BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes" is a "bad" game.

Metal Gear: Ground Zeros is a game that is not a full game. It was released as one but was not a complete game. Most Metal Gear Games would take days to finish do to the caution that you have to take when choosing paths and choices that will effect whether or no you're going to make it. First things first, They took away the spotted sound which was the thing that made Metal Gear. Metal Gear Ground Zeros ruined a good franchise by getting ride of most of the stealthy stuff that was the game. They replaced being stopped with you have a ten-second slow motion period to boop the guys in the head with that pistol in your hand. That is why this game is a disappointment to those who waited a long time for this game. Thank you.
"Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes" is a "bad" game.

With the controversy surrounding games as good or bad, I propose a resolution around a controversial game. "Ground Zeroes", is not a "bad" game, and I will endeavour to show that it is an at least "average" game. Burden of proof lies on the AFF (Pro), but as the NEG (Con), I will bring my own reasoning to the table as well.
Minecraft is better than Terraria.

I agree with you...But now I will explain the wrongs to your 5 reasons...1. Terraria has a better crafting system than Minecraft. I agree that Terraria has the crafts there for the user. But you have a choice in Minecraft PS4 Edition if you want to do the classic crafting where you can craft without instruction or have it to where you can craft with the layouts of the object you want to build. You can not do that in Terraria.2. Terraria has advance weaponry.In Minecraft you are like a medieval man. There are no guns because there are bows and arrows. Guns are just the modern version of bows and arrows. And the Terraria is just technology based.3. Terraria caves systems are far more useful.This opinion is great. But if there is a cave then how are finding ores and other objects a challenge to the player. Most gamers always look for a good challenge. It is harder in Minecraft because you can have the challenge of finding gold, redstone, lapiz, and diamonds.4. Terraria has more resources.That is true but why do you need so many resources to find when you have a small inventory? There is really no other thing for this reason.5. Terraria has a better combat system. Before the 1.9 version of Minecraft came out I would agree with you but it came out so here goes. In Terraria you can spam wood and other objects, but in Minecraft 1.9 you can't spam and there is a rest that involves your hunger bar.So that's my Round 2, and I hope for you good luck, and lets have a great debate...
Resolved: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms

Extend all arguments as they have gone unrefuted. My opponent's sources in fact proved nothing about his points. Therefore, my responses can also be extended through the round. My opponent also claims that I didn't refute his arguments in round 3. I have two responses. One, I did refute his arguments. Two, my rules clearly showed that rounds 3 and 4 were open, no requirements on the arguments.
Resolved: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms

The giant spiders http://www.nathanandbecky.org... Also Nazis. http://www.newrepublic.com... The picture is in color, so the Nazis are making a comeback. Don't care if you quoted Genesis, everyone knows the Old Testament is trash. My opponent did not rebut anything I said, which is clearly against the rules of the debate since round 3 is a rebuttal round, therefore he should lose conduct.
Resolved: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms

1: Extend all arguments as they have gone unrefuted. 2: rebuttal: Op argument 1: spider attack Response 1: my opponent doesn't have any sources for any of his claims. Response 2: if the world is already ending, the GMOs would thus prevent more deaths Op argument 2: Nazis Response 1: sourceless claim Response 2: If by "devote myself to Jesus" my opponent means read the bible, I have already quoted Genesis in this debate.
Resolved: On balance, the benefits of genetically modified foods outweigh the harms

No definitions or arguments. 2: Round 2 is for opening statements only, no refutations. 3: Rounds 3-4 are for whatever you want. 4: Round 5 is for closing arguments only, nothing that hasn't gotten talked about and no new evidence. 5: In the case of contradicting definitions, the judges should use the definition based on whichever side was best able to defend theirs with either logic or sources. 6: Unless it is a morality argument, all arguments must be sourced. Good luck.
Nintendo will out throw X-Box and PlayStation thanks to Pokemon Games and the New 3DS XL.

Pokemon holds no weight in the popularity to crush the x-box and PS consoles Grand Theft Auto: SD sold about 27.5 million copies, and is on the list of top 10 most sold games. At number 7, we have GTA: V, selling 29 million. 9 and 8 are Nintendo games. Mario is Nintendo's best selling game. With games sold on the other two, GTA and Call of Duty, plus Battlefield and many indie games, Ninendo has nothing to knock them out. Especially when computers are out, those two are the place to go for horror games like Outlast and Alien. Hardly anyone plays the best graphic game in the horror on something like the Wii. Because of this, and because pro wont post, I will end it here. 1) http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) http://lists.cheatcc.com...
Nintendo will out throw X-Box and PlayStation thanks to Pokemon Games and the New 3DS XL.

