push a large boulder. Doing size and mass calculations I found that the boulder weighed around 350 tons.https://lh4.googleusercontent.com... So, I pass it back to my opponent to try and prove that Superman could beat Goku.
Son Goku (Dragon Ball Z) vs Post Crisis Superman (DC Comics)

Hello. My opponent makes arguments about speed and power of Goku. He claims that Goku can destroy multiple solar systems. However, Superman is NOT a solar system, he's the MAN OF STEEL. There is an incredible simulation of a fight between Goku and Superman, In the beginning, Superman gets rekt, but he doesn't lose because he's the MAN OF STEEL. So he prevails, and can wear down Goku. Thus, in the end he launches Goku straight through the Earth and wins. Since my evidence is actually a simulation of a fight between Goku and Superman, and my opponent's evidence is inpertinent because Superman is not a solar system, it is clear that SUPERMAN would win the fight. Thank you.
In the 21st century religion does more harm than good

You have misunderstood your part in this debate. You are con! Therefore you are arguing that religion does more good in society than harm. I will continue my debate anyway in case con wants to add anything to my argument ... so this technically isn't a debate anymore. It is fairly obvious that religion does a lot of harm. Looking at Isis we can already see the relationship between harm and religion. Isis don't only kill innocent individuals - they also kill people working for them! (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...) And as con has already said there are a huge number of extremist groups in the world. Con is right when he/she says that religion denies people rights and opinions. Gay rights is a huge topic and religion is often the source of these debates. Some people allow their children to die due to the fact that their religion says that only God can heal a person and forbids them from accepting medical help. Women are treated like second class citizens and that isn't the end of this list. Sources https://answers.yahoo.com... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
In the 21st century religion does more harm than good

Religion in the 21st century has definitely done harm than good. There have been vast numbers of extremist groups who are killing people in order to foist their religion onto others and it's certainly not common to see groups kill others at that rate for other personal reasons. it also translates to regular people's lives. People are that narcissistic due to religion that they start to deny gay people the right to marry and others the right to ridicule their religion. Only Religion in the 21st century can make people kill someone for saying something that they don't like and make hundreds of thousands of people support that act. In short Religion poisons everything.
In the 21st century religion does more harm than good

As pro I believe that religion does more harm than good. RULES - You cannot refer to any incidences where religion has done bad or good before the 21st century - If you are quoting from a source then you must use quotation marks (" example ") - Information cannot be quoted from wikipedia unless it is a definition that has been verified. - All other basic rules apply (no swearing ; no going off topic etc. )
Movie debates #1: Movies vs Books - Changes are justified

Books help us understand, what's going on. In books it is easier to see what is going on in the characters heads. This actually makes character action and motivation make more sense. Instead of just running through the dark and then for some reason veering toward the deserted and creepy building we can sometimes hear their thoughts and the character can explain and justify their logic. Books don"t need batteries or a power source to run. You open them, you read them. Reading books takes longer than watching a movie. Some people would argue that it is not an advantage to be time consuming but in terms of the cost to enjoyment ratio I would very much like my enjoyment to go for more than an hour or two. Movies are bad, because some of the scenes are not intended for kids like sexual harassment, inappropriate languages and bloody content. A good book is better than a good movie. While movies can provide terrific acting and visuals, books require more of an intimate connection between book and reader. The reader must use his or her own imagination to supply the acting and visuals, thus creating a unique experience that cannot be duplicated.
Movie debates #1: Movies vs Books - Changes are justified

This is intended to be the first of a series of movie debates. The idea for this one is a slight twist on movies vs books. The number one complaint is usually that something was changed. So we will focus on discussing changes in movies based on books.* Con will be arguing that the book version is generally better. Pro will be arguing that movies are equally as good, if not better....along with justifying changes.There is a shared BoP. First round is for acceptance.Second round is opening statements.Third and fourth round arguments and rebuttalsFifth round closing arguments (some rebuttals may stil be needed.)*Books here means pretty much anything printed (Comics, novels, short stories, etc). It should also be noted that I say generally because to say all changes are either good/bad is simply not true. Hope to have fun with this series!
Suffering justifies euthanasia.

