BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There should be a Pikmin movie.

Final arguments and conclusion1. That is quite the mundane story. Pro states that Pikmin will have compelling story for making a movie. I must sadly inform you that according to the majority of my peers, and according to rotten tomatoes, you're dead wrong. I mean, Laura Croft has an ICONIC storyline with compelling and more believeable charechters! But it still FAILED in the view of Rotten Tomatos. That was the best one! The reason why is that aside from taking away immersion and making you feel part of the action (already an importat part of video game success), but it also uses the SAME story that games use half the time. I would hate to see a Pikmin movie in this respect in the knowledge that the story IS simple. According to Pro, The first game is helping a random guy get back home to his planet. Next game, fighting a financial crisis and trying not to starve. AND yet Pro calls this a stand-up story? The producers would make more money turning Pikmin into an early childhood learning program.2. How other movies affect new ones. .. Again, as I and MatPat CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH is the fact that EVERY single video game movie TO DATE was always flop after flop after flop, even if the game is iconic. History tends to repeat itself in the world of entertainment, despite Pro obviously neglecting said fact. I mean, why would producers even ATTEMPT to make a video game movie when they see the flops of the past? They probably would not if they cared much about their finances. In conclusion, we must all have a look back on history. See how incredibly Pro's idea has worked for so many years? I don't. As a matter of fact, MANY people I know state that movies even TARNISH the reputation of the respective video games.
There should be a Pikmin movie.

Here's my counter rebuttal: 1. Not that good of a story? My opponent appears to be oversimplifying the plotline of the Pikmin series. I quote: "guy crashes on planet, has to rebuild ship, natives help, he flies off again. The end." However, that's only the first game. The storyline goes far beyond just Pikmin 1: "Olimar finally reaches his home planet, Hocotate. But, terror seizes him as Hocotate Freight has gone bankrupt! The president of Hocotate Freight tells him the frightening story of the Golden Pikpik Carrots (a valuable food on the planet) was eaten by a terrifying Space Bunny that Louie encountered when importing them (forgot where, though)! (The "Space Bunny" was actually Louie. He's greedy, especially if it's food.) So Olimar and Louie must go back to the Distant Planet to repay the 10,000 Pokos to save Hocotate Freight! Meanwhile, on a little planet, known as Koppai... Everyone is short on food supply! So they needed to send space shuttles to search for edible matter, albeit no results... When hope seemed lost, there was one shuttle that had found food!" I could go on, but hopefully you get my point. It has potential. The movie would still be good, even if it appeals mainly to children (and Pikmin fans). 2. So what if other movies are bad? Just because many movies based off of video games are bad, that doesn't mean a Pikmin movie must also be bad. Nintendo released some animated Pikmin shorts for the Wii U, and I've seen clips of those, and they were good. Why not add some of those into the movie as well?
There should be a Pikmin movie.

Rebuttal 1. You say it will still be a good movie. But look at the rotten tomatoes reviews for EVERY SINGLE GAME MOVIE! Highest ever is Laura Croft Tomb Raiders with 44%, which according to standardized tests would already be a big fat F. Most are considered the worst movies EVER, only recieving 1% approval rating! The huge reason for this is not just because the player involvementis taken away. According to a survey I conducted around my campus, 95% rejected a Pikmin movie, and their reason: "It is an already beaten dry idea that has been splattered all over the internet. I love the games, but look at the past failed attempts. Save the game's reputation, please!" Quote from leader of school robotics team. 2. Lack of compelling story cannot hide behind glorious graphics. Literally, as MatPat would say, The story is nothing but guy crashes on planet, has to rebuild ship, natives help, he flies off again. The end. What kind of story can be made from such a simple game? If you are tying to appeal to very young childeren, then this might be a good animated short. But a movie on such a lackluster plot? Just no, don't even ask.
There should be a Pikmin movie.

Ah, MatPat. Nice to go to your channel again (I've watched this video before.). Anyways, on to my rebuttal: 1. Still a good movie. Sure a movie isn't AS GOOD as a video game, but that doesn't automatically make all video game movies terrible in general. To say any movie is bad is to say the Ratchet and Clank movie coming out in 2016 will be bad, which is wrong, looking at the trailer, which brings me to my next point. 2. Super Live Action Bros the movie. To translate, "Live Action Movies vs an Animation". Most video game based movies were made with real actors. Let's take, well, the Super Mario Bros movie. That was made almost entirely with real actors (mainly "Toad", at the beginning-ish). A live actor "Toad" or the Toad from the video games... video game Toad would bring back fond memories. Same with Pikmin! The movie will be animated, unlike most of the movies that were made. Then again, Pikmin wouldn't exactly be possible without making it an animation but... yeah. BoP is on Con to prove why a Pikmin movie would be (almost) as terrible as Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, or worse.
There should be a Pikmin movie.

