BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Halo better then call of duty

Halo is a science fiction video game franchise created by Bungie and owned and published by Microsoft Game Studios. The series centers on the interstellar war between humanity and a theocratic alliance of aliens known as the Covenant. The Covenant worship an ancient civilization known as the Forerunners, who perished in combat with the parasitical Flood. The main trilogy of games center on the experiences of the Master Chief, John-117, a cybernetically-enhanced human super-soldier, and his artificial intelligence (AI) companion, Cortana. In this setting, the term "Halo" refers to Halo megastructures: large, habitable ringed structures, similar to the Orbitals in Iain M Banks' Culture novels, or to smaller versions of Larry Niven's Ringworld. The series has been praised as being among the best first-person shooters on a video game console, and are considered the Microsoft Xbox's "killer app".This has led to the term "Halo killer" being used to describe console games that aspire, or are considered, to be better than Halo. Fueled by the success of Halo: Combat Evolved, and immense marketing campaigns from publisher Microsoft, its sequels went on to break various sales records. Halo 3 sold more than US$170 million worth of copies in the first twenty-four hours of release, breaking the record set by Halo 2 three years prior. Halo: Reach, in turn, broke the record set by Halo 3, selling $200 million USD worth of copies on its first day.The games have sold over 34 million copies worldwide, and all Halo merchandise has grossed more than $1.7 billion. Strong sales of the games led to the franchise's expansion to other mediums; there are multiple bestselling novels, graphic novels, and other licensed products. Beyond the original trilogy, other "Halo" games have branched off into other video game genres, including Halo Wars, a real-time strategy game produced as developer Ensemble Studios' last project. Bungie also contributed the expansion Halo 3: ODST and a prequel Halo: Reach, their last project for the franchise. Much of the series' award-winning music was composed by Martin O'Donnell and his partner Michael Salvatori; soundtracks have been released for all games in the series. The cultural impact of the Halo series has been compared by writer Brian Bendis to that of Star Wars. The collective group of fans of the series is referred to as the "Halo Nation".
Is Halo better then call of duty

Pro states that he would prefer to have alien technology than modern day weapons. This is not true for everyone however, as many prefer the realistic element that Call of duty provides. It also not true to state that all weapons in call of duty are modern. In the first three call of duty games, ww2 weapons are used. Pro mentions that the scenes in Halo are particularly epic because you are fighting to save mankind. While I concede that many setpeices used in the Halo games do have an epic feel in their scope and art direction, I do not believe that the bland and tired storyline of "oh teh noes, alienz are attackzing and oh teh noes now there are teh zombies" contributes much to this. He compares the enemies in halo to that of call of duty, implying that the enemies fought in halo are preferable than the regular people fought in call of duty. I would counter that particularly for me the moral ambiguity of the proganists cause is helped by the fact that he is fighting regular people, whether they are terrorists or Germans, whom one could easily conceive having a family and friends. This moral ambiguity makes the single player campaigns far more compelling. Arguments for Call of duty 1) The call of duty series has sold more, thus is more popular. In fact, it is the best selling game of all time, breaking records not only for the gaming industry, but also the film industry [http://www.mcvuk.com...] 2) It has had greater longevity in online play, still remaining the most played online game on xbox live [http://en.wikipedia.org...] 3) It is available on nearly every platform, including pc, thus is more accesible to more people. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Pro has failed to show halo's superiority.
The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unbiblical

