BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teen Relationships in High School

School lasts for 8 hours, homework for about 2 hours. That is 10 hours every day without weekends. Take away 8 for sleep and you are left with 6 hours of free time every day and the whole day on weekends. There is plenty of time where they could maintain a relationship without it even effecting school work. Not to mention the fact that they might be able to study together and help each other do well. There is no reason why we shouldn't, and I don't see why we should interfere with their lives.
Teen Relationships in High School

If we get rid of everything distracting, they would be able to do nothing but study and becoming boring bland people with no social lives. This is also where many people first learn about what it is like to date so they can be in serious relationships later, and learn from past mistakes. Also, the thought of telling people they are not aloud to date is a violation of their basic human rights. And you say failed relationships can cause depression, but so can stress from school work.
Teen Relationships in High School

Teen dating in high school should not be allowed because it is only a mere distraction of what they are suppose to be learning...Their education is everything their relationships can wait till after they graduate.....1 out of every 3 relationships are merely a way to get into a girls pants and then leave her to be heartbroken .....The life they would share would be torture for whomever comes into contact with their heart broken....Broken relationships could lead to suicide....And even depression
is plastic cutlery better than reusable metal cutlary? I'm for metal.

okay you may have had a terrible life and maybe a metal spoon seems great but owning a metal spoon does not make you rich and even having access to a computer to write your argument on puts you in the top 50% of people. I am just saying that I don't have the finest sterling silver spoons, most of mine are ones my mom left me. also I love how you infer that owning a spoon means you have 'six Iranian servants'. Because I don't. Am I meant to be getting a free servant with every spoon I purchase? I don't have servants (or slaves) and I hope that even if I suddenly become the richest human on earth I will still be able to feed myself (and if that happens I will buy you a spoon). iron is the most common metal in the earths crust so it doesn't come from 'the blood of baby seals'. and if that was true I would be disappointed at your dad for having a job making forks from seal blood. also I am not 'seal hating', they are beautiful animals. I hope you and your plastic fork enjoy life together, metal forks may cost money but kindness and manners don't, so be nicer, its one good thing you can have for free.
is plastic cutlery better than reusable metal cutlary? I'm for metal.

Listen here you metal fork loving f**k. If someone is trying to kill you, do you think they would be able to with a plastic fork?You ever thought about that, a$$hole? Listen here you rich a$$ piece of s**t. Just because you have spoon fed from the finest sterling silver by your six Iranian servants doesn't mean were all rich like that you stupid f*ck. Some of us actually know about this thing called struggle. In my darkest times, the only thing i could afford was a plastic fork. I didn't even have clothes, but I had a set of plastic cutlery. This s**t is more useful than metal. And you ever hear about how metal forks are made you dumb f**k. My father works in a fork factory. Let me tell you something. You know where they get the iron? They harvest it straight from the blood of baby seals. You privileged seal hating f**k. Checkmate.
is plastic cutlery better than reusable metal cutlary? I'm for metal.

I think that metal cutlery (e.g. spoons, forks) are better for the environment, as they are reusable and largely recyclable. also a metal spoon is much less breakable than a plastic spoon, so would not need to be replaced as often. plastic cutlery may be useful for parties and events however I believe that they are much worse for the environment.
Call of Duty 4 is the Best First-Person-Shooter Currently on the Market

COD 4's multiplayer isn't as good as BF2 Red Orchestra or BE/ WWII Online. All of those games are on the market. You've conceded that it isn't as realistic nor is it's singleplayer as deep as Bioshock. The art direction isn't as good and the characters aren't as sophisticated. The AI isn't as good. It certainly isn't more creative than any game on the market. In conclusion, it is a very good linear rail shooter, but that is all it is. There are better looking games on the market and games that far surpass it in terms of gameplay. So, while it is good, it certainly isn't the best fps on the market.
Call of Duty 4 is the Best First-Person-Shooter Currently on the Market

