BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Grand theft auto 5 is better than any of the assassins creed games

It took rockstar games 5 years to make Grand theft auto 5, so many people have been waiting for a very long time, the results, a fantastic open world available for you to explore at your choosing time with a variety of things able For you to do. Making over 1 Billion dollars in the first 3 days. Though assassins creed is a well made game, after you beat the main mission, there is almost nothing to do, and if there is, it gets repetitive over time, with grand theft auto, it's not like that, it has many side missions that will keep you on your chair for hours.
SHOULD teenage girls be able to participate in any form of birth control without parents' permission

Hello, and welcome, good luck. First I would like to make note of the fact that God's opinion on birth control is completely assumed, and unless you can prove what he thinks that argument is useless. I also think that you need to look at the broad spectrum of birth control, not just pills and abortion, but other options, mainly condoms. Abstinence-only programs don't work, they never have and never will, so assuming that teens will stop having sex is foolish, it has been tried, and failed, and although I agree that underage sex is bad, it is a fact of life, and either you can allow condoms and stop some of the repercussions of teen sex, or not allow any birth control and give teenagers no option but to deal with the STDs and babies. Due to lack of a case from the CON I have no further arguments.
Should You Eat Noodles? (Important Topic)

It is true that there is food that is harmful. Whether it be noodles that are best put in our hair than our mouths, or McDonald's burgers that are best put in waste bins than our stomachs. But is it the case that all noodles, or burgers result in ill health? Are all noodles, or burgers made the same way? I currently live in China, where close to one fifth of the world's population consume noodles often on a daily basis, yet I don't see an epidemic of fevers or sickness, as you claim. What I do see are many healthy people who, according to statistics, live to very old age, with many of the world's oldest people amongst them. So living on some brands of noodles may indeed harm your health. But just like there is a lot more to chicken than just KFC, there is more to noodles than Pot Noodle. Don't judge a whole category of food by a small minority of pre-packaged goods.
Should You Eat Noodles? (Important Topic)

Noodles contain lots of Parabens, Synthetic colors, Fragrance, Phthalates, Triclosan, Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) / Sodium laureth sulfate (SLES), Formaldehyd, Toluene, etc. These are also chemicals included in shampoo. They are very harmful to eat. Some people add other chemicals so you don't get sick right after you eat, but you can get a high fever and sick after a month or so, if you eat it almost every week or every 3 days. I encourage you all not to eat noodles every 2, 3, 4, 5, days, or even every month.
Certain arcade games are gambling and should be banned.

Arcade Games Are Not Gambling Legal definition - A person engages in gambling if he stakes or risks something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance or a future contingent event not under his control or influence, upon an agreement or understanding that he or someone else will receive something of value in the event of a certain outcome. Gambling does not include bona fide business transactions valid under the law of contracts, such as the purchase or sale at a future date of securities or commodities, contracts of indemnity or guaranty and life, health or accident insurance. [1]The biggest part of this definition that arcade games do not meet is the fact that you have influence over the outcome of an arcade game. The stacker game, as much as you can say it is "rigged", is still under the control of the player to some degree. Since the outcome is under the influence of the player (no matter how small) then it is not gambling. Also, gambling does not include business transactions. Stacker, claw games and ticket grabbing games are considered arcade games called merchandisers. [2] Since these machines are considered arcade games they do not meet the legal definition of gambling. Gambling excludes business transactions and putting your quarter into a game machine counts as a legitimate business transaction. When you put your quarter into a claw machine you are paying for the service of entertainment via a game. You have knowingly placed your money into a legitimate machine for the service of the game it provides. This consitutes a legitmate business transaction since you are giving your money for a service. Therefore, based on the legal definition of gambling arcade games are not gambling and should not be banned. Freedom Children, who either have money of their own or under the supervision of their parents, should be able to spend their money in whichever way they wish as free Americans. Since arcade games are not gambling they should be permitted to stay and Americans should be able to choose to spend their money for entertainment if they so choose. [1] . http://definitions.uslegal.com...;[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Certain arcade games are gambling and should be banned.