I shall retort my opponents view by saying the Nintendo company will not do such a thing, that new system and most over Pokemon and the 3DS XL, will have no real effect on the topping of such giants as PlayStation and X-Box who are so far up, they only really compete with each other. Even so, I will go further to say there are future things to come that will even destroy all current name console.
Nintendo will out throw X-Box and PlayStation thanks to Pokemon Games and the New 3DS XL.

I believe that pokemon games and the New 3DS XL from Nintendo will keep going and throw out gaming systems such as X-Box Generations and PlayStation Generations, meaning those systems will no longer going to be known as favorites. I believe that Nintendo Systems and Games will go skyrocketing up in markets to make people loss interest in X-Box and PlayStation Generations thanks to Pokemon. Nintendo has been going good in sales thanks to the Wii-U and the 3DS, 2DS, 3DS XL and Nintendo's latest system, the New 3DS XL which allows you to use the Amiibo Figures, which was originally for the Wii-U only, the Face-tracking 3D, New controls meaning the C stick which brings new control possibilities (like intuitive camera control) to compatible game and, new ZL and ZR buttons give you more options than ever. More power because of the improved CPU performance means faster loading times, so you spend more time playing. Many games will look and play better than ever"and several upcoming games will be built from the ground up to take advantage of this power boost.
Do games teach kids violence.

We aren't even debating the existence of a causal link, only the fact that children learn violence from video games. I hereby provide quotes from the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to settle this issue once and for all."Some researchers have demonstrated that very young children will imitate aggressive acts on TV in their play with peers. Before age 4, children are unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy." [1]"Extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and fear of being harmed."The evidence is now clear and convincing: media violence is 1 of the causal factors of real-life violence and aggression. At a Congressional public health summit in July 2000, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) was joined by the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Psychological Association in issuing an unprecedented joint statement on the impact of entertainment violence on children. Also in 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a report on shootings in schools that stated that media violence is a risk factor. "In 2003, a panel of media-violence experts convened by the National Institute of Mental Health, at the request of the US Surgeon General, published its comprehensive report on the effects of media violence on youth, which revealed media violence to be a significant causal factor in aggression and violence. Most recently, in 2007, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released its report on violent television programming and its effects on children and agreed with the Surgeon General that there is “strong evidence” that exposure to media violence can increase aggressive behavior in children." [2]"As one leading group of researchers has stated, there should no longer be any controversy that a cause-and-effect relationship exists. More than 3500 reports, including 1000 research studies, have been made; <30 studies have found no relation. In fact, the connection between media violence and real-life aggression is nearly as strong as the connection between smoking and lung cancer. "Given the complexities of performing social-science research, this finding is quite striking. Not everyone who smokes will get lung cancer, and not everyone who views media violence will become aggressive. In addition, context is extremely important, as are mediating factors such as personality differences and parenting. "Overall, an estimated 10% to 30% of violence in society can be attributed to the impact of media violence. Clearly, media violence is not the leading cause of violence in society, but it is a significant one." [3]Specific sources in comments :)
Do games teach kids violence.

Violent juvenile crime in the United States has been declining as violent video game popularity has increased. The arrest rate for juvenile murders has fallen 71.9% between 1995 and 2008. The arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes has declined 49.3%. In this same period, video game sales have more than quadrupled. [7] [8] A causal link between violent video games and violent behavior has not been proven. [34] Many studies suffer from design flaws and use unreliable measures of violence and aggression such as noise blast tests. Thoughts about aggression have been confused with aggressive behavior, and there is a lack of studies that follow children over long periods of time. A 2004 US Secret Service review of previous school-based attacks found that one-eighth of attackers exhibited an interest in violent video games, less than the rate of interest attackers showed in violent movies, books, and violence in their own writings. The report did not find a relationship between playing violent video games and school shootings. [35] The small correlations that have been found between video games and violence may be explained by violent youth being drawn to violent video games. Violent games do not cause youth to be violent. Instead, youth that are predisposed to be violent seek out violent entertainment such as video games. Playing violent video games reduces violence in adolescent boys by serving as a substitute for rough and tumble play. [36] Playing violent video games allows adolescent boys to express aggression and establish status in the peer group without causing physical harm. http://videogames.procon.org...
Do games teach kids violence.