https://youtu.be... Let me make it loud and clear. Video game movies are TERRIBLE! Here is the arguments against them: 1. They cannot capture the immersion video games allow. in video games, unlike in books or movies, you have he power of choice, to do it your own way. Converting video games back into movies takes immersion points away, as the viewers do not feel as part of the world the way players in video games do. Films just have you watch pre determined events, where as there is no beaten path of how a story goes in video games. 2. Players have a greater sense of control in a video game world than they have in a movie. Going off of my previous argument, movies have a beaten path in which the charechters must act, such as in a war movie, actors like just shooting important targets. In video games, you have the choice of not just destroying key targets, but you can destroy most everything if you are one of those people who like to blow stuff up. Converting games to movies takes this freedom from viewers, once again taking power from them, and as if they are not important.
There should be a Pikmin movie.

Allow me to make a few points: 1: Many video games had movies. Quite a few movies have come out that were inspired by video games. Mortal Kombat had a few movies. But most of said movies, that were from video games, have real actors. Movies like Super Mario Bros. were mainly real actors pretending to be Mario, Luigi, "Toad". (I don't know that many movies off the top of my head) A movie like that wouldn't bring back (most of) the same feelings as the video game. But an animated movie would capture the worlds we know and love. There's a Ratchet and Clank movie coming out in 2016, and it looks good. A Pikmin movie would be animated (obviously), and with similar graphics to the animated Pikmin shorts you can download on the Wii U. 2: A story idea. The movie will be a mix of all 3 Pikmin games. First, Olimar crashes on the Distant Planet. He would then discover a red leaf pikmin (which will be referencing Steve from Chuggaaconroy's Pikmin series throughout the movie). And eventually he'd discover the other 2 color pikmin (Yellow and Blue), and fix his ship. When Olimar returns to his home planet (Hocotate), he discovers that Hocotate has gone bankrupt (Now in Pikmin 2). And him and Louie would get treasure from the Distant Planet to pay off the loan, while also encountering the White and Purple Pikmin. After Olimar and Louie gain enough Pokos (Hocotate's currency), they go back to Hocotate... but, like in the game, Louie gets left behind! Now Olimar (along with the President of Hocotate Freight) find the Dream Den, the final cave in Pikmin 2, and fight the Titan Dweevil, 'rescuing' Louie (Louie was controlling the Titan Dweevil, as the game hints. Louie is secretly evil.). Now, Pikmin 3 takes place. Let's hear Con's side of the debate. (BoP is shared, mind you.)
There should be a Pikmin movie.

A few definitions, in case you have no idea what a "Pikmin" is. Pikmin: 1) A real time strategy game trilogy made by Nintendo where you have little creatures (see next definition) do tasks. 2) a "pikmin" is also a creature which is a sentient plant with a leaf on it's head, which can grow into a bud, then a flower. (Can drink nectar to instantly go into it's flower stage) Pikmin can also be used to carry things back to base. Distant Planet: The main setting of the Pikmin games. It's based off of Earth and is after the extinction of humans. Also known in Pikmin 3 as "PNF-404". If anyone thinks a Pikmin movie isn't a good idea, enter this debate.
Ecstasy should be downgraded to a class B drug

I have only 3 minutes to do this so it will looked rushed as it is. My dearest sorrow is regarded. I'd like to say that changing Ecstasy to a class B dug does in no way benefit society as a whole. It makes the drug appear to be more usable and more safe, when in fact it is not. Brown University says the drug "Is completely dangerous in all aspects of the known research on the drug... Especially in teenagers, the most common users." The drug is dangerous and should not be changed to a class B. It says in the ranks of LSD and Meth and in way should be lower. It is man made and thus open to many errors on the street, causes more drug sorruption in society, and changing it does no benefits. Sorry I'm out of time. Thankyou. If you value society you will vote Neg, thankyou.
Ecstasy should be downgraded to a class B drug

For my final argument I would just like to shortly summarise and reinforce my case. Ecstasy should without a doubt be lowered to a class B drug, the purpose of the classification system is to punish offenders appropriately and raise awareness on the dangers of different drugs. By refusing to drop the classification system we are misinforming the public on the harm of ecstasy, the classification system is also used in the knowledge that there will always be many drug offenders, and by correctly classifying drugs we can steer as many people away from the major drugs such as heroin whom me and my opponent both agree is a far worse drug than ecstasy. Ecstasy maybe a chemical drug not a natural drug, but due to the location and process of manufacture, 80% of the worlds MDMA is made in Belgium and the Netherlands, in surprisingly clean and sterile clandestine laboratories, MDMA is universally very pure, unless it is in a pill form in which case it may of been harmfully adulterated. However this is a debate about the drug ecstasy and not the adulterated chemicals that accompany it in the pill form. It is the adulteration which makes many drugs especially harmful, and since in proportion to other drugs on the market it is generally pure, it is far safer. I would just like to Finnish my debate pointing out that the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, did recently take a vote on weather to advise the government to change the classification of the drug. Although it was not unanimous, it was decided in favour of this. It was subsequently dismissed by the home secretary, a woman of absolutely no authority on drug use or its science. So the science does add up even if the drug is relatively unknown we cannot make laws on what we might know in the future but what we know now. The leading authorities believe the drug should be a class B, perhaps we should let them do their jobs, and listen to them. Thank you to my opponent for debating me and best of luck in the voting period! Cheers
Ecstasy should be downgraded to a class B drug