2 Timothy 3:15 tells us that the scriptures themselves are able to make one wise unto salvation and is elucidated in 1 Peter 1:23; we are born again by the very word of God. Romans 10:17 tells us that faith comes by hearing the word of God. Deuteronomy 4:2 and Proverbs 30:6 warn against adding to the word of God, implying that any discrepant word of man is to be rejected and found breaking this command. Against the temptations of the Devil, Jesus referred to the truth of the scripture (Matthew 4:1-11). Jesus also frequently pointed to the scripture authoritatively (Matthew 12:3; 12:5; 21:42; 26:24; Mark 12:24; Luke 10:26; John 5:39). John 12:48 tells us that Christ shall judge us by the very words He has spoken, and if we truly believe all scripture is given by inspiration, or moving of the Holy Spirit within men, then we must believe that we shall be judged by the Book. If Christ shall judge us by His word, then we cannot expect Him to hold us to the various teachings of men, but only that which is contained in the Book. Therefore we must look to the Book, the inspired and preserved word of God, as the final authority in all maters of faith and practice!
The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unbiblical

I am a definite believer in "sola scriptura." As a Christian who recognizes that I was born again by the word of God, which lives and abides forever (1 Peter 1:23), I most definitely believe that the only infallible rule of faith for believers in Christ is the word of God; the holy scriptures. I agree with your definitions of both terms. Also, to say "only rule" surely means there can be no other source of infallible rule; this I agree with. No magisterial teaching can be infallible, and it cannot conflict with the clear word of God as taught by the Holy Spirit. I am in no way averse to men expounding the scriptures, but men are fallible and can definitely misinterpret scripture or teach false doctrines.
The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unbiblical

In this debate as Pro, I will uphold the resolution, “The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is unbiblical”. I ask that only a non-Catholic Christian who honestly believes that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is biblical accept this debate. No devil's advocates please. The burden of proof will be shared.DEFINITIONSSola Scriptura: "The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith for Christians." Note: I have attempted to provide a concise definition and this is the best I came up with based on a variety of sources. I invite my opponent to revise this definition as needed in the first round, but please be concise.Unbiblical: “not in accord with or sanctioned by biblical teaching.” [1]ROUNDSRound 1: Acceptance/DefinitionsRound 2: Opening ArgumentsRound 3: Rebuttals &Additional ArgumentsRound 4: Rebuttals & Conclusion (No additional Arguments)RULESPlease be charitable and respectful.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...=/
Life is a party.

First, i would like to say that i am talking about life as a whole. life in this case would be the time period that each human has on this earth, to do what they want. Now, we can look at two definitions for party. My personal definition: A special event, often a celebration. and, My opponents definition: "a social gathering; also : the entertainment provided for it" My first argument applies my opponents definition. LIFE IS A SOCIAL GATHERING. Life consists of humans interacting with one another socially. They are gathered in COUNTLESS ways. School, church, households, marriage, work. It is and has been in human nature to GATHER with others. Almost no humans live in COMPLETE isolation. Therefore Life is a social gathering. Next, will be a bit tougher with my own definition. I would like to start off by saying that life has MANY opportunities for joy, and celebration. Humans of this generation fail to see this, or get caught up in stress, grief, or become pre occupied with small materialistic things, so that they can no longer see benefits in life. An optimist looks for opportunity in every difficulty, but A pessimist looks for difficulty in every opportunity. For example, many people of this generation focus ONLY on getting enough money to support themselves. While this is of course vital, they lose the joy in doing so because they become so stressed over it all. The main point of this argument is as follows: Life is short. humans need to cherish the life that they have. They need to look at the benefits that are given to them. THEY NEED TO CELEBRATE. ONCE THEY DO THIS, THEY ARE HAVING A POSITIVE OUTLOOK ON LIFE. THEY ARE HAVING A PARTY. HAVING A POSITIVE OUTLOOK ON LIFE WILL LEAD OTHERS TO DO THE SAME, AND TO ALSO LOOK AT LIFE AS A PARTY, OR A CELEBRATION. ONCE THIS HAPPENS, EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY. If everyone simply looked at benefits in life, and celebrated them (partying) then our world would be more happy. thank you! Flor :)
Life is a party.

