BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is No Point of the Gaming Classification System

I'm talking about a shop that sells nothing but games, consoles, and gaming accessoriesEven so, it is not their jobs to have played all games. Their job is to sell products.If I wanted to get this "Johnny" a game, I'd see what he has and buy on that, if he has Disney games, I buy a Disney game, if he has Call of Duty, I buy Call of Duty, and vice versa.The Rating System does nothing to impede that.If there were no rating system, however, you have no idea what he is asking for. If you were in a store looking for a game, and he points out an unrated game, it could be Kiddie Fun Spin, or it could be Porn Simulator Wii.With the Ratings, you know what to expect._____________________________________Well, it's just telling a parent that this game "might have a little blood and some girls underwear," A.K.A MA-15+, don't buy this unless it's call of duty!"If the parent was puritanical, the blood might matter to them.The Rating System is helping!________________________Over here, R-18+ means by law you have to be 18 and over, and besides, my parents would be fine with it. I've played far worse with no side effects, and not even a R rating.If you ask them, you just might get it! If you can't, it is the parents' or the code's fault.
There is No Point of the Gaming Classification System

"You could ask the clerks, but it is not their jobs to know about game content." I'm not talking about Walmart or whatever, I'm talking about a shop that sells nothing but games, consoles, and gaming accessories. Besides, our Walmarts (Kmart, Big W, whatever.) suck when it comes to video games, and they always have the same overpriced stuff. "because Johnny did good on his report card, you decide to get him a game. With the ratings, you know which title is suitable for him with just a glance." If I wanted to get this "Johnny" a game, I'd see what he has and buy on that, if he has Disney games, I buy a Disney game, if he has Call of Duty, I buy Call of Duty, and vice versa. "The classification is just there so that parents have an easier life, Therefore, the system is not pointless." Well, it's just telling a parent that this game "might have a little blood and some girls underwear," A.K.A MA-15+, don't buy this unless it's call of duty!" Well, that's what I see. "Dude! You have $60 to buy a game with? Where'd you get it?! That is cool!" Uh, I have a code for it. Which I got from a Vlog competition. "But, seriously, if you are an adult, you can buy it anyways. And if you're not, ask your parents. If your parents say no, then it is certainly not the ratings' fault." Over here, R-18+ means by law you have to be 18 and over, and besides, my parents would be fine with it. I've played far worse with no side effects, and not even a R rating.
There is No Point of the Gaming Classification System

But you could ask the people that work at the shop, maybe research the game.You could ask the clerks, but it is not their jobs to know about game content. And what if you walk into wallmart, and, because Johnny did good on his report card, you decide to get him a game. With the ratings, you know which title is suitable for him with just a glance.The classification is just there so that parents have an easier life, Therefore, the system is not pointless.people like me. Who want to play something we want (PAYDAY 2), but we can't, because it contains "a level where you make drugs."Dude! You have $60 to buy a game with? Where'd you get it?! That is cool!But, seriously, if you are an adult, you can buy it anyways. And if you're not, ask your parents. If your parents say no, then it is certainly not the ratings' fault.
There is No Point of the Gaming Classification System

Look, inner me here, but why are we always putting GTA as the culprit? It just... Irritates me how GTA is supposedly "the cause of violence" when there are games worse and are more easy to access. Also, if you really, really want a porn sim, there's a Playboy game (I know this because I saw a copy at EB Games.) And also, by some luck, I own both Star Wars Battlefront 2 and Halo. And what I think of your cover verdict? Not a good pick. I mean, if you were a parent, then you would've at LEAST known Star Wars, and how it's kid friendly. So it's not going to be a violent choice. Halo, well, depends on the version. In Australia, certain Halo's are rated M (Our version of your M is MA-15+, while our M is most likely T or something) And Halo Wars was PG. So your point is not very well thought out. But yes, I do see your point with some covers, like Deadpool, it could be passed as a kid-friendly game. But you could ask the people that work at the shop, maybe research the game. The classification is just there so that parents have an easier life, and people like me. Who want to play something we want (PAYDAY 2), but we can't, because it contains "a level where you make drugs." That is true, I have heard of a level where you do that. But it's incorrect information most likely. who can make drugs from a game?! It's like violent video games make all the killers, if that was true, racing games would make great races, business sims would make great business people, and so on.
There is No Point of the Gaming Classification System

The gaming system helps parents know what content is in the game.For instance: Compare the covers of Star Wars Battlefront 2 and Halo.It is not intuitive which one is safe for 5-year-olds and which one isn't. But add an "M" rating and boom! Parents know that there might be graphic content in the game.Parents then decide, "Well, I guess he shouldn't play GTA 3!" or "He can handle GTA 3!".Without the rating system, though, they would have to play the game to know whether it was a "kids'" game or "Porn Simulater: the Game"! (Disclaimer: I just chose a random name that would convey my point; I do not know if there is actually a game like the one I mentioned.)
Gay Marriage

