BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Guns DO kill people, as do knives, bombs and hands

The question here is where the intent lies. We must find where the intent to kill lies: in an object or the person using that object? Allow me to ask you this, Pro. Let's say I were to cook you a wonderful meal, some delicious steamed hams (or hamburgers, if you will). Suppose I forgot to cook the meat all the way through. We could agree that my failure to cook the meat properly was the cause of your food poisoning. Would you say that I intended to poison you? Of course not, as it was an accident. Would you say that the hamburger intended to poison you? Of course not. The hamburger cannot make choices, it cannot have intent, it is an object. Intent cannot be intrinsic to an object, rather, intent must be conveyed by the person using the object. In the same way, intent to kill cannot be conveyed by an object. In the case Pro cites, no intent to harm existed. While the cause of death is physical, the person who killed the individual was the person who accidentally dropped the firearm.
Guns DO kill people, as do knives, bombs and hands

The adage is "Guns do not kill people, people with guns kill people." Although the previously mentioned is a true statement, guns do indeed kill people, as do all other weapons, including hands. In fact there have been cases of people dropping guns and them killing someone, in this instance, even if someone originally was holding the gun, there was no intention nor malice in the dropping of the gun, and the person did not pull the trigger, therefore the gun killed someone. The person may be found culpable, but the gun itself is responsible for the death. http://www.kcci.com...
E3 Video Game Discussion (You Pick The Game To Talk About)

All good points you make. I really really want to make my ONLINE character unique from every other play. I want total creative freedom. Hair color, eye wear,tattoos, piercings, how much muscle/fat , how tall, how short. It would be great if they do what APB Reloaded did with making your own shirt designs. They should look at saints row 3 and 4 for notes. To be able to climb over fences, climb through windows, things that you would be able to do in real life. I dont want to yell at my character for not being able to jump to another ledge. Cool characters in the story line that you can hate and other that you love. I want to be emotionally attached to a character. Ubisoft is great at memorable characters this their far cry (Vass and the new one in FC4) About the the vehicles being upgraded. You could put a snow plow on a big truck, or put improvised spikes on the sides. Every vehicel should fit every player online. They should have vehicle spots like arma or battlefield. http://bloody-disgusting.com... The link to the thread talks about Characters, stealth, Equipment Upgrades, immersion, survival, and exploration that Far cry 3 did right and how Dead Island 2 can use to make their game greater. Bows for stealth kills, rocks for distractions, being immersed by healing yourself, limited fast travel and scavenging are key ingredients for this zombie game. It is strange that you say you don't care for online. Online is great for me, for I get lonely. I would like to see really powerful sniper rifle in the game so you can get long range headshots for fun, or save someone the is being attacked. Zooms of 4x 8x 15x 25x 50x and 100x (some people love to snipe, give them what they want). From arma, some weapons can be damaged went found, so variation on a guns condition then they are found should be randomized. I do not want guns to break overtime because that is ridiculous. I want bullets to be scarce and expensive from shops. Thermal optics, night time optics for zombies and seeing in the dark. (One can argue if dead bodies give off heat, but i see them breathing and making noises as zombies do, rapid warm gulps of california air into the lungs of a more or less dead body should give off heat) Also from arma, Dayz has airbases that have lots of military firearms. Dead Island can have one for the purpose and to have jets and vehicles if the army has not taken them. If the airbase is a safe zone, them it can be a market for the player. Maybe a status with the army. Steal something from them, you like you less. Do side quests for them, they like you, can get you discounts and or let you join their base and get access to humvees, helis, jets or whatever or steal one, and be tagged as a enemy. Also, a working trading system between online players.
E3 Video Game Discussion (You Pick The Game To Talk About)