Gambling: 1. a. To bet on an uncertain outcome, as of a contest. b. To play a game of chance for stakes. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Based on the definition above, I propose that certain arcade games are so close to gambling that children shouldn't be allowed to use them. For this reason, I propose that some (but not all) arcade games should be banned by law. Just one example of a game that should be banned is a game called Stacker.(1) Stacker is a big glass box with huge prizes (such as X-Boxes and iPods) hanging inside of it. The player, lured by the big prizes, tries to win the game by pressing the button at the right moment, stacking blocks on top of each other on a screen. If he makes it to the top of the screen, he wins that X-Box. The player plays again and again because he was so close last time, and he thinks that it's a game of skill. Unfortunately, he isn't aware that Stacker is actually a game of luck. The owner of the game can have it set so that only 1 in 800 players will win.(1) This isn't on average; the game will actually stop players from winning (unless they're the lucky 800th player) by skipping the top block.(4) Stacker is literally rigged.(2)(3) Because of its skill-based appearance, kids waste their money on it thinking they'll win this time. This is wrong, and is actually the same reason adults waste money gambling. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(game) (2) http://answers.yahoo.com... (3) http://www.extremeskins.com... (4) http://www.youtuberepeat.com... I also think that most ticket redemption games should be banned. Although I don't have a problem with games that are actually based on skill (such as skiball), most ticket redemption games are almost exactly like gambling, with the difference that players are trading money for a chance to win tickets to buy a prize (instead of winning more money). Many ticket games are directly related to slot machines, and have features like spinning wheels and "jackpots." It's obvious that winning one of these games would be out of luck, with no little to no skill involved. Games like these have kids trying again and again to win that jackpot. Some arcade games even go as far as offering a chance to win more tokens. Normally this would be illegal, but since the players are using tokens instead of actual currency, the arcade can get away with it. Some of these games are already illegal in some places. http://www.kmbc.com...
Certain arcade games are gambling and should be banned.

My dear opponent, it is not up to me to try and deduce what it is you meant when you typed your resolution but instead decide to debate the resolution presented. Your argument may have been presented in round one but that argument was made to back up the resolution.Influence:Again, look at the definition of gambling I posted above. "Although you have slight influence over the outcome" You have slight influence over the outcome meaning it's not gambling. Casino games are different, in roulette, craps, poker etc your at the mercy of a spin of the wheel or a turn of a card and have ZERO influence on the final outcome. If you have some semblence of influence over the outcome, according to the definition, it's not gambling.Now, you've been trying to say that arcade games resemble controllable slot machines and are using that as a basis to ban arcade games but lets look at it a different way. Perhaps slot machines have been unlawfully banned. The status of a slot machine or controllable casino game should not influence the status of an arcade game. Slot machines in many places are more legal than betting (on games). Perhaps slot machines are just a victim of an unfair interpreation of the law. There are some differences between games and slot machines the biggest being slot machines give out money as prizes when merchandisers do not. If Stacker is rigged that is not premise to ban arcade games of that nature but instead gives way to a lawsuit on false advertising against the company that made the game. One dishonest game does not give grounds to ban all such games. They are not all rigged. If it was intentionally rigged and advertised as such then it would be gambling but it sells its self as a controllable game and therefore is not gambling (but rather a dishonest business practice).According to the law, arcade games still can't be considered gambling. BusinessThis refers to the practice of betting: on sports games, card games etc. Placing a bet, not within the economy and normal means, on an outcome you can't control. Casino games do count as business but are counted as gambling for other reasons. This does not affect my argument. Rather, arcade games count as normal business and cannot be considered gambling on that premise. This still stands.You have not shown any evidence that these arcade games are addicting or affect kids negatively in anyway. You have merely uncovered a (widely known) scam in the mall games business but have given no grounds that show how these games should be banned. A lawsuit? Sure. Banned on the grounds of gambling? Certainly not. In the end, we see that arcade games still do not count as gambling under the law and therefore cannot be banned on the grounds of gambling.Thank you.
Certain arcade games are gambling and should be banned.

The Resolution:That sounds more like a loophole than a legitimate argument. I think you know well that what I meant was something more like this:If children can't gamble at casinos, certain arcade games should also count as gambling under the law, and therefore should be banned.The resolution was intended to be a summary. My actual argument was described in Round 1.Influence:You still don't have any control over the outcome. Once again, unless you're the 800th player, your chances of winning are absolutely zero.You can't say Wikipedia is an unreliable source when you used it yourself. And the Youtube video clearly shows the block skipping over. But since you don't like my sources, I'll talk about another game: All Abourd. I'll link to a video of it. All I'm doing is proving its existance here, so don't claim it's an unreliable source or something: http://www.youtuberepeat.com...Now, this game clearly resembles a slot machine if you remove its innocent train appearence. Although you have slight influence over the outcome (or perhaps not depending on if it's rigged), you also have some control with the casino version of this game.Speaking of the above, you still haven't addressed the fact that you have influence over the outcome in real gambling.Another game that should be removed is the Cyclone. If you've ever been in an arcade, you've probably seen it. It's that round table with a clear dome on it, with lights spinning inside. The goal is to hit the button at the right moment so that the light stops on the jackpot light, causing you to win a boatload of tickets. This article from World News claims it's rigged. Call it an unreliable source if you want, but rigged or not, I believe it should be considered gambling. http://wn.com...Business Transactions:My point is that it doesn't make sense for certain arcade games to count as business transactions, while gambling doesn't. They're the same thing according to the legal definition of gambling. Therefore, those arcade games should count as gambling.Freedom:Once again, if the government shouldn't tell kids what to do, they also shouldn't tell kids what to do concerning things like casinos and drugs. Gambling for kids isn't legal because someone didn't like the idea. The same could be done for some arcade games. I never said that all arcade games should be banned. I'm just saying that some arcade games go too far.The fact that these games are tolerated allows arcades to take advantage of kids by addicting them (at least temporarily) to the games. The chance to win a ticket jackpot or a game consol makes them waste as much money as they have trying to win, which as I already said, is wrong. They shouldn't be allowed to do that to kids who don't know any better. It's basically a gambling addiction on a smaller scale, and I personally experienced it myself when I was a little kid. In a few cases, this could possibly lead to gambling addictions later in life.
Certain arcade games are gambling and should be banned.

