BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Feminism is ruining video games

While my opponent has listed several changes in which Feminism might have influenced video games, he has yet to A.) Affectively persuade me that they’ve ruined video games (singular or plural), B.) Prove that feminism is the direct root of the change he mentioned, and C.) Provide sufficient evidence that suggests these games are worse because of their depiction of women. I, on the other hand, will suggest an instance where Feminism might have positively influenced games. The example that first comes to mind is the Dragon Age series, which depicts feminine characters in a much more positive light than games before it. 1.) The characterization of Cassandra is both somewhat masculinized, but does not suffer because of this. The depiction of Women in Power, especially in that of Inquisition, could be seen as a direct change because of Feminism. To argue that this is a negative aspect of the game would be somewhat ludicrous, being that it bears no influence with how the story is told. However, my second argument is not based on feminism’s influence on games; it’s actually based on its lack of influence. It is my contention that society’s changing viewpoints of sexualization and objectification caused a greater need to have female characters whom are portrayed as far more than sexual objects and damsels in distress. If one were to look at films, television series, and games throughout the past few decades, female characters have undergone a very specific evolution in attempts to battle the Male Gaze. Because of this, it is only natural that a video game will mirror the rest of society’s thoughts. Lastly, my final rebuttal deals with a specific point made by my opponent. In regards to a sexualized character in Metal Gear Solid 5, my opponent stated, “There was a big controversy over Metal Gear Solid 5 because one of the females had a typical athletic but sexualized body. So what is a developer suppose to do, make a woman fat? Well they did with Fat Princess and that got heat for depicting woman as fat, even though there are plenty of comedic fat male characters.” My opponent erroneously thought the complaints were directed at the woman’s body, whereas they were actually directed at the woman’s clothing. Here is an image of the woman: This is clearly sexualization, if not objectification. My opponant assumes feminists had a problem with her body, but it is my conjecture that they were more disappointed with the clothing depcition of this woman. If the woman had been more naturally dressed, the issue would be far less severe. That's it for now. I look forward to my opponents arguments!
Feminism is ruining video games

Don't know why but it is saying my original argument has profanity in it and I cant post, but it doesn't. So here is the short version of what I originally thought. Games that are well established have their story drastically changed just to pander to feminist women who want a female dominated world where a women can't be looked as a sex object, have no flaws, and can be physically and mentally stronger than a man. Basically a perfect world for women. Examples include Mortal Kombat X where the female new comer saves the day, despite the long running more experienced male characters being the heroes. In Dragon Crown the female fighters were over sexualized, even though that was the choice of the artist and those characters were strong willed and not depicted as promiscuous There was a big controversy over Metal Gear Solid 5 because one of the females had a typical athletic but sexualixed body. So what is a developer suppose to do, make a woman fat? Well they did with Fat Princess and that got heat for depicting woman as fat, even though there are plenty of comedic fat male characters. I am all for characters that are strong willed and it is viable. Metriod, Skull Girls, Zelda just to name a few. But it has to make sense, and not just pandering to the lowest common denominator. What I am saying is feminist will always find something to complain about, and will never be happy, even with their own arguments.
Feminism is ruining video games

Dearest apologies to my opponent for my forfeiture. It being Christmas time, I was lazy in my checking this site. I quite simply forgot to post my previous argument. Voters, please factor this into your consideration for the debate. It was unprofessional and deserves to be penalized in the conduct section. Since this is the final round, I shall refrain from posting any new arguments and instead sum up why I deserve to win this debate. Throughout his arguments, my opponent has provided arguments based more on his own personal bias against changes made in certain video games he favors than on accredited data. He even goes as far as to admit this, saying “You say I am making assumptions without any hard data or articles to back it up. Well I don't plan on having to rely on a sited source because I don't need to. Some things are just felt and seen by people who have a love for the medium.” Because of this, my opponent has failed to prove his point. My opponent has yet to prove any changed came from feminism, therefore, he has yet to prove that feminism is ruing video games. And, to briefly restate my main argument, I’ve still yet to see what games have been ruined based on changes stemmed from feminism. The truth is that more people are finding that females are just as capable in hero roles. While this may negatively affect a few games that have strictly masculine lore connected to it, it is not ruining video games in their entirety. Therefore, I urge you to vote Con on this debate. Thanks to my opponent for a well argued, very engaging debate. Once again, I apologize for my forfeiture. Have a great holiday season, and a happy New Year!
Feminism is ruining video games