First, I would like to say thank you for choosing to have a discussion. What I Have To Say About the Game: I think the first Dead Island lacked creativity and lacked serious consequences if you died or got bitten. Although, you play a person who is immune to the virus. The graphics should look amazing since we now have next gen (current gen now) consoles. I'd like to see the graphics that were shown in the CGI trailer as they could be possible with the technology in the PS4, Xbox One and PC. Weapons should be guns and melee weapons only. Kicking a zombie is fun as it is a little humorous. I'm looking forward to zombies that move in a realistic manner and zombies that could be potentially dangerous but that is determined by the person that was infected. I expect weak looking zombies to be weak and strong, muscely zombies to be strong. I expect to see decomposition in dead tissue in zombies to make them appear real.The map better be open world and HUGE like Los Santos in GTA V. I think the same thing on the soundtrack and weather as well. The readables would be a neat extra. I'd like to see a minimalistic HUD as well.I don't care for online.Vehicles would be cool if you could upgrade them to MOW over zombies.
E3 Video Game Discussion (You Pick The Game To Talk About)

Awesome. All of the games were amazing looking and I am super excited for them. I would like to talk about Dead Island 2. First game- I have played Dead Island, it was very fun, but felt lacking. I felt like there was not enough detail in mechanics, and the guns were underpowered (But the modded ones were awesome). The Dead Island had a boring, confusing, cry story with only one boss fight in the end. But enough about that. The only thing i have seen from the game is the CGI trailer and some devs talk about their game. Weapons- They say guns will act the way they should, and the game is more serious; which for me is something a zombie game should have (except the Dead Rising games). Swords of all kinds. They need to watch some deadliest warrior episodes. Real talk. Can't have enough guns either. Can't wait to kick zombies again. Graphics- What I would like to see in this new game, is of course 1080p with 60 fps which they say they are making it :) Zombies- I accoutaly want the zombies to be very dangerous! Maybe this can be in the core of the game, or just a difficulty you can unlock or something. Variations of zombies (But not really zombie classes) is needed! Each zombie should look like it has its own story, Bit marks on the neck or arms, ripped of arms or ears or burnt zombies (detail). Clothes should come in different colors, different conditions of the clothing and many different types of clothing. Yoga pants, cargo, jeans, swimming trunks, itsy bitsy, teeny weeny, yellow polka dot bikinis! This maybe be controversial, but maybe children.. they have been killed in movies, games should not be victimized with the double standard. (evil dead) Map- Large like Red dead redemption should suffice. No loading screens, and no indisable walls. Sound Track- I would also like a awesome soundtrack, like skyrim but new age? Weather- I would love to see dynamic weather. Rain, snow, veritable winds, the works. Readables- I would be great if you could read books like in skyrim? Lame? What if it was a zombie survival guide? They sell those nowadays. Maybe creepypastas or just short stories written by the screenwriters or something. Animals.. Infected animals of all kinds. Dogs, raccoons, deer. bears, etc. If Far cry 3 can do it, why not DI2...D13 looks like Die. cool lol they should use that next. HUD- I would like to see the HUD at a minimum like the new AC Unity, in my opinion, it looks cleaner but not that big of a deal. Online- Finding people to play online with a click of a button to find people to play with, and maybe make friends is great. They said they would do this. Not worried. Vehicles- Watch_dogs and Gta did great with vehicles like sports cars and jets/helis, boats, jet skis, bikes, motorcycles, and maybe a horse or horse carriage. The trucks in dead island 1 worked. I'd like to see what you have to say about the game. Thank you for the debate : }
E3 Video Game Discussion (You Pick The Game To Talk About)

So, what I want to do is discuss or converse about the following games listed below. You choose: we will discuss. No Man's Sky Elite: Dangerous Assassin's Creed: Unity Batman Arkham Knight Destiny Dead Island 2 Mass Effect 4 (Yes It Was Announced and My Pick for discussion lol) Mirrors Edge 2 Let the conversing begin!!!RULES:No SpammingNo TrollingNo BashingNo FanboysNo Console WarsNO HATEand Enjoy
E3 Video Game Discussion (You Pick The Game To Talk About)