You keep forgetting and ignoring the fact that the patients we are talking about are terminally ill, that is they know they are going to die very soon. Patients who live the last months or years of their life in a debilitating condition, should be given the choice of Euthanasia. By justifying suffering, we are taking away their freedom of choice. Depression is inevitable in a situation where you can't walk, move properly, eat properly, breath properly etc..Yes it's curable, but not all of the time and also what changes could "not being depressed" produce to their physical condition? If individuals have the right to live with dignity, they should also be given the choice to die with dignity. The objective goods you are discussing about are irrelevant, because the patient's life is coming to an end , I doubt he/she would care about love, enlightenment, compassion when all they are asking for is relief from their agonizing condition. By letting a person, who is requesting Euthanasia, die naturally, you are prolonging their suffering. We certainly can't measure suffering, but at least we can say that each individual react to suffering in different ways. For some is unbearable and therefore by keeping them alive we are prolonging their torture.
Suffering justifies euthanasia.

DEPRESSION IS NOT A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED IN SITUATION LIKE THIS1. Whether they are depressed or not, it is their choice to make the decision. We cannot decide who should live and who not.Also let's not forget that hey are terminally ill , they know they will die and that the chances of recovery are minuscule. How can you not expect them to be depressed?A DOCTOR DUTY IS NOT TO TORTURE A PATIENT BY KEEPING HIM/HER ALIVE2. A doctor duty is to save a patient's life but at the same time to free him/her from pain. By keeping someone, who requests euthanasia, alive you are prolonging their suffering and "torturing" them whereas the solution is far more preferable. The pain that is felt during the procedure is temporary whereas the one the patient feels during those weeks is far more agonizing, added to the fact that there's no chance of recovery at all.I'm not sure where you got the information that Euthanasia is expensive, if you provide links, then I might believe you.WHAT OBEJCTIVE GOOD ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?
Suffering justifies euthanasia.

Hi Cassandra! You are correct in the fact that everyone is accountable for their own actions, but we also don't get everything that we want. In the case of those who wish to be euthanized because they are suffering, we must help them find meaning in their suffering. Did you know that people are 4 times more likely to request euthanasia when they are depressed? We need to help these people end their depression. As I said in my introduction, suffering has objective goods, and we need to help people realize what they are. (Source for the statistic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) We actually do not know whether euthanasia is painful or not, because the patient does not survive the process to tell us. The only time we know that pain is relieved is when the patient is dead. There is also the chance of a patient having an adverse reaction to the medication used to euthanasia, causing more pain and suffering. Finally, if we let a person die naturally, it is cheaper. You aren't paying for the euthanasia drugs or the life support. If a person is surviving only on life support, and they are already dying, they aren't entitled to the life support. They are however entitled to the basic needs like food, water, and shelter.
Suffering justifies euthanasia.

Euthanasia is the medical term for an action that intentionally causes death to a patient. It differs from physician assisted suicide because euthanasia is performed by a medical professional, not the patient. This "medical procedure" is often justified by a person's suffering, usually because of an illness or condition. However this argument is purely based in emotion not logic, since people do not like to watch others suffer. In our culture, suffering is something to be eliminated, but often people don't see suffering for what it truly is. Suffering is something that all people experience. It is the opposite of pleasure, and can come in varying degrees, like receiving a burn while cooking, or it could be great, like a terminal illness. But the point that people often miss is that suffering has meaning and objective goods. These objective goods are enlightenment, detachment, compassion, the drawing out of love, the building of character, humility, and reparation. Because suffering has objective goods, logic dictates that it should not be eliminated.
Youtube is better than tv

I am very sorry about that. I am at a sleep-away camp and I have tons of homework to do. My opponents statement about how you can usually find tv content on youtube is untrue. That would be known as pirating with is illegal. Also, you can not watch whatever you want on youtube. Unless you have an account that is verified to be 18 years or older, you aren't allowed to watch some videos. You can not also watch youtube whenever you want. If you don't have wifi, you can't watch youtube at that point in time. I also would like to state that my opponents arguments have no impact. This renders all of his arguments useless.
Youtube is better than tv

Too bad my opponent forfeited the last round.Anyway, I forgot to point out somthing in my last argument.My opponent pointed out that some YouTube channels require payment to watch.This is only true for few channels but you always have to pay for tv.Also,these YouTube channels only charge about 5$ at the most and cable providers usually charge at least 10-20$ a month.Hopefully my opponent won't forfeit the final round.
Youtube is better than tv

