BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Video games: Immersion/Realism (pro) or Fun/Interactive (con)

Thanks for accepting! First-person games typically favor gamers who play them alone, as the experience is intended to be immersive for the player, who has not only viewpoint but control, and these games are not intended to be as fun for spectators. The stereotype of a gamer is gravitating strongly towards the single man playing alone on his PC, rather than gaming being viewed as a potential group activity. Games that focus on the experience of gameplay above all else, however, encourage the gamer to let loose and relax, simply being able to enjoy the feel of the game and not having to constantly strive for immersion or scan for visual inconsistencies. Games that portray themselves as "fun" above all else have long been popular, especially under the Nintendo flag, and offer a gaming experience for all people, alone and in groups. This flexibility not only allows for a more diverse crowd of players, but it furthers the social aspect of gaming, an attribute which helps both developers and gamers. Economically, fun games typically offer more bang for your buck, as they have, in general, a higher playability factor. This is due to the fact that they are mostly about gameplay and not typically dependent on a continuous storyline, and this means that individual players have a choice with these games to either purchase the game or play the game with a friend who has already purchased it. The very fact that these games typically offer better multi controller modes makes them more economical; gamers of all levels and financial situations can enjoy them just as much as the person who purchased the copy. For some gamers who have money, this might not be so big an issue, but by offering gameplay that is both attractive to those who typically don't play games, and by offering a chance for people with less financial backing to play games with friends, developers are better servicing their customers and allowing for a more widespread appeal to develop for their game.
Video games: Immersion/Realism (pro) or Fun/Interactive (con)

What I want to know: should video game developers strive to make games more immersive and realistic, or should they focus on the gameplay and making the game more fun? I see this debate as addressing the issue of games gravitating more towards an experience for the single gamer (immersion) versus an experience for a group (interactive). I use the word "fun" on the side of Con not to exclude the fun gamers have while playing immersive games, but to indicate that the games on this side put more effort into making the user enjoy his or her-self, often at the cost of realism. I will be taking the stance in favor of games promoting fun over realism, gameplay over immersion. I am also aware that there may be room for games to do both. Games that I consider favoring the first category - Silent Hill 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Far Cry 4 Games that I consider favoring the second category - Super Smash Brothers series, Mario Party, indie puzzle games such as Ibb & Obb Looking forward to good debate! Let me know if you have any questions or would like clarifications.
states ought not possess nuclear weapons

My opponent drops all my attacks against his case. I must win the negative by default. He attacks Security saying not having nukes undermines security of some states. However I already showed you how having nukes does not provide safety, by giving several examples of invasion happening against nations that had nukes. He attacks my criterion saying terrorists can get nukes from the black market. So he basically admits there is a threat of terrorist acquirement and thus nuclear use. Also, negating will only increase the risk of terrorist possession since on his side they can get nukes from both the black market AND states, since he allows states to have them. He is arguing against his own case. He "attacks" my contentions saying I have no proof. However my arguments dont need proof becaue they're so *obvious*. Just as I dont need proof to tell you the sky is blue, I dont need proof to show you that with no nuclear weapons there can be no nuclear war. Contention 2 had both examples and evidence, making his argument against it completely empty. I again urge a pro vote.
states ought not possess nuclear weapons

Today, I take a firm stance on the negation of the resolved: "states ought not to possess nuclear weapons." For the subsequent round, the value ought to be safety. To attain this value, the value criterion ought to be the maximization of deterrence of harm for citizens, because protection of people by reducing risks of potential detriments – whether it be physical, mental, or financial – best preserves the paramount value of safety. Hence, the burden of the negation is to show that nuclear weapons effectively prevent risks of harm for citizens. If I can do so, then I claim victory for this round. • My first contention is that nuclear weapons are the ultimate tools for deterrence of warfare. Simply put, the level of security for a state immediately escalates with the availability of nuclear weapons, hence, engendering a state of sharply decreased vulnerability to militant or hostile attack from other countries. Enemy states ruminating upon the idea of assaulting a nation with nuclear capabilities will be greatly dissuaded by factors, such as the possibility of a nuclear weapon deployment as retribution and the multifarious consequences of such devastating counterattack. Without such power, countries would be at the mercy of hostile states, including those that pose risk to the United States – i.e. North Korea and Iran. Nuclear weapons obviate warfare before its onset, tremendously curtailing the chances of civilian deaths, injuries, as well as not compensating for the hefty price tag of reconstructing destructed buildings, houses, etc. • My second contention is that nuclear weapons are efficacious in halting warfare and thus an unnecessary financial burden and further deaths of both soldiers and citizens. A paragon exemplifies this explicitly: the Hiroshima Bomb of 1945. The damage caused by the atomic bomb is miniscule when compared to the magnitude of destruction that would have cost both the US and Japan had the war not ended by the intervention of a nuclear bomb. In fact, according to the History Learning Site, the Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that the first part of the Operation Downfall (which was the name of the series of planned invasions on Japanese grounds if the bomb was not deployed) would have caused total 1.2 million American casualties, well over one-sixth being deaths; in total, the Navy Department estimated up to 4 million deaths for American soldiers, as well as 10 million Japanese casualties (the majority of them innocent civilians). The execution of nuclear bombs during wartime would promptly terminate it, protecting a myriad of lives from harm, as well as trillions of dollars of money.
Free speech