Dead Island 2 looks promising and sounds promising and I think that Deep Silver has learned from their past experiences with Dead Island 1.. In the final cut of the game: I expect to see major improvements to UI, Zombie AI and game mechanics. The first game, I think, didn't fully use those properly. This is where Deep Silver can make a whole new Dead Island that doesn't take place in the first one's universe. Make Dead Island 2 a reboot and do it completely different. I want Deep Silver to make us proud and put us into an awe state. I am hoping they do it right this time.
The World Needs a One Child Policy

Great, we're almost done. I want to get this over with. We're not in that hot a stew. Nobody is going to implement a one child policy anytime soon, only when everything becomes insane. Then we'll worry about that. We have time, though, to try and stop something like that before it happens. We can educate people about the horrors of overpopulation. We can give sex ed classes. We can dole out birth control pills. We don't need a one child policy at the current moment and I don't think we will until at least 2100. Again, you compare us to China. But we're not China. And neither are most of the other 165 countries on the planet. Lots of countries AREN'T overpopulated. Have you seen Canada? Just miles and miles of Arctic tundra. They don't need to implement a one child policy. One Child Policies, again, should only be put forth when there's a serious problem. If a country is on the verge of becoming Mad Max, then they should enforce a one child policy. If not, people should get to have as many kids as they want. Keep in mind, judges, we aren't talking about abortion. This is something much more insane. And then you go on about how horrible China's one child policy was, and you point out its flaws. Please, stay on your own side. If you're all in favor of one child policies, don't go into how they create mental illness and sex trafficking. You're fighting yourself there. Do you even know how to debate? Yeah, then you talk about how Japan needs more kids than they have. Are you crazy or something? Why do you bring up arguments like this if you just decide that they suck in the end? You're probably going to lose, but I don't care, I'm done with the whole thing, One Child Policies suck, you care too much about polar bears, you want to execute parents who have more than one kid, you overestimate the dangers of overpopulation, and so on. Yadda yadda yadda. I'm outta here.
The World Needs a One Child Policy

So you say that there are better alternatives than killing off people. But even if we stabilize at 7.6 billion, the world is still overpopulated. Frankly, in my opinion, we should have a One Child Policy to limit population growth. The world population is projected to hit a whopping 7 billion by the end of this month, and researchers suggest it could reach 10 billion within the next century. On the one hand, this means we're a great success " after all, the goal of any species is to expand and conquer. But, on the other hand, all that expansion means more mouths to feed, which requires more space and energy, which increases the demand on resources and the environment, perhaps too large a demand for Earth to support. So Life's Little Mysteries asks: How can we curb this growth? Should there be a global one-child policy, like the one enforced in China? One child per family In 1979, in response to two decades of rapid population growth the Chinese government announced a policy that limited each family to just one child (although there are exceptions). The worry was that if growth continued at such a pace, it would be a crushing burden to both society and the economy. [How Many People Can the World Support?] In terms of limiting population growth, the policy was successful, cutting China's population by an estimated 250 million to 300 million people, according to Chinese authorities. But this success came with a price. Reports of forced abortion and sterilization abound. And, because of a preference for male children in China, sex-selective abortions have skewed the country's male-female birth ratio from the natural biological ratio of 105 to 100 to 121 to 100, resulting in millions more young men than women. Socially, the consequences range from mental health problems to kidnapping and trafficking women for marriage. Social questions aside, does a global one-child policy make sense? "I don't think that's a good idea, frankly," said John Bongaarts, vice president of the Population Council, a global nonprofit and NGO. "First of all, nobody's going to accept it. There's been a massive outcry over the one-child policy in China as coercive, and there's not a single person that I know that would support it. Plus, you don't really want the fertility to decline to one child per woman, because you end up in the same problems as Japan has now, and nobody wants that." Aging population The world's population may be growing, with an overall fertility of 2.5 births per woman, but it isn't increasing at an even rate worldwide. Fertility rates in Japan and throughout Europe, for example, are very low, at just 1.4 and 1.6 births per woman, respectively. In other regions, the rates are high, including Africa (4.7) and parts of Asia and Latin America. The U.S. is somewhere in the middle (2.1). That is why we need a One Child Policy.
The World Needs a One Child Policy