I would in this stage of the debate just like to outline some flaws in my opponents argument. Firstly concerning popularity my opponent said that there is a staggering increase in popularity, but then my opponent said its still not well known. I would just like to point out that he was very right about it being increasing in popularity, but not well known? since when is the the post popular clubbing drug in the world not well known, Trust me I've been to Ibiza. Ecstasy is huge, allot more people take it than other class A drugs. Yet the death rates are still far lower than its fellow class A drugs. LSD is considered a class A drug for reasons other than Death rates, its a class A drug because of the potential harm you can cause to yourself and others while under the influence. People on ecstasy are not harmful to others, trust me, in fact your a far nicer person! Another thing I would like to point out is how you call ecstasy a rape drug. I think you have ecstasy confused with Rohypnol, which is considered the date rape drug of choice, not ecstasy, in fact ecstasy is not even on the date rape drug list. And the drug that is most frequently implicated in substance assisted sexual assault is, well, our old friend alcohol. http://en.wikipedia.org... And I thank my opponent for outlining that Oklahoma charges ecstasy possession on the same level as manslaughter, But keep in mind that Oklahoma also has the death penalty, which says more about the states barbaric penalties rather than the danger of ecstasy.
Ecstasy should be downgraded to a class B drug

Well the fact that this is continental is a bit of a factor, but I accept the UK statistics proposed. Using the same data, I'd like to say that LSD, which is also a class A drug, the deaths are very similar. LSD would never be considered to be taken off, despite its lack of deaths if you will. So using that for ecstasy is irrelivant. Besides another reason it's a higher level drug is the rape factor. No other drug can be used for rape quite like ecstasy. There are thousands of stories of woman getting a ecstasy pill slipped into their drink and then being raped. They wouldn't techinally go on the death factor, but they are a victim of the drug non-the-less. Anyways, there is no other drug that can be used (at least on such a higher scale) of affecting individuals that chose NOT to take the drug. Ecstasy has a powerful toll on both body and mind, it is dangerous especially to those not knowing what they are doing and you can easily overdose on your first time. It affects others as well as the user. While it is not the identical twin of heroine (I believe which should be on like an "s" level), ectasy still rivils that of LSD and close to that of meth and cocaine. The only problem is that is still is a relitively new drug, with a staggering increase in popularity, so therefore there can't be the "drug lords" and all the excessive deaths as compared to others because it is not as well known and especially around the drug community. Also, in the U.S in the state of Oklahoma (my state), they actually charge you with one account of man slaughter for every one ecstasy pill you have. So the charge here is much more sever.
Ecstasy should be downgraded to a class B drug

A class A drug is considered the most harmful category of illegal drug it can carry a seven year prison sentence and an unlimited fine for possession and a life prison sentence for dealing. A class B drug is a drug whose effects on the body and society are considered very harmful but not as harmful as class A drugs, possession is five years, unlimited fine. Dealing is 14 years. . http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk... Now I completely agree with my opponent on how harmful ecstasy can be, and yes I have also spent many a restless day nursing a hideous comedown and cursing the day I was born, and though I have no friends whom have been seriously harmed by the drug I am aware on how badly it can permanently affect the brain. But the question is, is it as harmful as the other drugs in its category, and the answer without a doubt is no. The active chemical in ecstasy is MDMA, the deaths per year diagnosed as MDMA being the sole drug responsible for the death is averaged between 10-17 per year (UK statistics) where the deaths for cocaine are 243 and heroin around 876. As you can see ecstasy is no way in the same league as the other players in the A-class group. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... Infact if you would look at this interesting graph . http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk... you will see that not only is ecstasy considered far less harmful than heroin or cocaine, its also considered less harmful than alcohol and tobacco which as I'm sure everyone knows are legal. The point of the drug classification scheme is to create awareness of the different types of drugs and the different dangers they pose, as well as punishing abusers in proportion to harmfulness of the drug. Ecstasy is dangerous, it does kill, but should a drug that is classified as less harmful then alcohol have a life sentence attached to it? I don't think so.
Ecstasy should be downgraded to a class B drug