Anyway,my opponent stated that content on tv is more interesting then content on YouTube. I would like to remind him that you can usually find episodes of tv shows on YouTube. This means that you can watch content from tv and more on YouTube. My opponent also stated that you can't watch YouTube everywhere because somtimes you are not on WiFi and YouTube is blocked in some countries. While this is true,in my previous argument I only said you can watch whatever you want whenever you want. I never said wherever. Good luck to my opponent on his argument
The "Good Guy" vs The "Bad Guy"

"A story couldn't simple kill off a main character without hurting its "flow" or feel" Actually, it could. Horror stories only add to their feel, tragedies as well, and especially heart-warming stories. One great example is the book "How to Live Forever". It tells a heart-warming story, in which a boy lives his life fully before dying. Now that's heart-breaking! The whole point of the story was to tell people to respect their lives and live them out, kind of like the movie SAW, except much much more family friendly. And even if the main character dies in a "happy story", they always somehow get out of the Underworld, or Heaven, or Hell, or wherever they're trapped. A good example of this is how Odysseus technically "died" by going into the underworld and visiting there, narrowly really dying and having his soul sucked out of his body. This only intensifies the story. As for the Joker, if you were being him it would only be funny if you were as insane as the Joker himself. Otherwise your heart would eventually break for Batman and say "aw shucks I don't want to be the bad guy any more. I really don't want to torture Batman! " "villain they are disposable and can easily be replaced. " Not really, especially if the villain is incredibly difficult for the main character to defeat. If in a chronological series, it is best to keep the main villain alive. One example is Lemony Snicket's Series of Unfortunate Events. The villain, Olaf, is kept alive because his slyness and greed keeps him going on, showing the bad things in life happening to the poor orphans. Another example is MLP:FiM's Discord. Keeping Discord alive adds more "fun" and "chaos" into the show as well as twists and turns, allowing for more unpredictable episodes. However, just like the Joker, being Discord won't exactly be funny unless you love extremely disrupted environments. In conclusion it would be funnier to be the good guy. The bad guy normally has a flaw that makes him have a different sense of humor, and unless you have the bad guy's sense of humor, it won't be funny being the bad guy. The good guy, on the other hand, is just a normal person in most stories, sometimes with super powers or weird abilities, but they have the sense of humor normal people have, and because such, it is funnier to be the good guy. Besides, good guys always win in "happy stories". Dying isn't funny, especially when you're the bad guy!
The "Good Guy" vs The "Bad Guy"

com"e"dy G2;k;4;m =8; diShow Spelled [kom-i-dee] Show IPA noun, plural com"e"dies. 1. a play, movie, etc., of light and humorous character with a happy or cheerful ending; a dramatic work in which the central motif is the triumph over adverse circumstance, resulting in a successful or happy conclusion. 2. that branch of the drama which concerns itself with this form of composition. 3. the comic element of drama, of literature generally, or of life. 4. any literary composition dealing with a theme suitable for comedy, or employing the methods of comedy. 5. any comic or humorous incident or series of incidents. http://dictionary.reference.com... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You seem to be entangled with the aspect with funny or comedic effect in movies and things so I thought I'd go with it as well, first let"s take a look at some of the more comedy centered characters (Of course this will be centered around the villain.) To list some I find funny or the types of things at least I find funny in a evil character stand point, first Joker (From Batman whether it be the comic or movies) now sure he has a "messed up" scene of humor, being the rage inducing psychopath that he is, with a personality that centers around sociopath. Next other villain such as Lex Luther (from Superman), now people such as Lex have a more serious tone around them but any good villain needs a little limelight. Next I'd like to bring up the "Plot Armor" what we find in most story surrounded by the main character, now this is a slightly "unfair" advantage to the "Good guy" I mean when do you ever see plot armor around a villain? Now I know there are some but not nearly as Meany as that of the Hero or "Good Guy". Now for those whom don not know what plot armor is: Plot Armor (also known as Magic Bullet Shield, as seen in map scripts) is an informal term referring to a character's unusual ability to survive infinite damage, due to their importance to the story. A story couldn"t simple kill off a main character without hurting its "flow" or feel, as described above; but with a villain they are disposable and can easily be replaced. With this said there are lots of stories who need to keep the main villain or (Bad guy) due to them being beloved or something of the sort. Like pro I do not have much time to write this, I am currently in the middle of a class and well my teacher isnt the happiest of person right now with me so I must get going. Good luck.