Well since this is the final round and I have no points from my opponent to counter I will say this. I am all for equality in all aspects of life. If you work hard for it, then you deserve it. As far as video game story lines are concerned, the same rules apply. You can be a female or a male protagonist and have whatever story you want. But the story you give the audience has to make sense of the context of the story. Don't just have a woman beat out all the men in the story line with no issues, dilemmas, or emotional struggle. Again I said context. If it is a game set in a cartoonish world where there is no real continuous story line (like Mario Games) then sure do what you like. But when you try to present a serious story line set in a fictional world parallel to our own, where we can dictate what is possible or not, then it is best to not pander just to do it. When you pander it degrades the material and gets unnecessary attention.
Feminism is ruining video games

I understand where your coming from. You say I am making assumptions without any hard data or articles to back it up. Well I don't plan on having to rely on a sited source because I don't need to. Some things are just felt and seen by people who have a love for the medium. Before getting to my Mortal Kombat point I would like to re-mention a few games brought up in this argument. Fat Princess, Metal Gear Solid 5, and Dragon Crown are all games that in FACT was ridiculed by the media for their depiction of women. Now you may say it could have just been a group of women who had no relation to feminism, but come on now? We can safely assume that the only people who would go to the lengths of complaining about a woman character being too big, or not enough clothes, or too big of breast are feminist. Now back to Mortal Kombat. No I don't have any hard data on if the majority of the fans did not like the story for the reason of the main character being a female. BUT there are a lot of forum post from various sites, videos, and blogs, of people showing their disappointment in the story. The previous game in the series was highly reviewed, especially for its story. Then the next game came out, and gameplay wise it was good. But story wise it did not live up to the previous, with a disappointing ending. As gamers, comic fans, and nerds a like. We all know the feeling when you have your favorite series that you love. Then out of no where they make the new main character a girl, or they make a female have a clear advantage over a male character who should be stronger. Do we know the reason for a fact? Do we know if it was feminism influence on gaming, or was it a creative decision? We don't know? Loyal fans can tell when a certain aspect of the series is pandering to a certain sub group. The point I'm making is that feminism ruins our games with developers making changes in favor of the feminist party. Developers now have to be more conscious of feminist insecurities to not get bad press. More and more we see story lines and characters just being "phoned in" to have a female be more powerful than a male counterpart without any validity in the context of the game. Am I saying women can't be heroes? No. Am I saying they can't be powerful? No. All I am saying for the suspension of disbelief to work the character or the story line has to show all the strengths and weakness of characters (male or female), and not just give away important roles just to please a small fraction of gamers that are displeased either way you make your story.
Earth does not revolve around son.

== Title Tangle == Complete resolution for the debate is listed in R1. I have also explained the exact role of Pro and Con in the debate in R1. I will present a frame of reference with respect to which sun will rotate around the earth approximately every 24 hours. My opponent will proceed to show a flaw in my argument. Alternatively he may argue that such a frame is not 'logical' or 'reasonable'. I had to abridge the resolution for the title of the debate. Unfortunately I have messed up the resolution in the title. Once my opponent accepted the challenge, it is no longer possible to edit the debate and correct my mistake. Since Sidewalker agrees with me on our roles, I think it is better to continue this debate. Readers are requested to read the debate accordingly. == Sun rotates around earth == Consider a frame of reference which sticks to a fixed point on surface of earth. With respect to this frame, sun rotates around earth every ~24 hours. I do not expect any opposition from my esteemed opponent at this point; hence I see no reason to elaborate it further. I will come back to this if my opponent contests this issue. For the rest of the debate, I will call this frame as ‘Geo’ frame. We will call the frame which uses sun as reference as ‘Solar’ frame. == Anticipating Pro’s arguments == I expect my esteemed opponent to argue that geo frame is illogical or unreasonable. Let us discuss various types of motions with respect to geo frame. Motion of stars: From this frame motion of stars is pretty simple. They dominant motion is that all stars move around earth once every ~24 hours. Motion of planets: From geo frame, the motion of planets is a superimposition of a circular motion (~24 hours) and an elliptical motion of planets around sun (with time period equal to their respective orbits). If we want to study motion of planets and apply Newton’s law of gravitation, using solar frame would be more convenient. However that does not mean that geo frame is illogical or unreasonable. Sunrise and Sunset: Whenever we talk about sunrise or sunset, we are assuming geo frame. In fact if we use a solar frame, sun never rises and sun never sets. In this situation, geo frame appears to be more appropriate in this case. Terrestrial motion: For studying our motion on surface of earth, geo frame is better. In solar frame, even simple motion along straight line on surface of earth would look bizarre. Airplanes, ships, trains and all forms of transport systems rely on the geo frame. == Conclusion == From geo frame, sun revolves around earth. From solar frame earth revolves around sun (while spinning along its own axis). Both statements are logical and reasonable. The resolution is affirmed.
Earth does not revolve around son.