As a previous ecstasy user, I can safely say that ecstasy should in no way be changed or legalized. How its popularity has grown among pot-users is amazingly significant and with that comes the false appearance it is not as bad as it actually is. Now, I will not lie, personally I will say ecstacy is one awesome drug, it is fun and I have a great time on it. However it plays an enormous toll on the body as shown by "the day after" where you feel like dying, like a zombie. This is because your body is depleted of all the cells that make you feel good because ecstasy made you use too many and that caused your body to have a lot less as well as a lot dead. Anyways, while it's 'fun', that doesn't make it safe or healthy. Tell one benefit ecstasy can produce to society, just one. It has NONE. It does not benefit society, it only harms it through volience and breaking key laws to get this great substance, especially taken the addiction that comes from this drug. It was hard for me to quit, and I've quit things like alcohol, cigerates, and I even stopped meth. I thought ecstasy was the hardest, yes even harder than meth. This can cause to widespread theft and panic, most of society only enjoying the high then begging for the next. That harms society, and thus cannot be legalized. As for health, everyone knows about the 'holes in the brain' ecstasy causes. My best friend Kc 'rolled' (did XTC) for a week straight. He is know illiterate and has massive holes in his brain. How can something so harmful be lowered on the drug scale? How can something with such addiction be lowered? How can something so harmful to society be lowered? Anyone who has done this drug can verify it is powerful, so why lower it? Thankyou.
Asians Are Nerdy

Okay, throughtout the entire fourth round, my opponent has just basically given only statistics proving the percentage of Asians in "nerdy" classes. I would just like to say again, what makes those AP classes nerdy? If you want to get ahead in high school and college which would enable you to get a better future, why is that considered nerdy? I would consider that good planning, not nerdiness. Perhaps, is my opponent indirectly saying that those who push themselves harder, have higher grades and better classes are nerds? I would consider that an unfair accusation, even though, as my opponent puts it, being nerdy does not have to be a bad thing. I'm just pointing out that these people in the AP classes are not nessicarily nerds. It would be judging a book by its cover, if you assumed that any Asian you saw was nerdy. Referring back to your example in your previous round about the black man who was a criminal, would it be fair to look at any random black person on the streets and consider him/her a criminal? Looking at my opponent's statistics, all he has given are the percentage of Asians in that region, and their academic excellence. However, he has not provided any sort of evidence of relation between the two. So what if 40% of the population in that area is Asian and their schools are excellent? You could say the same thing about any other race too. There are no direct relations between the two. Furthermore, a school's excellence is not based on the Asian population only. If all the Asians in a school excelled in their learning environments but the others all failed or had low grades, the school would not be considered an "excellent" school. In the schools that my opponent has provided me statistics about, I can guarantee that they would not be considered "excellent" if only the Asian students excelled. Now, on to my own points. Asians are not nerdier than the rest of the US population. I would like to refer back to the list of stereotypes my opponent listed in Round 2. The second stereotype, which states that Asians have strict parents, is true. I would not like to deny this fact, but rather use it to prove why Asians are generally thought of as nerdy. The strict Asians parents want their children to have better futures, to have them study harder, make better grades and consequentlly get a better job in the future. Therefore, the majoritiy of Asian parents stress the importance of school and education. Asian kids are under their parent's rule stereotypically. Their parents are the driving force of their straight A's, superb SAT and ACT scores, AP classes, and their Ivy League college wants (referring back to the list my opponent made in R2). Generally, this is what causes them to be stereotyped as nerdy, but they are not. It is their hard work ethics and good grades that make them what they are: smart, but not nerdy. Therefore the statement that "Asians are nerdy" is proved false.
Asians Are Nerdy

Okay, I will begin with your definition of "nerd" from dictionary.reference.com. So using your definition, anybody with an above average IQ is a nerd. However, since most of this debate is based on stereotypes and what people THINK, most people would classify a person with an above average IQ as smart, not nerdy. And as I stated in the previous argument, there is a difference between a smart person and a nerdy person. Typically, a nerd is thought of as a person who knows everything BUT doesn't necessarily have to get good grades. In some cases, like Napoleon Dynamite, the most stereotypical nerd in our world today, a nerd can be is a social outcast and very weird. A smart person would be thought of as just a person who has, as you put it, high IQ. And to the statement that Asians are nerdier than the general US population, it is not because that they're nerds that they get into better classes and what not. It is because of their work ethic, and pressure from their parents. While it may be true that Asians represent 40% of your AP physics class, is it right to call them nerds? They are working for the benefit of their future. Should the other 60% of the class also be classified as "nerds?" The answer would be no. And how is Asian representation in AP Physics classes or Ivy League Schools a sign of nerdiness? Should I say that the majoritiy of the people who attend these schools, which are white, are also nerds? No. There is a line between intelligence and nerdiness, and it would be good to differentiate between the two. With this, I oppose the statement that, "Asians are nerdy."