You have to take the good with the bad.If we limit free speech, how would we express our opinions? Say we have a bad president. If we didn't have freedom of speech, we couldn't express our opinions on how bad or good he was, causing him to get re-elected, and we would soon have a dictatorship on our hands. Also, people who are REALLY racist don't care about freedom of speech. they will just keep spouting their opinions, and we probably wouldn't do anything. It's kind of like gun control laws. I mean, the robbers are already breaking laws, and they don't care if they break one more. Whereas, the victims are left defenseless.
Soccer is better than Volleyball

This is all very good. But see that's what is really fun about watching and playing soccer. People get hurt and it's a contact sport. I played volleyball in middle school and from my own experience it was not that fun at all. I am full of energy and for some reason in volleyball I was never able to excert all of my energy. Yes I have broken a couple noses of other team. I almost pulled my arm out of the socket when I served the ball. It is some what a rough sport but it's not a contact sport. I believe contact sports are more exciting becouse well it's contact. Thank you for debating me. I put this debate up for fun. :P
Soccer is better than Volleyball

This is all opinionated. Ok these are my first points. Why soccer is just an awesome sport overall. 1. This is an agressive sport. You can get all source of concusions. 2. It's fun to watch. 3. You can play outside in any weather. 4. It's fun to watch the refs in the game when they get hit with the ball. 5. Soccer is exciting to watch because, you never know what might happen, it's aways a surprise what the person is going to do. 6. You are more active in soccer. 7. Your conatantly moving. 8. Soccer is more entertaining. 9. Little or no drama. Volleyball 1. Not active at all, all you do is stand there and wait for the ball to come to you. 2. You always expect what is going to happen in Volleyball 3. People hardly get hurt. 4. You play inside. 5. It's soooo dramatic 6. It's boring to watch. (In my opinion) This is all I have for right now. I will reply to my opponents argument latter. Once again thank you for debating me. :P
Israel's Attack on Hamas in Gaza is justified.

My opponent states that 800 Palestinians have been killed in this battle while only 8 Israelis have been killed. I fail to see how this means that Israel's invasion is unjustified, especially since most of the Palestinians that were killed were members of the terrorist organization known as Hamas. Throughout the history of this conflict, Israel has done its utmost to limit the number of civilian deaths while the terrorists have done their utmost to maximize civilian deaths on both sides. My opponent claims that Israel violated the ceasefire 185 times, which is false. I would like to know where he is getting this information. The ceasefire was broken by Hamas, who continued to launch rockets into Israel in order to kill civilians. Throughout this conflict, we have seen Israel get attacked by terrorist groups only to find that they are condemned whenever they retaliate. Israel is the ONLY nation on this earth that is expected to not defend itself when attacked. Even countries that have acted the same way in similar situations have criticized Israel ie. Turkey. Israel cannot be expected to have rockets launched into its territory every day and take it with a smile. My opponents assertion that Israel doesn't have the right to do anything in the Middle East just because it is not a Muslim country is absurd. EVERY country has the right to defend itself regardless of what their religion is. The statement that Israel would be gone if it weren't for the US is an ignorant statement. Israel was able to defend itself in 1948, 1967, 1973, and against attacks in between without the help of the US. The Arab states that have attacked Israel were given aid by Russia just like we give Israel aid. My opponent claims that Hamas launches rockets because of Israel's blockade, which is another ignorant argument. If the Palestinians would renounce terrorism and give up violence, they wouldn't have to worry about blockades. Even so, the goal of Hamas is not to get Israel to lift the blockade. Hamas' goal is to destroy Israel and replace it with a Muslim state, so the blockade has nothing to do with Hamas' agenda. The history of this conflict shows that it is the Islamic Terrorists such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad that keep the violence going. If they would renounce violence, then there would be peace. Israel is perfectly justified in defending itself just as any other country would be.
Israel's Attack on Hamas in Gaza is justified.