We ARE approaching ten billion, but there are alternatives to killing our offspring. We can invent new technologies that can help allow for the population boom. We can invent more reliable crops, better housing, or more efficient travel. We don't need to kill people to achieve that goal. You are one of those people who sit out on the street and hold a sign that says "The End Is Near". It's not near at all. We are not approaching an apocalypse, population isn't that big a deal, and we'll fix it once it does become a problem. So sit tight. You're also immature in how you don't understand exactly what it would mean if every country on Earth implemented a One Child Policy and you fail to recognize the results of such a severe and life changing action. People will not submit to your tyranny, they will overthrow you before you sign in to the White House on the first day. people should be able to have kids if they want to, and control it if they don't want to have kids. Not that hard. You're a sexist, because you imply that having potbellies or stretch marks is a bad thing. It's unattractive, but you shouldn't fall in love for looks, you misogynist pig. True, having one child saves time, money, and stress, but most families know how many kids they can and can't support. The world really is overpopulated. I think I'll give you an alternative solution. Instead of forcing the populace into mass suicide, how about you educate them about the dangers of overpopulation and see if they'll fix stuff on their own. Don't you have any faith in humanity? If you ruled the world with your warped ideals, would you be a just king? We're fine right now. But, let me tell you, if you implement a one child policy without the consent of the people, you are the equivalent of Hitler. can you imagine a world where parents are EXECUTED just because they have two kids? Are you going to set up concentration camps for all the parents and babies who disobey your selfish whims? Also, why do you compare HITLER to NERO? Nero wasn't as bad as Hitler. Use a better metaphor, OK? We're not gonna kill ourselves just so polar bears can live. I'm sure we can coexist in some way. You're mixing up Global Warming with Population. They're two different problems. related, yes, but this debate should be about Global Warming if you want. And why do you care about only polar bears? What's up with that? Again, very poorly thought out, no evidence, no well constructed plan, you oversimplify the lives of 7 billion people to what you want. You don't understand how the world works, there's only 3 rounds, the word limit is too short, and you think you're a genius or something. Just so I get some evidence points from the judges, here's a link to the world birth and death rate counter. People die about as much as they get born. A little less, but you get the drift. We won't hit a population crisis for another century or so. THEN we'll kill our offspring. http://worldbirthsanddeaths.com...
The World Needs a One Child Policy

Okay, so we last debated that we should reconstruct the 7 Wonders of the Ancient World. (excluding the Pyramids and the Statue of Zeus). Now we are here to debate over the One Child Policy. I believe that the world needs a one child policy. We are approaching 10 billion, and there must be some way to control population growth before a major famine or World War 3 erupts in the next 50 years or so. Apparently, it appears that no countries currently have the one child policy, but it would be much better for the environment if we do. For personal family reasons, the world needs a One Child Policy. Having only one child saves money, time, and stress; furthermore, the mother gets less stretch marks, potbellies, etc. as the result of pregnancy. But with family interests and advantages aside, the world is really overpopulated. With more people on the Earth, it is more likely that World War 3 or a famine might erupt. And what's more, we increase the likelihood of a Hitler, Nero, or Kim Jong-Un that terrorizes society. Due to a lack of resources and pollution, animals, such as polar bears, are dying out, and many animal species are becoming extinct. The best way is to strictly limit each household to one child. To enforce this law, let us make having a second child punishable by death. Also, count twins, triplets, etc. as a violation of the proposed One Child Policy. And furthermore, if you are not currently the oldest child in the family, you will be killed. The One Child Policy will last as long as necessary, until the world population is under control. Just like how while reconstructing the 7 ancient wonders will be difficult and costly, it will improve our cultural knowledge; similarly, implementing the One Child Policy will be difficult and costly, but on the other hand it will prevent overpopulation and save the environment before it is too late. There is only one round left, I suppose. I really want to see some convincing arguments coming from you.
The World Needs a One Child Policy