I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for her affirmation. Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I that Gay marriage should not be allowed from a moral standpoint Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define the words: marriage, explain the rights you would entitle gays (for example are you against giving the rights that come with marriage to gays or simply not for allowing them to use the word marriage. Those arguments are two completely different ones. Are you against it from a moral, religious or legal standpoint? Supporting Information - This is where you would include the scripture against it depending on what religion you are arguing from, if you are indeed arguing from a religious perspective. If you are arguing from a moral perspective you would include why you view gay marriage as wrong (using logical points) and include facts and research that proves that Gay marriage is immoral. If you are arguing from a legal perspective you would give precedents from case law, and explain why those court cases precedent should not logically be overturned. Thanks and good luck on the debate!
Gay Marriage

I greatly respect my opponent for conceding the thought that homosexual relationships are immoral as well as the ban the government has placed upon gay marriage. But, my opponent says "Therefore, logically, a civil marriage should be renamed a civil union. A civil union should be available to anyone regardless if they are homosexual or heterosexual. A Religious marriage should be called marriage." Currently, there are nine states that allow homosexuals the right to a civil union. These civil unions still do not allow homosexuals all of the legal rights as heterosexuals are given. Homosexuals are denied Social Security benefits, Immigration Rights, and the right to file jointly for Federal taxes. My opponent also says "Thus since society recognizes in large the word marriage as being a word to describe a religious ceremony, it should be considered as such and should not have any government interference. If a particular religion wants to allow homosexuals to participate in a religious ceremony it should be allowed to. If a particular religion wants to prohibit homosexuals from participating in a religious ceremony it should also be allowed to" With which upon I will agree, but the fact is that this has not happened. If gay marriage were to be legalized, and churches has the right to present homosexual couples with the sacrament of marriage, then they should have a choice. Some churches today still even turn away interracial couples for marriage. I do believe this is immoral and racist however. Many argue that the Bible frowns upon homosexuality, but not once is the term homosexual or gay mentioned in the bible. Matthew 22:37-40 states, "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." The passage states love thy neighbour as thyself, yet those that are religious obviously discriminate another based on sexual orientation. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 states "A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed"
Water Is Not Wet

Why Water is Wet: Within the definition of wet is “to consist of a liquid” This means if I can prove water consists of water I win the debate. My opponent argues that water consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen, not water, and that water therefore does not consist of water. Let’s look at this in a different context. 1. Water consists of Two Hydrogen and One Oxygen. 2. Two Hydrogen and One Oxygen is H20. 3. H20 is Water. 4. Water consists of H20. 5. Water consists of water. This can only work with things where the contents of it always make the thing they are contained in when combined. For example, this doesn’t work for humans, because water, cells, tissue, organs etc. when combined will not always make a human, nor are they equal to a human in any way. consist - to be made up or composed of. Water is composed of H20, and H20 is water, therefore Water consists of Water. “the definition of consist is not something used to define axioms (water is water therefore water consists of water is not the proper use of the word)” Like I argued, it depends on said context you are putting it in. The definition of consist can be used todefine an axion only if the things something consists of inherently is said thing. Two Hydrogen and One Oxygen is H20, which in turn is inherently water. It’s like math! Except with words! And I did the complex equation! Thank you for instigating this debate, it was entertaining.
Water Is Not Wet

Wet is an adjective. [1] If something simply "consists of water" it is not "wet" it is merely water. Water does not consist of water, water merely is water. consist - to be made up or composed (usually followed by of) This cake consists mainly of sugar, flour, andbutter. [2] The cake does not consist of cake. The cake consists of something else. In the same way water does not consist of water. Water is water. Other things such as soda, water balloons, mixtures can consist of water however water itself is not consisting of itself.That being said, since the definition of consist is not something used to define axioms (water is water therefore water consists of water is not the proper use of the word) water cannot consist of itself and therefore, does not fit the definition of wet because water cannot consist of itself. It is the wrong use of the word consist. Again to reiterate. I consist of water, cells, tissue, organs etc. I DO NOT CONSIST OF HUMAN. I am human but do not consist of human. Water consists of hydrogen and oxygen but it does not consist of water. Therefore, water is not wet because it does not consist of water.This debate is turning out to be the fun semantics spectacle I wanted it to be!Back to you.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Water Is Not Wet