The Battlefield games are totally different. BF games involve much more strategy and battlefield tactics, whereas in CoD4, you're more of a lone wolf. In the area of realism, Marines, SAS and possibly Spetsnaz would have body armor. I admit, it's annoying when you shoot someone with a Barett fifty and they don't die. I don't know about the XBox version, but on the PC version, they've released many patches that fix damage glitches. In CoD4 multiplayer, there is also a "Hardcore" mode, which removes your Heads-Up-Display and gives all weapons more damage. I like the hardcore mode better because it's more realistic and you don't really need your HUD much anyway. You don't really need games to be too realistic in terms of how much damage you receive on hits. Also, I never said it was the greatest FPS ever. I stated in the title: "Call of Duty 4 is the Best First-Person-Shooter Currently on the Market". The single player isn't as deep as games like Bioshock and Portal, where those games are centered around the single player. But it surprised me and many others, I'm sure. In conclusion, Call of Duty 4 has more customization than you can shake a stick at, a solid single player, and an extraordinary multiplayer. Customization: As previously mentioned, the player can unlock 5 skins for each weapon (desert, woodland, digital, blue tiger, and red tiger), not to mention a special 'golden' skin when the player completes all of the weapon challenges in the weapons category. You can also complete marksman challenges and unlock red dot sights, silencers, grenade launchers, grips (for shotguns and LMGs) and ACOG scopes. Single player: Just looking at the graphics will be enough to entice any gamer into CoD4 single player. Though it is often overlooked as a pure multiplayer game, the single player is pure fun, with everything from sniping to operating an AC-130 Spectre gunship. Multiplayer: I believe I've made my point in this area.
Call of Duty 4 is the Best First-Person-Shooter Currently on the Market

I own COD 4 and enjoy it but I honestly don't consider it revolutionary. It still is a linear shooter, the story line isn't deep and EVERY character is a stereotype whereas, characters in Bioshock and GLADOS in Portal are dynamic and have complex motives. Both Bioshock and Portal are unconventional and have much more sophisticated ideas. Bioshock goes so far as to base the entire story one the criticism of a philosophical idea. This is what gives games depth. COD 4's multiplayer is really, really good, but it isn't on par with one like battlefield two which has massive maps and full vehicular interaction. The class system is interesting but doesn't count as "revolutionary." In terms of realism, COD 4 is a joke (not more of a joke than most "hollywood" shooters). Games like Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon are much more realistic and games like Americas army and Battlefield Europe are the only two games I would genuinely say ARE realistic. The Halo health system is a great detriment to realism. Take it from someone who has studied wounding ballistics, you take several 5.56 mm rounds to the chest and you will suffer MASSIVE hemoraging internally. COD 4 is a game designed to be fun, not realistic. I'll agree that COD 4 is a very good, maybe even an excellent game but it is by no means the greatest FPS ever.
Call of Duty 4 is the Best First-Person-Shooter Currently on the Market

I don't have Bioshock, but I've played it at a mates house, and I agree that it is a very deep game with a great storyline. I don't know about Portal, but what sets CoD4 apart from the others is multiplayer. Bioshock has no multiplayer, which is rare for an FPS. Portal has none either. I will attest that Bioshock may have a better single player than CoD4, it has that because single player is all that it has. I realize that BS's single player would conflict with any type of multiplayer mode, but it's sort of a given that any new FPS has multiplayer. Portal is also a very unique game, but, again, the multiplayer of CoD4 is better because: A.) With 50+ challenges, and unlockable weapon skins (i.e. desert, digital, blue tiger) and accesories, it makes for a much more satisfying experience. So, if you want a Rambo class with a woodland-skinned Mini-Uzi and a Colt .45, knock yourself out. B.) CoD4 multiplayer also has many 'perks' for each weapon class. These perks are meant to 'right the wrongs' in weapons, if you will. For example, there is a perk called 'Double Tap', which increases the rate of fire for you weapons. Not all perks add to your weapons, though. There are some that add items to your kit, like Claymores or even an RPG rocket launcher. C.) Did I mention the realism? CoD4 has 20+ weapons, each having their own ups and downs (i.e. the M4 may have less kick than an AK-47, but the AK is more powerful at close range). I didn't even get that in-depth about the deep storyline of CoD4. If you've ever played the single player, you'd know that not only does it have amazing visuals (shown in this video, http://www.youtube.com... for instance, which is NOT a cut-scene. It is in real-time during the game), but it has an amazing storyline, and you'll get to know every character by their attitude, accent, or even by the weapon they carry. But the ending, in my opinion, is the best part. I won't spoil it, though. I'm not that mean.
Call of Duty 4 is the Best First-Person-Shooter Currently on the Market

There are at least two FPS's currently on the market that are better that COD 4: Bioshock and Portal. Bioshock is one of the only games that has any sort of philosophical or humanistic approach. The art direction is one of the best of any game yet (light-years better than Halo's). It's far more creative in it's presentation and has deeper characters even for "generic bad-guys". It presents an entirely open world full of detail and intrigue. Comparatively, although it does a good job at what it does, COD 4 is simply a rail shooter with large setpieces and big explosions. The AI hardly interact with one another without interference from the player. Portal is an amazingly concise, well thought out and deviously funny game. It makes references to complex ideas in very subtle ways and is quite frankly what a GAME should be.
Call of Duty 4 is the Best First-Person-Shooter Currently on the Market