Thank you, again, flor for challenging me to another debate. I would first like to say there are two perspectives in which to look at: 1) The two definitions (as provided by Merriam-Webster.com) do not correspond: A)Life as: "the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body" B) Party as: "a social gathering; also : the entertainment provided for it" (I'm guessing this is the one my opponent was referring to.) These two words and their definitions hence are in no way synonymous. 2) Life consists of things that are not entirely parties. One of which might include work, school, debate, or otherwise. Thank you and I await your rebuttal. -EG
there is no necessety of motion in fantasy, no logic

Fantasy allows the individual to express their natural status of emotion, feeling, and many others. Fantasy is a necessity, otherwise the lack of imagination would not allow us to put into effect any solution, or any plan to perhaps any "problem" in the future. As Woodard wrote in "Mad Speculation and Absolute Inhumanism: Lovecraft, Ligotti, and the Weirding of Philosophy" he states that authors such as Lovecraft in time of realism: "...that instead of nullifying realism Lovecraft in fact opens up the real to an unbearable degree." Fictional texts such as fantasy disallow for the repression in which cause and effect happen. Indeed that Marx himself was a fantastical artist - otherwise where would history exist without the fantasy living out of the bourgeoisie and proletariat binary? What of any other philosopher including John Locke - who founded the principle of "Life, Liberty, and Property" - when had this existed in a pretense?
Spiderman Vs wolverine

Spiderman's career has shown that he knows he knows to use an opponents weakness against them. Wolverine always goes head front on an opponent. Like for example when he beat Juggernaut. He was able to find a way to beat him by turning advantage into a disadvantage. He was able to use juggernaut's weight against because he was so heavy that he was able to get him pinned into wet cement & because of of his weight he able to sink faster. Spiderman is an evironmentelist. He's very good on his surroundings . Another example was when he beat Tombstone. In a part 2 series Spiderman suprised tombstone & a whole mob that he survived after tombstone knocked him into the water. When he got got into the building he went toe to toe with tombstone again & was able to beat him out of cleverness. When they were both falling off Spiderman was able to survive by using Tombstone's body for him to land on. Wolverine throught his has always fought head on to an opponent. Which sometimes hasn't resulted against his battles with Juggernaut. Throughout wolverine's battles with Juggernaut. Wolverine has never thought things through he always tries to trade punches with. Which's like a chuicua treading punches with a rhino. Wolverine doesn't use his surroundings around him & isn't the quick thinker that Spiderman is. He also tried to trade punches with the Hulk as well & those times have not worked out. Even with his healing power wolverine was seriously beaten badly. Especially WWH even with the Xmen's help they couldn't beat him. So that's gotta tell you something.
Spiderman Vs wolverine

What my opponent failed to pay attention to was that I had stated that Spiderman had beaten Tombstone with a great skin density who unlike wolverine is harder to make bleed. Also it takes a while for wolverine to heal his body. Spiderman has also fought the Hulk didn't beat but was not as nearly damaged as Wolverine was. Also Spiderman has also beaten the Rhino was has a high amount of density as well. Spiderman is a great expert in science & lets forget that Spiderman was a pro wrestler before he became a superhero. I know that that's fake but you have know amatuer wrestling & know how to fall to do that. This is just to back up my claim. Lets go back to the agility factor shall we Spiderman can also stick on walls. Wolverine can cut concrete but Spiderman can dodge them. Also if the go into the air above buildings wolverines would be very effective to helping him climb on them the same Spiderman & lets not forget that Spierman does have the strength to throw him in the air. Lets not forget about elerctro who is the son of the Red Skull. He can go to through any type of sold objects & Spiderman was able to take him as well.
Spiderman Vs wolverine

Good point. But... Wolverine ages extremely slowly so he will be around longer than ol' spidey. He has super-human smell (like you kinda mentioned before), skeleton bonded with unbreakable adamantium (so I would like to see Spider Man try to break Wolverines bones). And Wolverine has faced many enemies with great force behind them such as the Incredible Hulk, the group of Uncanny X-Men, Sabretooth, Magneto, Brood, Cyclops, & many more.. And his hot headed attitude... Well that just adds character, he is probably like that because he cant remember parts of his life and can't lie as a normal person.
Spiderman Vs wolverine