My position is rather easy to prove – I need only make the case that video games teach children how to be violent, not that they actually induce violent behavior. Luckily the psychiatric community has done several experiments that speak for themselves. Lab experiments confirm what any gamer knows in his gut: playing games like “Call of Duty,” “Killzone 3” or “Battlefield 3” stirs the blood. In one recent study, Christopher Barlett, a psychologist at Iowa State University, led a research team that had 47 undergraduates play “Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance” for 15 minutes. Afterward, the team took various measures of arousal, both physical and psychological. It also tested whether the students would behave more aggressively, by having them dole out hot sauce to a fellow student who, they were told, did not like spicy food but had to swallow the sauce. Sure enough, compared with a group who had played a nonviolent video game, those who had been engaged in “Mortal Kombat” were more aggressive across the board. They gave their fellow students significantly bigger portions of the hot sauce. Source: http://www.nytimes.com...Children are highly impressionable and mimic role models."Video games are excellent teaching tools because they reward players for engaging in certain types of behavior," study author Dr. Bruce Bartholow, associate professor of psychology at the University of Missouri, said in a written statement. "Unfortunately, in many popular video games, the behavior is violence." Source: http://www.cbsnews.com...Decades of social science research reveals the strong influence of televised violence on the aggressive behavior of children and youth. There appears to be evidence that exposure to violent media increases feelings of hostility, thoughts about aggression, suspicions about the motives of others, and demonstrates violence as a method to deal with potential conflict situations; and perpetrators go unpunished in 73% of all violent scenes, and therefore teach that violence is an effective means of resolving conflict. Comprehensive analysis of violent interactive video game research suggests such exposure a.) increases aggressive behavior, b.) increases aggressive thoughts, c.) increases angry feelings, d.) decreases helpful behavior, and, e.) increases physiological arousal. Studies further suggest that videogames influence the learning processes in many ways more than in passively observing TV: a.) requiring identification of the participant with a violent character while playing video games, b.) actively participating increases learning, c.) rehearsing entire behavioral sequences rather than only a part of the sequence, facilitates learning, and d.) repetition increases learning. Source: http://videogames.procon.org...
Estate Tax

Let's go back in history to figure out why the Estate Tax was established. In 1916, it was established "as an instrument for enforcing the equality of opportunity in the U.S. by making it more difficult to pass great fortunes from one generation to another." (NPR) The Estate Tax only applies to people who leave $5.49 million in assets, or $11 million for a family. For all 2.6 million people who died in 2016, only 5,219 had to give any in Estate Taxes (NY Times). The top rate of the Estate Tax is 40% (Wikipedia), excluding deductions, which still leaves upwards of $3 million to be inherited, which is still quite a bit of cash. Now if we repeal the tax, the wealth gap that is already a growing problem will just get larger. Wealth inequality in America is reaching high points not seen since the height of The Gilded Age (Paul Krugman). Without any dues, estates of the wealthy will become larger and larger, while the middle and lower classes suffers from a decrease in tax funding for public programs. Donations to charity will also take a big hit, as incentives to include donations in your inheritance will disappear. The Congressional Budget Office estimates charitable donations in the US would drop 6%-12%. In conclusion, I have to disagree that it would effect every day people, unless your definition of "every day people" are multi-millionaires. America needs to be a land of equal opportunity, and that cannot be a reality if the wealth is allowed to become concentrated to small percentage of the population.
Estate Tax

First of all lets start by defining what a Estate Tax is aka (Death Tax). "The estate tax in the United States is a tax on the transfer of the estate of a deceased person. The tax applies to property that is transferred via a will or according to state laws of intestacy." (Wikipedia). Now that we have that out of the way let get in on the topic of why the Death Tax is a bad Tax. well for starters it Taxes the living relatives for the property of a deceased, is that not crazy. Imagine you are a farmer and farming has ran in the family. your father, who recently passed, has a large farm and thought it would be nice for his son to keep the tradition of the family farm, and he passed down the farm to you through his will. you have already been though harsh times with your dad passing, and now big brother is breathing down your neck to get its nickle of the deal. I mean has it real come to the point where the government has to prey off of the people that just had a family member die? Now to respond on your comment that Liberals seem to love the whole .2% thing. what if that was you in the .2% if you have earned that money they should it be taken away? I believe in a country where you have to work to earn your money not take from the rich just to give bums more beer. Also this "Estate Tax" does not only effect the rich. Like my example it can effect every day people like you and me.
Downloading games on XBOX Live VS. PSN

I have both systems, and I love both when it comes to game play and graphics. But I download games allot and I've noticed that on ps3 it takes hours and on XBOX 360 it takes an hour and maybe 10-20 minutes. This happens both because the files are much larger on ps3, reguralry 15-20 gigabytes, but on xbox it's almost every time 5-9 gigabytes. Also on ps3 you need at least one extra install, which takes 20-2 hours for me. I prefer xbox anyday.
Downloading games on XBOX Live VS. PSN