I would like to make two points in my acceptance post. I understand why the title of the debate was shortened, but it seems to me that it was shortened in a way that will make voting rather confusing because the subject of the debate and the title of the debate are somewhat inverted. I am arguing as Pro to the complete resolution that "There is no logical frame of reference from which you can reasonably argue that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours. ", but a voter would reasonably take from the title, that I am arguing pro to "Earth does not revolve around son. ", which is effectively the opposite of what I am arguing pro to. As this is my first debate, I do not know if at this point the title can be edited in order to make it less ambiguous and misleading, if not, let's just be sure to provide clear voting instructions at the end. The other point I would like to make has already been mentioned, which is that this is in fact my first debate. Consequently, I'm not particularly comfortable with the process or procedural requirements of a debate here, so I will simply do the best I can, reserve the right to ask my opponent for guidance when needed, and ask baggins in advance, to please forgive me if my inexperience translates into frustration because of clumsiness or mistakes in following the rules. The only other thing I will ask of my opponent is this, because it is my first time, please be gentle :)
Earth does not revolve around son.

== Resolution / Definitions ==Complete Resolution: There is no logical frame of reference from which you can reasonably argue that the sun revolves around the earth every 24 hours.Please note that the debate resolution has been abridged in the title since the complete resolution does not fit in that much space. However we are debating the complete resolutin.I will present a frame of reference with respect to which sun will rotate around the earth approximately every 24 hours. After this my opponent will proceed to show a flaw in my argument. Alternatively he may argue that such a frame is not 'logical' or 'reasonable'.Logical: [1] 1. Of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument2. Characterized by clear, sound reasoningReasonably: [2]1. In a fair and sensible way2. By fair or sensible standards of judgment; rightly or justifiablyThe words of resolution has been presented by my opponent in a forum [3]. I have used the definitons as they appear in a simple google search. In case my opponent disputes any of the terms, he should discuss them in the comments before accpeting the debate. Accpeting the debate amounts to accepting the above definitions.Please note: it is not my contention that sun rotates around earth as seen from any arbitrary frame. Neither I am arguing that my ananlysis is the best or most logical description of the situation. However I will argue that my description is also reasonable and logical, as defined by the terms above.First round is for acceptence. R2 and R3 for arguments. R4 is for conclusions. No new arguments may be introduced in last round.BOP is me to present a frame with respect to which sun revolves around earth. Con's role is to either argue that my arguments are wrong, or alternatively they are not 'logical' and 'reasonable'.== Reference ==[1] https://www.google.co.in...[2] https://www.google.co.in...;[3] http://www.debate.org...
Earth does not revolve around son.

Many thanks to Sidewalker for his arguments. My opponent tacitly concedes that sun revolves around earth from ‘geo’ frame. His only argument is that ‘geo’ frame is not logical. My opponent complains… …apparently Con’s contention is based solely on visual appearance but… No doubt that my arguments are based on visual appearance. And that is perfectly logical. For the purpose of this debate, my opponent has invented a dubious definition of ‘logical frame of reference’. To be logical, it must be convenient for my opponent to apply Newton’s law of gravitation and Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is more convenient to apply Newton’s law of gravitation and Einstein’s theory of relativity from solar frame. This does not make geo frame illogical. Just like solar frame is more convenient for some problems, geo frame is more convenient for other problems. If I have to go from home to office, geo frame is much more logical. 1. Motion of stars: I argued that motion of stars is pretty simple from geo frame. My opponent points out that the resulting motion violates theory of relativity. No doubt if my opponent wants to study theory of relativity, he should use solar frame. However if he wants to view stars using a telescope, geo frame is more convenient. In either case, both the frames are logical. 2. Motion of planets: I explained that motion of planets would be a superimposition of a faster circular motion (around earth) and a slower elliptical motion (around sun). My opponent finds the resulting motion complicated. Superimposition of simple motions can lead to motions which look complicated. However there is nothing illogical about it. 3. Sunrise / Sunset: Sunrise and sunset are defined with respect to geo frame. I presented it as a example where geo frame is more convenient. If geo frame is illogical, then sunrise and sunset must be illogical. 4. Terrestrial Motion: Pro has failed to realize the impact of my argument. I have pointed out that for some problems geo frame is better and for some problems solar frame is better. However both the frames are logical. My opponent creates a red herring about GPS systems ‘relying’ on solar frame. All the routes and directions pointed out by a GPS system are with respect to geo frame. Does my opponent wants to say that GPS systems do not use geo frame? == Conclusion == As I said in the last round; from geo frame, sun revolves around earth. From solar frame earth revolves around sun (while spinning along its own axis). Both statements are logical and reasonable.
The new testament is without contradiction.