I will start by saying that I am an avid player of CoD4, on the PC version. The PC version, imo, is better because the controls are much simpler than on a 360 controller. Again, just my opinion, but please don't steer this off topic by saying "ZOMG 360 IS BETTER U NOOBCAKE LOOLZZ!!11!". Now, Call of Duty 4 not only has tremendous multiplayer, but it has a great single player story as well. You play as a British SAS operative and a member of the Marine Recon Force. I won't spoil it for you, though, because the single player has about as many plot twists as '24'. The single player has unique weapons not found in multiplayer, and utilizes modern day weapons and technology, such as the M4, AK-74U, and night vision goggles. The single player, second only to 'Halo', is the deepest and most interesting I have ever seen. But, as previously mentioned, the single player is not the only thing to buy CoD4 for. The multiplayer maps are very well-designed, and the creativity of the server-creators, who make the games for the multiplayer, keep the multiplayer interesting and fun. For example, there is a server where you can only crawl on your belly and use your knife, which, from an aerial view, looks sort of like worms crawling. I am looking forward to a good rebuttal with good, solid facts.
Gun Laws in America

My reasoning is actually very simple but first, thank you for debating this with me! People are so concerned with guns and crime rates when talking about the second amendment but what does the second amendment actually say? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 27 words. The second amendment is not directly talking about self defense from fellow citizens. It is talking about the right to defend your freedom should a tyrannic government rise up and try to take away your most basic rights. With this being said, I feel that any mentally stable person should have access to firearms in order to defend freedom in the unfortunate case that our own government one day becomes corrupted. You might be asking yourself "Why do they need access to all firearms? Wouldn't a hand gun be a suitable defense?" Admittedly, it gets more difficult here because you do have to keep these weapons out of the hands of unstable people. The government has access to one of the deadliest militaries in the world. I would know because I am a part of it. If the government turns on its people, they would use militant force, no questions asked. What is a pistol going to do against an assault weapon? It truly is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Civilians should have access to weapons that would actually do some good should this situation ever occur. Call me crazy but that is what our founding fathers intended with the second amendment. "The beauty about the second amendment is it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson Taking away the right to bear arms is the first step to tyranny. Hitler, Stalin, Castro. Not to mention, most gun control being pushed into laws right now will do nothing to stop a mentally unstable person from bombing a building or buying a gun off of the black market. Welcome to the real world where wishful thinking doesn't stop murder. Killing will always happen and taking away the right to bear arms will only expand a murderer's horizons.
Gun Laws in America

I am happy to debate this topic. It is my opponents position that "anyone who wants to own a gun and is mentally stable should have access to a gun of any type, whether it be an assault weapon or a simple pistol." However, my opponent has not made it clear as to what the benefit of allowing anyone who is mentally stable to won a gun would be to society. As my opponent has admitted to being pro gun I will infer that he feels that arming anyone will have a positive effect on crime rates. However, according to a study conducted by the National Research Council in 2004, "there is no causal relationship between right to carry laws and crime associated with firearms. " [1] I would greatly appreciate my opponent stating why he feels that any mentally stable person should have access to firearms of any type. [1]http://factcheck.org...
should kids go to school

Ok well first off, it seems like you could use a little schooling, I don't mean to bash on you but you seem to not be the most educated of people, you don't capitalize, cheek spelling or use punctuation. You also stated that 'School sucks' and "Kids just don't listen and still get bad grades", now both of these statements are opinions I for one always have liked school and done good. Next shall we go look at your "some of them always are in fights" Now first off that statement makes little to no scene, "Some of them", saying some doesn't give a representation on how many, are we talking one of hundreds? Next "always in fights" for you to say some people are always in fights is wrong, that means they are only in fights, not doing anything but fighting for all eternity. Now I am going to look past your horrid spelling, and grammatical issues. School has taught and housed some of the most brilliant of people, and for you to say kids shouldn't attend is just horrid, not only is school a for learning it a place to be social, it teaches you how to live, or enjoy life, how to be free, and your ignorance cannot comprehend that and for that I am sorry.
STALIN needs to cut the crap, and stop putting up one "Finish the Sentence" game after another

"Holy tits batman, this was a joke debate, hence the "entertainment" category, calm down people... me and [incorrect spelling--->]STLAIN are friends anyways..." Lies, lies and more lies. We are not friends. Never were. Never will be. "Youre dead, thats a fact of life, you cant kill me bro. Unless youre a ghost." I'm alive and well. I signed up on DDO a few months ago. "Also, just because I didn't have a ' in my word, that isn't a spelling error, thats a grammar error. " Its close enough though. "This took a terrible turn, this was supposed to be a joke" You saying DDO is a joke website? Ye that's bad conduct. Clearly I have more convincing arguments. Pro just makes up some stuff without backing up his lies with sources. Sources: http://www.wired.com... [picture of pro] http://www.wired.com... [picture of pro] http://www.wired.com... [picture of pro] http://www.wired.com... [picture of pro] http://www.wired.com... [picture of pro] http://www.wired.com... [picture of pro] http://www.wired.com... [picture of pro]
STALIN needs to cut the crap, and stop putting up one "Finish the Sentence" game after another