The ResolutionI want to start with my opponents last line:I notice that most of your arguments are based off the law. Since the point is that I want the law changed, your arguments aren't that solid. The Resolution: Certain arcade games are gambling and should be bannedIn the resolution you say that arcade games ARE gambling, I have proven that they are not. Therefore I was merely following the resolution. The resolution says nothing about changing the law but is based upon the assumption that arcade games are gambling. Since they are not gambling the second part of the resolution is therefore void because the SHOULD in the resolution is hingent upon the first part that arcade games ARE gambling when they are not. Therefore, my arguments are actually very solid since they completely dismantel the resolution. InfluenceStacker is still not considered gambling because you have control over the game itself. If you have control over the outcome in anyway at all then the game is not gambling. Also, your claim about Stacker is based on Wikipedia, Yahoo Answers, a forum post and a Youtube video. There are no official sources to back up what you're saying save for a few internet talking heads that have no credibility at all. I can go on and say Stacker is rigged because I didn't win but that doesn't make it true. Until we can see real evidence that the player has NO control over the game then it is not gambling. Business TransactionsYou concede the point by agreeing that arcade games are business transactions. This is a fact and therefore cannot be debated in premise but in opinion only. According to the resolution I must only prove that arcade games are not gambling. Since arcade games bust both of the guidelines that constitute a machine as gambling they are not gambling machines. Some slot machines could indeed be counted as legal merchandiser machines if they distributed tokens or tickets instead of real money. This falls within the law.FreedomMy point here is that you shouldn't limit the distribution of games for children based on the fact that you don't like the idea. That is not your call to make but in the judgement of those playing. The resolution you are trying to debate is: Arcade Games Should be Banned and the Gambling Laws Should be ChangedThis is not the resolution! To fulfil the resolution you must prove that arcade games are gambling and then convince us as why they should be banned after you have proven the first point.You still haven't established the first point of the resolution.Thank you.
Certain arcade games are gambling and should be banned.

This is my first debate by the way. Just so you know. Influence: I was basing my arguments off my definition, but according to your own definition, some arcade games such as Stacker are still gambling. Although the player has the control to stack the blocks on top of each other and make it to the last row, it is impossible to stack the top row unless you're the 800th (or whatever the game was set to) player. The game skips over the last block even if you press it at the right time. Because of the speed that the blocks are moving, the player won't notice this. The player has no control over winning the prize, even if it appears so. What makes this even more wrong is that the average player doesn't know this. Also, at casinos, you often do have some influence on the outcome. It's possible to play well at games like blackjack. It takes some luck combined with skill. Business transactions: The fact that arcade games count as a business transactions is basically what I'm fighting against. If it wasn't for the current rules, a slot machine could just as easily be considered a merchandiser for the entertainment of putting money in, watching what happens, and possibly winning more money. Many adults do find gambling to be fun, so it can be considered buying entertainment. Freedom: First of all, a child's money is technically in control of their parents, but this isn't very relevant. Second, if you base your argument off this, you could just as easily say that since kids should be free to use their money how they want, gambling under 21 should be legalized so that kids can use their money in that way. I notice that most of your arguments are based off the law. Since the point is that I want the law changed, your arguments aren't that solid.
Strongest Mortal Kombat Character