I like wolverine but He has need help from the X-Men to defeat Guys like Omega Red & sinister. Spiderman in the Comic has beaten Tombstone who's skin is extremely tough & was able to defeat him as well. Spiderman has also been able to take guys like Hydro Man would control & turn himself into Water. Whch Water as we know is 1 of if not the most powerful elements in the world. Wolverine can sniff him but Spiderman despite not being able to tell who the villan is with his spider sense can tell him where his opponent is attacking from. Wolverine's metal claws are strong but Spiderman's body can stick to the ground. Plus lets not forget about Spiderman's agility shall we. Wolverine also has known to be a hothead which can work against him. Spiderman has also beaten the scorpion who not only was stronger but had better reflexes than him. Spiderman has also went toe to toe with the lizard who alot of people forget can regenerate as well. If you check the history of lizards than you clrearly know that lizards can indeed do that.
Spiderman Vs wolverine

I have accepted this challenge and will explain to my opponent that Wolverine is far superior than Spider Man (even though Wolverine is a Marvel character too, because we all know DC is where its at). Anyways Wolverine is better because unlink spider-man ( who is really just a teenager still in the middle of puberty) he is tough, he is like Edward Sissier hands on crack, and he could totally beat Spider man in a death match. I mean why wouldn't he? Wolverine is extremely strong, knows how to fight, and has unbreakable "knives' from his hands & spider man has silly little webs that shoot out of is wrist... Wow Spider Man is sooooo freaking intimidating. Wolverine FTW !!
It should be legal to stream/download movies for free off the internet

The topic of course refers to the currently popular illegal download of films on the internet. 1. The movie industry is like any other and as such everyone working on or for a movie should get paid for their work and not have someone steal it from them. 2. Not everybody can make a feature length film and so they will logically get paid more than in an industry where there are an abundance of skilled workers. 3. People don't steal other luxuries in life just because they're not sure if they will like them once they have purchased them [i.e.] you don't steal a bar of chocolate that you've never tried before because you may not like it and therefore wouldn't eat the whole bar.
It should be legal to stream/download movies for free off the internet

1)This is simple, if it is not free to download... then it is not free. Therefore it is irrelevant to the debate. I have not fully researched Netflix, but I assume it is like any other DVD rental website, you pay a fee for them to deliver DVDs or you pay a fee to download movies. The industry simply supplies their movies. I know of no websites that allow you to legally download copyrighted movies for free. And that is what we're debating, it has to be completely free. It doesn't matter if the movie is copyright, it is only if it is illegal. Whether you are downloading copyright-free material illegal is irrelevant. I suspect, however, downloading copyright-free materials legal isn't difficult. 2) 'movies illegally filmed by amateurs with camcorders in movie theaters, then pirated for free online' This was just an example of how people uploaded illegal movies. How people upload the movies is irrelevant to the debate. I was not specifying the debate as such. This therefore make all of your 2nd rebuttal redundant. Regardless of this there are some flaws with your argument. 'you are seriously overestimating both the quality and popularity of such pirated copies compared to their professionally produced and distributed formats.' It doesn't matter if only one person downloads these copies, it is still relevant to the debate. The debate is not 'does the legitimate distribution of movies garner more return than the illegal distribution' You took the pro stance which means you are arguing that people should be able to download movies for free. 'Lastly, as I've again specified, I did not merely refer to movies that were "free in the first place" (i.e., shared-profit initiatives like Netflix, PlayStation Network, and even Blockbuster Online, etc.). These are viewings of films for which consumers must pay a fee, if nominal; and those fees produce profits. You have created an irrelevant example, as these products are not free you are not refuting anything. ' In other words, you're basically rephrasing the resolution as "It should be legal to ILLEGALLY stream movies for free off the Internet." If you did not agree to the parameter I placed in my initial argument then you should not have taken up this debate. 'Also, what is illegal in one country or jurisdiction may still be legal somewhere else. Thus, your vague use of word "illegal" does little to clarify or truly reshape the resolution. You do not state where it is legal, the burden of proof is on you. If it is hosted in a country where it is illegal it doesn't matter if someone in another country can download it legally. Until you suggest a relevant argument I still maintain stalemate.
It should be legal to stream/download movies for free off the internet