First I'm going to point out that while only 8 Israelis have been killed by rocket fire from Gaza, more than 800 Palestinians have been killed from Israeli retaliation. . Also, during the 2008 ceasefire, Israel violated it 185 times. Gaza also violated the ceasefire but how can Israel expect Gaza to follow a rule it doesn't follow itself. Also, Israel doesn't really have a right to do anything in the Middle East due to the fact that it is the only non-Muslim country there. Without Western aid and numerous blank checks administered to it by the U. S. it would already be gone. Hamas leaders launch rockets on Israel because Israel refuses to discontinue or even slightly lessen its blockade of Gaza. Gaza citizens have difficulty obtaining nutrition and humanitarian food shipments are the only thing permitted past the blockade, and that is a rather rare occurrence. My point is that if Gaza does nothing they get no food. Launching rockets at the hated Israelis is the only way for them to express their inhumane treatment at the hands of Israel.
Israel's Attack on Hamas in Gaza is justified.

My position is that Israel's decision to launch military attacks in the Gaza Strips against the terrorist group Hamas is justified. Israel's goal is to achieve a viable peace and to stop the rocket fire. The only way for this to happen is for Israel to destroy as much of Hamas' members and their rockets as possible. It is clearly apparent that Hamas does NOT desire peace with Israel. This is why they continue to launch rockets and break cease - fires. If Hamas would stop their terrorist acts, Israel would have no need to invade their territory. The only action Israel can take with regard to Hamas militants is force. The question of proportionality is irrelevant. Any country who is attacked in this manner would do what they needed to do to crush the attackers thereby ensuring the safety of their citizens. As a matter of fact, Israel has not gone nearly as far as they could have. Israel does everything it can to avoid civilian casualties. If it didn't, there would probably be more than double the amount of civilian deaths. The fact is, Hamas is known to attempt to maximize the number of civilian deaths by intentionally launching their rockets from areas that are densely populated by civilians in order to provoke a response from Israel that will kill civilians. Since Hamas is not willing to stop the terrorist attacks, Israel has no choice but to retaliate.
Legalization of Drugs

People often begin to use drugs or drink a lot of alcohol to avoid the things that bother them most. Some examples of the things people may want to avoid are: pressure from friends, stress in the family, hassles, the feeling that adults are on their case, or the lousy feeling of being different from everyone else in the world. People start to use drugs and alcohol to make themselves feel better. The problem with that is, drinking or using drugs only ends up making things worse. Alcohol and other drugs may make a person feel good for a short time when high, but when the high wears off, the person feels lousy and may even feel depressed. Once a person is addicted, all they begin to care about is getting high, and once the high wears off, they need to take more just to feel normal again. That is the problem with addiction, it means it becomes very hard to stop drinking or doing drugs. An addicted person feels like they need drugs or alcohol and may feel sick if they do not have any. Drugs or alcohol become all that the addicted person can think about and they may lie, steal or commit other crimes to get more. Some kids who do drugs end up dropping out of school and many older kids and adults may stop going to work. They may stop caring about everything except drugs after a while. Even the family and friends that they used to care about won't be important. They may become very hard to live with and to be friends with and may not want to be involved in any of the things that they used to think were fun. As you can see, when drugs and alcohol are taken often, they can change the people who use them in all kinds of ways. Eventually, even the person's body doesn't work the same (especially the brain, lungs & liver) and they could end up with physical problems. Drugs change how people act and they change the way people feel. Someone on drugs can have all sorts of mood swings from happy to angry, upset, sad, scared, excited, tired or paranoid. Many accidents are caused by those who decide to drink or do drugs and drive cars, boats, ships, planes or trains. Sometimes things may not even seem that harmful on the surface to the person who is offending someone else by smoking in public places. Tobacco smoke can make other people sick, especially if they have asthma or allergies. Throats may burn, eyes can get red and it just makes the air unclean. Smoke can also cause serious medical problems such as cancer, heart disease, emphysema and bronchitis. Pregnant women who use drugs harm the unborn babies inside them. Drugs make it hard for an unborn baby to grow the right way. Once they are born, these babies may need to stay in the hospital for a long time because they are usually born addicted to the same drugs that their mother was taking. The babies may also have other health problems that are caused by the drugs that did not allow their bodies to grow the right way in the first place. Now do you see why it is smart to say "NO" to drugs and alcohol? They are not FUN to do! They cause nothing but misery in the end! Would you like to make that LEGAL?!?!?!?!?!?
The NRA infringes our democracy.