It is true that Ermac dies before Kenshi, it does not mean that Kenshi is stronger. The battle is called Armageddon; it literally means "the last and completely destructive battle". http://dictionary.reference.com.... So, pretty much everyone dies except for Blaze and this is inevitable. Part of the message behind the canon timeline is to portray the existential flaws within combat itself. Even the boss-types are defeated with ease so it is an invaluable argument to assume that Ermac's death was a testament to his strength, or lack thereof. So it doesn't matter how or when they died, the fact is they died. After reviewing the video, it is shown that Kenshi was no hero.I apologize for not clarifying this earlier but as a Shokan, Sheeva would qualify as a boss-type as Kintaro and Goro do. Instead, Kenshi took a cheap shot at Sheeva while she was being attacked by two opponents, thus leaving her open. In the end, Kenshi was defeated by Quan Chi, who is also a master of the sword. So, if your argument was correct and Kenshi was the strongest, his "legendary" sword ability should have carried him to victory. However, he is defeated by a simple blow that he literally DIDN'T SEE COMING (lol). Afterwards, Shang Tsung's shapeshifting into Ermac only shows how powerful Ermac is in comparison. If Ermac's power could be used to defeat an opponent that could defeat Kenshi, then Kenshi's power is left behind two characters now. The order being Ermac, Quan Chi, and THEN Kenshi. Continuing onto the canon timeline itself, one can see that Ermac's role within it is significantly more pivotal. Ermac not only entered the Mortal Kombat tournament much earlier, but he did in fact train Kenshi. After Kenshi helped Ermac escape Shao Khan's control, Ermac trained him to further his combat skills in telekinesis. Also, Kenshi's ability to re-adjust to his senses took him over 10 years while Ermac's senses have never been impaired. It can also be seen that, in the canon, Ermac is killed by Sonya and Jax however, these are two powerful characters in Mortal Kombat and he would have won if it were fair. However, Kenshi was defeated by a lone opponent who is rather unsung, the opponent being Mavado. All this can be seen on their character bio pages; http://mortalkombat.wikia.com... http://mortalkombat.wikia.com...
Strongest Mortal Kombat Character

If you strongly believe that Ermac is better than Kenshi, then why did you die in the battle of Armageddon earlier than Kenshi and it I guess it doesn't matter if he died first, it"s the way he failed. As Ermac and Nightwolf tried to knock off Sheva off the pyramid, all what Sheva did was stop them by choking them. You couldn't even use your powers to stop her, she was much too strong for you. Then Kenshi had to be the hero of the day and kill Sheva by using his Legendary sword on Sheva, and even if you didn't die from her, you left your own comrade to die. Kenshi died saving you after Sheva died and Quan Chi came out of the blue and killed Kenshi and I thought that Ermac would have saved him but it was Shang Tsung in disguise and finish Kenshi. Kenshi died an honorable death, as for Ermac, what else can I say but he wasn"t strong enough. And if you are thinking that he wasn"t trying his best, that"s a lie, for starters this was the battle of Armageddon, all the fighters had to fight their best so that they would be the most powerful. That"s the link to the battle of Armageddon. And yes, we are talking about the canon timeline, since the new game doesn't really count.
Strongest Mortal Kombat Character

Despite his sword leading him, Kenshi is still unable to see. Ermac also possesses a weapon, a great axe that also has the power of all the fallen warriors within it. And while it is true that Kenshi freed Ermac from Shao Khan's control, it does not necessarily mean he is more powerful. Instead, this is an insight to Kenshi's exceeded power in the realm of spiritual control as opposed to Ermac's inner conflicts between souls. After Kenshi freed him, Ermac was able to achieve this same state of tranquility while maintaining his higher power. Kenshi's actions do not actually free or attack Ermac, they instead attack the sorcery and interpersonal conflicts within him. Essentially, Kenshi has a stronger spirit. At first. But after his freedom, Ermac still wins this one.
Strongest Mortal Kombat Character

Although Kenshi is a powerful character, he is not the strongest in Mortal Kombat. Kenshi's character has two inherent flaws, the first being that he is a single entity and the second being that he is blind. As an alternative, I propose the notion that Ermac is the strongest character in the Mortal Kombat series. This claim is, of course, apart from the boss-type characters, Shao Khan, Shang Tsung, Moloch, Blaze, Goro, and Kintaro. Kenshi's weaknesses parallel Ermac's strengths. They are similar in the sense that they possess telekinetic powers however, Ermac's power greatly exceeds Kenshi's. Ermac was created by Shao Khan's sorcerers as the ultimate champion. He holds the powers of all the greatest fallen warriors in Mortal Kombat lore. Essentially, Ermac is all of the strongest past Mortal Kombat characters combined. A reason as to why Kenshi is not the strongest is that he is blind. Despite excelling in all other senses, Kenshi lacks sight. Sight is a key component to combat. Without seeing, you cannot hit. Kenshi's power is too insignificant in comparison to Ermac's and the fact that he is blind only further disadvantages him. Therefore, as the negation I argue that Kenshi is not the most powerful character in Mortal Kombat and that, apart from the boss-types, Ermac is in fact the most powerful.