I'm afraid my opponents seems to have not understood the point of the debate, it was referring to the ILLEGAL download of copyright movies. I did mention this in my initial post. 1)I'm not sure what my opponent was refuting, there is no 'clear' advantage to having movies illegally downloaded of off the internet. People will have less need to purchase the movie or see it in cinemas. I saw no 'clear' advantage outlined 2) Again my opponent proves nothing, if the creator of a film places their film on the internet then people may download the film freely. This is not an issue. People recording movies in the cinema and placing them on the internet is an issue. I'm going to stop here and apologise for my initial post, it clearly wasn't outlined properly. My opponent is arguing the use of downloading free movies of off the Internet which are free in the first place. Whilst I did blatantly say I was referring to the illegal download of movies my opponent didn't understand this. As my opponent counterargument was based on a false debate I call this stalemate.
Israel vs. Palestine: A Religious Perspective

Israel's advances and well trained army have nothing to do with who should own the land, they are simply assets that Israel has. As i said before, war is way of taking land. However, war in this case is unacceptable considering the amount of destruction a war can bring and the reasons for fighting. you saying that the Palestinians efforts to hold Israel away from the holy land are futile because of Israel's power just sounds like a threat of war or destruction of the Palestinians which would be uncalled for and would not be justified. As for your claims of Muslims being dark and barbaric, do i really need to point the countless murders that have taken place because of Christianity? the inquisition? both Christianity and the Muslim faith have barbaric views and pasts. neither of these religions can claim innocence let alone a right to the holy lands. while it is true that there are restrictions put in place which are not reasonable, these restrictions can be fixed in a more civil way than simply kicking them out of their land over petty beliefs. your beacon of hope looks just as tarnished as the Palestinians when it's dark side is shown. what the bible says and what should happen are two different things, the bible is simply a book that was written in a time where superstition ruled as the answer to many question. the prophecies in the bible are so vague that they can be distorted to fit whatever happens in history. Even if it was an extremely detailed prophecy that came true, who cares? it still is not a reason to kick people out of their land over religion. you say that god has miraculously prophesied this happening, but before you can use "what god said"(or did) as a reason you have to have proved that there is indeed a god. arguments from religious points that come from the bible a moot and can be considered a valid reason for claiming the holy land
Israel vs. Palestine: A Religious Perspective

Israel has been a independent state since 1948 and has become one of the most powerful and advanced countries in the world. The efforts of radical Islamic Palestinians are futile against Israel's well-trained armed forces. Aside from religion, I support Israel because it is the only country in that region that gives rights to women, minorities. etc. It is the only country where I as a Christian wouldn't be persecuted or killed by Muslims. In the heart of a dark, barbaric Islamic empire lies Israel, a beacon of hope and freedom. From a religious perspective, Israel's right to the Land is supported by the Bible. The Bible prophesied the 1948 Jewish return to the Land of Israel in many instances (Genesis 15:17-18; 17:7-8, Ezekiel 36:16-19; 34:13; 36:20-24). The Word of God had miraculously prophesied the creation of the State of Israel and the return of the Jews to their homeland. Israel also has more of a basis in the Qur'an than Palestine. Israel was mentioned over 40 times in the entire Qur'an and guess how many times Palestine was mentioned: zero. Palestine is a fairly recent concept coined by Arab Muslims to attack Israel and its legitimacy. That is why I will always stand with Israel and the Jewish people.