Historically speaking Quirinius would have been running military campaigns during the reign of Herod. This excuse my opponent gives is complete nonsense. There are a few options to explain this. The most telling explanation is the fact that the word for Governor (hegemon) is a rather ambiguous term when referring to Rome and can include Prefect, Procurator, as well as Caesar himself. It essentially just means leader. [1] For instance, Pontius Pilate was referred to as the Governor of Judea during Jesus’ crucifixion, and we understand this to mean he was the Prefect of Judea. Since Governor is such a broad term Quirinius was “Governor” on many occasions with various levels of office. Also, he was likely a ruler charged with overseeing the census. Also, we could look at the Lapis Tiburtinus, it said that a certain Roman military official, whose name is missing, was in office twice. One view is that this was Quirinius and that at one point he was co-ruler along with Quinctilius Varus. Since it is ambiguous it is hard to tell for sure. [2] I prefer the former explanation as it applies whether or not the latter one is true. “He clearly is going through Joseph t get to David, which is it. Contention stands. ” Yes, as I explained that is because Joseph was Jesus’ LEGAL father. It was already know that Mary was also descended from David. If it was saying that he was Jesus’ biological father it would not have used the phrase “it was understood” which suggests that people knew Joseph as Jesus’ father when he wasn’t biologically. “That seems odd being you fulfill prophecy from prophets, but how exactly does one fulfill a law? ” The in this case was essentially a prophecy. The sacrificial laws of the old Testament were foreshadowing to Christ. When they sacrificed an animal it represented Christ. When Jesus, the Lamb of God, was crucified he was the ultimate sacrifice, therefore there was no more need for the old laws. “The prerequisites are heaven and earth will disappear and everything will be accomplished. " There a different phases to the fulfillment of the law. The crucifixion fulfilled the sacrificial laws of the old Testament. However, the ten Commandments still stand, these will be fulfilled “ when heaven and earth will disappear”. “While Luke and John are in the set of things that say it is false that his last words were , Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? ” Just because each account has him saying a different thing does not mean that they contradict. Jesus could have said all of that but each Gospel only recorded one of them. The mere fact that something is omitted does not prove it didn’t happen. Adding them all together would give you the full picture but the lack of a complete picture in one does not negate their validity. My opponent has failed to prove how these are actual contradictions. I will await his response in the next round. 1 . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2 . http://www.christianthinktank.com...
The new testament is without contradiction.

My opponent brings up contradictions of when Jesus was born. A widely accepted date of when Herod the Great died is 4 BC this is based on a lunar eclipse recorded around the same time according to Josephus. There was however a full lunar eclipse several years later, so 1 BC is an alternate possible date for his death. [1] As for the contradiction with Quirinius, there is evidence to suggest that he was Governor of Syria twice and that the 6 AD date was the beginning of his second reign. [2] “Lets take a look at both Luke and Matthew and how they both internally contradict themselves. Both Matthew and Luke have Jesus born of Mary who is a virgin. Which would make him not the blood of Joseph. Once you admit this, you can't then turn around and have him be the blood of Joseph, but when we look at both of their genealogies, we find that both take Jesus back to David through Joseph. Which makes him the blood of Joseph in order to get the Davidic Prophecy fulfilled, but if Mary was a virgin he was not the blood of Joseph. Yet another contradiction. ” That is not necessary a contradiction as Mary was herself a descendant of David. Since Joseph was the legal guardian of Jesus, and recognized as his father to the people around him, it established Joseph’s legitimacy. That is also why in Luke it says” [Jesus] was the son, it was, thought of Joseph. ” Meaning that legally he was his son. As for them conflicting, Matthew arranges them into groups of 14 while Luke gives a direct lineage. 3 My opponent claims that Matthew and Paul “disagreed” on the law. Matthew is quoting what Jesus said when Jesus said he would “fulfill the law” not “abolish the law”. That is the distinction. At the crucifixion and resurrection the law was fulfilled through Christ. Therefore, the Old Testament sacrificial laws had been fulfilled and that is what Paul meant when he talked about the law no longer being necessary. 1 . http://www.revneal.org... 2 . http://christianbookshelf.org... 3. . http://www.christianitytoday.com...