Ah, once more. A person who doesn't understand the way in which the world works. Here we go. One Child Policies are a violation of human rights and should be implemented only when no other options are available. You say that China implemented this policy, and it worked well. However, I'd like to remind you that we are not China, and we are not communist as they were back in 1979, and we are not suffering a population crisis of serious magnitude here in America. China only implemented their one child policy because they were on the verge of collapse. America is a first world country with a strong economy, and we do not need to take such serious measures. Countries should only have one child policies if the government and the people both agree that the population is getting out of hand. Having a certain number of children should not be mandatory unless you're actually about to starve. Countries should have One Child Policies when they need to, and stop them when they don't. They are a last measure. They are the extra parachute. They should not be used simply because we over exaggerate the dangers of overpopulation. Parents who want to have more than one child-and have the money to do so-will be outraged at this law, and they could potentially revolt. We are not going to kill our offspring just to "Save the Polar Bears". We have better ways of preventing birth, like, say, condoms, which are available at stores everywhere. Or an IUD. Or just plain abstinence, which makes the most sense of all. Better to never have kids than to kill them. And you say we should not only kill the babies of rulebreakers, but also parents who violate this law? You're crazy! That's frickin' murder! You could just give them, like a month in jail! Not KILL them! Are you sick in the head? Overall, you have not provided any real evidence as to why we should implement this, and you speak as if we live in a post apocalyptic hellhole. I think you might be the victim of media fear mongering. The world is not falling apart, but if we implement your dumb one child policy, there are going to be riots in the streets and things are going to be a heck of a lot worse.
The World Needs a One Child Policy

I believe that the world really needs a one child policy. The world is terribly overpopulated, and the environment is falling apart. The best way to curb overpopulation and save the world is to implement a strict one child policy for every couple. To clarify my rule, twins, etc. count as a violation of the One Child Policy. Furthermore, there should be harsher measures to kill people who break the One Child Policy. China had a One Child Policy from 1979 to 2015, and it reduced the population of China substantially. However, overseas adoptions and not using the One Child Policy on already born children has been as issue. As con, what do you think of the One Child Policy. I believe the world should enforce the One Child Policy, and kill off everyone who is not the oldest kid in the family and all twins, etc, in order to save the planet and save the polar bears. Once you accept my challenge, you will have 3 days to come up with a convincing argument to contradict me. Good luck!
Who would win? Silver(Sonic the Hedgehog), or Sans( Undertale)

Sans the skeleton is a skeleton(duh) with extroardinary abilities. He is the big brother of Papyrus the Skeleton. He is apparently the "time cop" of his world, patrolling(if you can call it that), looking for time anomalies to smash into a bloody pulp. His favorite activities include making bad puns, going to Grillby's, and dunking on people. Psycokinesis: like Silver, Sans seems to have the ability to levitate things in the air with a wave of his hand. This is evident in his boss battle, when he throws you around the room. Gaster Blasts: Huge, monster like heads that shoot plasma blasts out of their mouths. Can be summoned at will by Sans. Named after Sans's dad(or so the theories go), W.D.Gaster. Bone Spikes: Ability to summon spikes made of bone from any surface. Likes using combos that include throwing you to a wall, then spikes appear, impaling the victim. "Get Dunked On". Sans's most powerful ability. Sans lures you into a false sense of forming of truce, and when you go to shake his hand, WHAM! Walls of bones, impaling you at every direction. ) All of his abilities can be seen here: His only weakness seems to be that he is incredibly lazy. If he waits too long for something, he falls asleep. This is the only way you can defeat him in the boss fight. As you can see, Sans is a powerful individual, capable of shredding Silver into pieces.