I will be submitting this debate to learn and express my inquiry in light of so many innocent victims being massacred in recent shootings. I only hope my debate help prevent more carnages. No misconstrued man-made right can outweigh the importance of our children's peace and harmony. Sending our kids to school should not become a frightening task. Does the NRA influence our government to a greater extend than ordinary citizens can? If the answer is yes, then our democracy is in danger. Democracy (demo for people, cracia for power) is not limited to the polls where we get to pick one of two given candidates for the presidency. Actually, there were six candidates altogether this time, but only two promoted in national debates. Democracy takes place when we the people are able to participate in our government through our elected representatives. Otherwise, we will be subjected to a corporate dictatorship, something not intended by our founding fathers. Should we allow the NRA to lobby for its own interests instead of interests that benefit our entire society including children?
The NRA infringes our democracy.

First, I appreciate my contender's civility despite his failure to refute my argument According to my opponent, "Criminals buy illegal handguns and rifles..., so why wouldn't school shooters do the same." Obviously, they will start doing it until certain point, until the black market runs out of illegal guns. When criminals turn to the black market, their chance of being caught by undercover agents will be high; as a result, many will refrain from engaging in such activity, while others will end up in jail and cooperating with law enforcement. Regarding my opponent's claim about using other methods such as propane tanks, it is obvious that it would be much easier for a school clerk to stop someone walking into the school carrying a heavy propane tank than stop someone spreading rounds with an AR-15 or AK-47. Another flaw in con's argument is stating that "the NRA may feel that a ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional." Not even the second amendment mentions assault rifles; it does mention, however, a "well-regulated militia" and not even individual citizens. At that time the founding fathers wrote the Constitution thinking on muskets, not tanks, mortars, granades launchers, or bradleys. Therefore, why should we apply the Constitution to weapons of mass killing?
The NRA infringes our democracy.

I will be submitting this debate to express my concern in light of so many innocent victims being massacred in recent shootings. I only hope my debate will help prevent more carnages by illuminating those who favor the use of assault weapons among the citizenry. No misconstrued man-made right outweigh the importance of our children's peace and harmony. Sending our kids to school should not become a frightening task. Does the NRA influence our government to a greater extend than ordinary citizens can? If the answer is yes, then our democracy is in danger. Democracy (demo for people, cracy for power) is not limited to the polls where we get to pick one out of two given candidates for the presidency. Actually, there were six candidates altogether this time, but only two had been promoted on national debates. Democracy takes place when we the people are able to participate in our government through our elected representatives. Otherwise, we will be subjected to a corporate dictatorship, something not intended by our founding fathers. Should we allow the NRA to lobby for its own interests instead of interests that benefit our entire society, including children? Can the NRA undermine the will of so many mothers and fathers worried about their children's safety at schools? If the only obstacle is the misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment (which refers to a "well-organized militia," no individual citizens and let alone about AR-15s, but muskets), so let's amend it like when we granted women the right to vote or allowed interracial marriages. Or, are we going to wait until we double the number of assault weapons in the hands of citizens not associated with law enforcement agencies or the military. Relying on background checks and psychological exams do not guarantee a successful resolution, especially because no one is born with a criminal history and there is always a first time. Likewise, people become insane and crazy overnight. When authorities have checked the behavior pattern of former active shooters, all they have found is a lack of evidence concerning unusual behavior and criminal history. Furthermore, record checks on the majority of active shooters have revealed a clean history. For the benefit of our children, all assault weapons should be relinquished. That is the only way we can start building a more peaceful world for new generations to come and for the present one. Our children deserve the best environment to prepare themselves and be ready to compete in this globalized world. That is what should be a right, not assault rifles. I wish my con exercise his best judgement as he develop his counter argument. Good luck!