Holy tits batman, this was a joke debate, hence the "entertainment" category, calm down people... me and STLAIN are friends anyways...Youre dead, thats a fact of life, you cant kill me bro. Unless youre a ghost.Also, just because I didn't have a ' in my word, that isn't a spelling error, thats a grammar error. This took a terrible turn, this was supposed to be a joke._. ...
STALIN needs to cut the crap, and stop putting up one "Finish the Sentence" game after another

Note to readers: I did not make this debate. devin.cooper64 decided to do it for some reason. "Sadly I was not around/didn't care during your USSR debates, so thats a invalid argument and doesnt relate here. I will not apologize." Then voters will give me the point for conduct. "To add further to my argument, the excessive amount of both the "Finish the Sentence" games and the USSR posts are what I like to call excessive spam, it derails the debate page, and it takes up precious data on the DDO databases, I mean, they won't be able to eat if their ramen money if its going into server data." It is only possible to create 10 debates every 24 hours so the DDO people made it impossible to spam debate requests. And spamming is when you type the same thing over and over. I changed my debate every time [1]. "Your games could've easily been squared off into a forum or even just one debate, maybe a list of sentences to follow. Debate games are stupid anyways, there are entire websites dedicated to forum games, this website should be to tackle issues, rather funny or serious, but not forum games." But that would be no fun for either of us. Everybody knows that. And I tried to make a forum...messed up. "Also whats[<---spelling error] the worse you can do to me? You have no army. No Power. No life. Literally." The worst that I could do to you is kill you. Conclusion: Clearly pro is just playing around trying to make me look like a joke. He has no sources to back up his arguments and he does not know how to use spellcheck so I basically won this. He is also extremely rude. Sources: http://www.debate.org...
STALIN needs to cut the crap, and stop putting up one "Finish the Sentence" game after another

Sadly I was not around/didn't care during your USSR debates, so thats a invalid argument and doesnt relate here. I will not apologize. To add further to my argument, the excessive amount of both the "Finish the Sentence" games and the USSR posts are what I like to call excessive spam, it derails the debate page, and it takes up precious data on the DDO databases, I mean, they won't be able to eat if their ramen money if its going into server data. Your games couldve easily been squared off into a forum or even just one debate, maybe a list of sentences to follow. Debate games are stupid anyways, there are entire websites dedicated to forum games, this website should be to tackle issues, rather funny or serious, but not forum games. Also whats the worse you can do to me? You have no army. No Power. No life. Literally.
STALIN needs to cut the crap, and stop putting up one "Finish the Sentence" game after another

THIS IS COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS! HOW DARE YOU INSULT MY DEBATES!!! I HAD 6+ DEBATES ALL FOLLOWING "THE USSR PLAYED A MORE IMPORTANT ROLE IN DEFEATING GERMANY THAN THE WESTERN ALLIES DID" AND NOBODY SAID ANYTHING, WELL ALMOST NOBODY. YOU WILL APOLOGIZE AT Once!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There exists a letter, in the English Alphabet, more putrid than the letter 'A'.

But the proportion of e-words that are revolting, since there are so many more of words with 'e' in them, are only 'pee' out of all of them whereas my entire list will be a greater proportion of 'a' words. Thus, the proportion of words containing 'a' that are disgusting is greater than that of words containing 'e'.
should america take more extreme measures to win the war

I thank my friend to debate on such an intresting topic. Now according to my friend's word "to be clear, killing the guy who is shooting at you is NOT an extreme measure. killing that one guy with a sniper bullet to stop him from bombing a town, is NOT an extreme measure. being shot at and firing into a crowd of people whom have nothing to do with it, in an attempt to kill the guy shooting at you, IS an extreme measure. leveling a third of a city and killing 1000 civilians to get try to destroy the factory IS an extreme measure" So viewers i would like to ask a question from you all that if you'll see a highly rated criminal seeking behind 100 people, and if you didn't killed that highly rated criminal then may be tommorow, he'll be before a 1000 people then, what, will you again let him go. For example if we take an example that if Osama bin laden is seeking behind a thousand people and you have a sniper in your hand then would you not like to kill him because may be due to him you lost your loving ones, so at that time are you going to think about that 1000 or going to kill those 1000 to save 10000000 from being dead. The choice is yours. Other things i would like to share in next round i.e. i'll be back with Some more Strong points later so i wish a best of luck to my opponent. Because its just the beigning as this whole debate consist of 4 rounds so i would like to spend the information very dimly. thank you for reading.......