Oh nuh, it would appear that my opponent made a fatal mistake. Let’s look at the definition of “wet” one more time shall we? Wet - consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (as water) Consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked with liquid (as water) Consisting of, containing, covered with, or soaked Consisting of Consisting of Consisting of Ehem. You see, water consists of water, therefore water is wet. My opponent really didn’t present his own arguments as much as he presented a possible contention to what he thought I was going to argue. You see, at no point do I plan on arguing that water is wet because water can be applied to an object, which is what my opponent was contending to. My argument is literally that because water consists of H20 (water), water is wet. Water consists of a liquid (water), and according to the definition of wet, anything that consists of a liquid is wet. I await my opponent’s response. Good luck! ;D
Water Is Not Wet

My opponent's definition of wet is perfectly fine.Wet is a condition, a state of being if you will, applied to an object. As the definition says it means to be soaked in liquid. If my shirt is covered in water, it is wet. If the street as rain water on it, it is wet. However, water cannot be wet. Water is the thing that makes things wet by covering it. The water itself is not wet as wet is the condition of being covered in water. Water cannot be covered in water as water is just water. Furthermore, water cannot be covered in any other liquid either as the liquids either separate or mix. But water itself cannot be wet. Water is simply the H2O, three atoms that make up a molecule. It cannot itself be wet. My opponent is clearly going to say that since water makes things wet it is wet but that is simply not true. Wetness only occurs when water encounters an object. It is a state of being applied to something else. If you just had water and no other objects in existence, water would not be wet as there would be nothing to be covered in said water and the water would just be perceived as water. All of that being said, water is not wet.
the earth could be flat

Reasons why the Earth could not be flatGlobal TravelThe Earth could not be flat, because if the Earth was flat there would have to be an edge/ boundary/ barrier of some sort. The standard flat Earth model includes a disc shaped Earth for example. If you were to start in the middle of the disc shaped Earth and keep going in one direction, you would eventually hit and edge of the Earth, or some type of boundary. This view is incompatible with reality, because of how many planes fly over all parts of the sky all the time. Basically, any flat Earth model is destined to fail due to the fact that wherever the hypothetical edge/ boundary is placed, a plane could fly over. My opponent mentions seeing something with his own eyes, well the very fact that you can take this trip yourself and see it with your own eyes is strong proof for a round Earth. Most people I have talked with who believe in a flat Earth, believe that edge/ boundary is in Antarctica. People travel to Antarctica all the time. My opponent may say that's just what I've been told by the airline records. How do I know it is true? Well, the very fact that I could book that flight today proves it to be true. Unless, of course, one believes that they haul you off and kill you/ jail you before you get to Antarctica, threaten your family to keep them quite, and forge records to show you actually went there just to people would not discover the edge of the Earth or something. However, this is so out of the realm of reality that it is hard to take serious. If you go this route, I have a defeater for it in my next round. Regardless, since human beings have flown over every inch of the Earth, came back around in a loop like they should if the Earth was spherical from wherever starting location, and never reported and edge of the Earth, shows there could not be an edge/ boundary of the Earth. The nail in the coffin, is the fact that you can book a flight to prove this to yourself today, you don't even need to take anybody's word for it. The MoonDuring lunar eclipses, the shadow of the Earth can be seen the moon. It is always round. However, because of the Earth's spin, there is no possible way the Earth could be a flat disc shape. This is because if it was, we would only see a consistent round shape of the Earth, if the eclipse was in one spot, every time. This is not the case. It does not matter where the eclipse is, the Earth was have a consistent round shape. This could only be true, if the Earth was spherical. Thus, the Earth is spherical. If the Earth is spherical, that means it cannot be flat. Therefore, the Earth cannot be flat. The resolution has been negated.
the earth could be flat