No problem mate, we all have bad days. Now when it comes to crashes I've never had one except on my original xbox 360. And when comes to linking handheld and console Microsoft does have an option for that. Windows phone. Now I must admit that it doesn't have the best games and it doesn't have many games but it works, and achievements carry over from you cell phone to your xbox. And when it comes to 'games for windows' I don't know if it's a program like steam or just games and if it's just games then you can't expect it to carry over the achievements. And if it's a program then maybe they don't think its a profitable thing to spend money on. Or maybe they are developing a handheld version of XBOX ONE which could be possible considering they are boosting the use of mobile devices to integrate with the games. Now let's look at the facts, there are more XBOX consoles sold according to socialbakers.com, about 4 million more. It also states that there are more PNS users, about 42 more, this means that there are multiple user's per console on psn and that on xbox there are many that doesn't even have a xbox live user.. And if this is true it could be because its a free option on psn instead of paying for it like on xbox. Now I don't know if this is the reason. I also don't know if the facts on this website is true but it's all I could find. I must say that you have compelling arguments and that I feel like I should give it up. But we will leave to the voters when the debate is over. Always a pleasure.
Downloading games on XBOX Live VS. PSN

Yes, the XBOX One promises to be a steaming pile of terribad, given the DRM software. Not everyone has an internet connection, and not everyone uses it 24/7. DRM is not designed for console gaming...The PSN is better in my opinion given it is shared with a hand held console. Lets look around. Nintedo links the Wii and the 3DS together via Nintendo's game network that as far as I am aware has no particular solid name.Sony links PS3 and PSP together via the PSN (allowing for specific titles to unlock content between each other).Microsoft doesn't have a hand held console. But they do have "Games for Windows Live" on PC. So why can't achievements and stuff be carried between the platforms on this? It's done on PSN. Its done with nintendo. Why not XBOX?Playstation is also better when it comes to crashes. Reason: It rarely crashes. For me at least, a week doesnt go by without my xbox crashing once.Appologies for the half hearted response, I am not quite feeling well today...
Downloading games on XBOX Live VS. PSN

I still prefer the XBOX, I think that when it comes to user friendly interface, and the exclusives, XBOX is better. I hate to sit there with lag all day on ps3, but on xbox I have smooth online gaming that doesn't annoy me to the point where I rage quit. I would rather pay 11 dollars a month for a smooth online experience with games that doesn't take 19 hours to download and that doesn't take up a third of what space I have for games on my hard drive. On ps3 I ALWAYS have lag I ALWAYS have to sit there for hours upon hours waiting for the game to finish downloading, and I ALWAYS PREFER XBOX. With XBOX they make you pay for a service that is superior to the ps3 one, because its worth it and you don't need the best Internet connection in the world to have a smooth and non-laggy experience. You also get two free games a month now if you are a gold member. With next-gen consoles I'm probably gonna go for the PS4, but that's only because the XBOX ONE looks like it's gonna be lackluster.
Downloading games on XBOX Live VS. PSN

I, for one, tend to look past large and slow paced updates. Given I use a DSL internet connection, I deem everything as naturally slow. So here's how I shall react Pro.Let's look at the money side.On an Xbox, you must have Xbox Live Gold, which is like $11 a month. That's just so you have access to the shop, its downloads, and most content.On a PS3, you simply need to be signed in. No subscriptions to view the shop, to buy from the shop, to play online. This makes PSN overly better, due to the lack of additional fees. Hence, the download speeds will be slower given its more freely accessible.I have a few more points, but I think I should leave them for further arguements.The balls in your court Pro.
Barbie is a Feminist Icon Take 2

Your last argument diverts off the topic a little as you're now saying that Barbie is good for little girls rather than it actually being a femenist icon. I agree that in some cases she is good for girls as she has potential to become a great role model for young girls but that does not mean she is necessarily a feminist icon. A feminist icon would more be something that feminists would say as 'anti-male domininance'. I disagree that barbie portrays that image that many feminists agree on as she shows many generic feminine roles. Its been fun debating with you :) JimmyRusltler
Barbie is a Feminist Icon Take 2

Alright, I'll debate a little more and then time for closing arguments. The thing about Barbie is that over the years she has changed. Yes, she still is uber girly but there is really nothing wrong with that. In fact, Barbie teaches girls that you can both pretty and smart. Barbie has also been the center of controversy as well but that can be said for a lot of famous figures. I think Barbie is a good toy for girls because of what she teaches and will continue to teach. She isn't going to stay exactly the same, she'll change as the time does.
Barbie is a Feminist Icon Take 2

Dude, are you so going to win this debate. :) Oh well, I'm still gonna try I'd like to also bring up some other dolls that have been popular in recent years. The Bratz dolls were extremely popular (they're still somewhat popular from what I understand) but most parents hated them. They appeared to be too slutty and they didn't want their girls playing with them. Instead, they wanted their daughters to play with Barbie. Why? Well because for thing Barbie doesn't parade around half naked and she isn't boy crazy. She represents what girls should strive for, someone who is kind, smart and is willing to better herself. Your turn. Sorry it's so short. :)