"My dad was in a boat one day and got lost. He turned around and thought he was going in the right direction. Little did he know, the edge of the earth was right there. He fell off. He is falling in space as we speak."This could not be true. People have gone around the world in boats all the time, proving a round Earth. For example, one man even travelled the world on a pedal boat with no motor [1]. It took him 13 years. He has pictures of his trip, recorded paths, and plenty of witnesses. Do you have any source to back up the claim that your Dad fell off the edge of the Earth? If not, then it can be disregarded. You can even book a cruise around the world tomorrow if you do not believe the world is round [2]. Here are the facts I presented:1) There are many recorded instances of people travelling around the globe by boat2) There are no recorded instances of people hitting and edge while travelling by boat3) You can travel to globe by boat yourselfThese three facts are incompatible rationally with the view that the Earth is flat. Could the Earth be flat? No. What's another reason we know the Earth is spherical? NASA photos proving this. My opponent could claim they were faked, but photo editors can sniff out photo shop type fakes nowadays in a heart beat (there are huge differences between doctored photographs, and authentic ones). Someone would have exposed them by now. This has not happened. Thus, the pictures are real. This is another reason I know your father did not fall off the edge of the Earth. "How do you know people have gone around the earth? Did you see them do it?"You don't need to see 'x' to know 'x' is there. Thus, one can still conclude truth without direct observation needed. I know atoms exist, through evidence and logic, I do not have to actually see atoms to know they exist for example. Because one does not need to directly see a truth, to know it is true, then this line of questioning is meaningless. Also, my opponent didn't even refute my argument from the moon. It doesn't matter where a lunar eclipse is, the shadow will always appear a consistent shape of round on the moon. This would be literally, impossible if the Earth was flat. If the earth was flat and disc-shaped, the you could only see a consistent round shape every time, if every eclipse was in the same place and position (right overhead of the disc). This is not the case. Thus, this proves a spherical Earth beyond a shadow of a doubt. Due to the arguments presented, it's clear that there is no possible the way the Earth could be flat. The resolution has been negated. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk... [2] http://www.worldcruisecentral.com...
Atheism and other misunderstandings!

Sorry my fault.. Worst debate ever! Anyways.. the people who left comments on my opening debate, I was letting them know that I didn't really have a clear topic for debate! I was struggling with people in my life wanting me to choose a position in the theist/atheist game! I realized that either way I chose, I would be on a side in a social battle! I was just expressing my frustration towards theism because it is the energy fueling this ignorant war (by war I mean muslim vs christian vs. atheist vs. etc.) I don't want to choose atheism because it separates me from many who I love! Not that we won't still care, its just... we will always have that conflict! Anyways sorry for the rant and not having anything to debate! Maybe your thoughts or a creative response?
Atheism and other misunderstandings!

Um, okay? I don't understand the thing about the comments. This is the second round of a debate, right? However, I guess. That sometimes happens. I might have been unclear also. Sometimes, I tend to get definitions from Oxford dictionary. Therefore; it is likely that we are not on the same page, so to speak. Having already started this debate with a position; there is only one round left. Why don't you state an argument for the final round?
Atheism and other misunderstandings!

Note to all who made comments: I apologize that my topic for debate was not determinable! I guess I was almost in debate with myself whether or not to call myself anything (theist, atheist)... My rant spilled out from frustration because it seems like no matter which side you choose.. you loose! I think people pick religion like they pick football.. a reason to battle (In whatever form) So this was hardly a debate, it was more of trying to get my bearings on which side to debate! P.S. the definition for atheism came from the merriam-websters dictionary! To the debater: We might have to start this debate with a better topic, I would have a hard time debating on the side of theism!
Atheism and other misunderstandings!

I agree to a three round debate with you. The heading of this preposed debate is "Atheism and other misunderstandings!" You have positioned yourself as 'con'. Therefore; I will take up the 'pro' side of the debate. You have demonstrated a stronger than neutral feeling about 'atheism'. Therefore; I will take the other part of the title. So; you will be arguing against 'atheism' and I will be arguing for 'other misunderstandings'. I wish you good health and good luck in this debate.
Atheism and other misunderstandings!

Definition of ATHEISM 1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity I decided to look up the definition of Atheism (Not that I didn't know what it meant) To illustrate a misunderstanding of the word. If you notice the first definition (Archaic) is wickedness, it makes a lot more sense why people are so offended by that word! At one point the word atheism evolved into simply not believing in God (Close to Agnosticism) and believing that there is no God (why people call atheism a belief) People like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris claim to be atheist but are also anti-theist! They think that believing in the existence of God has many harmful ripple effects unseen by the believers! So they preach against it to help us be aware of the pitfalls that comes with faith and belief! My Debate is whether it matters which way you choose or how you represent yourself, it leads to a social conflict where being theist, atheist, agnostic, or anti-theist is picking sides in an ancient war! So I guess I am anti-Human behavior, regardless of which side your on!
21 december 2012-world's last day

I forgot to post in my last round that Con has acknowledged a typo within her debate -- she intended to be Pro, and I took on this debate as CON after her elaboration of her advocacy for Pro. Just ask her... Anyway, unfortunately Pro/Con - whatever she is - has not made any arguments in this debate. I have offered several reasons why you should vote for me. And here's more: In truth, the Mayan prophecies barely talk about this supposed catastrophic apocolypse. Additionally, while the world might 'end' on that day, the so-called prophecy also talks about a new beginning. If that were the case, it would not be the world's last day as the resolution implies. My opponent has offered no other argument in its defense. Thank you.