BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Steam is better than Xbox Live

**I'm very sorry. In my description I said we would have 4 rounds. It seems that i accidently made this debate 3 rounds so the new format is: Round 2: present you're stance Round 3: rebuttals and present your conclusion** -Alright, let's begin. So first just to be clear: Steam is for PC and Xbox Live is for console (the Xbox/Xbox360/Xbox One to be particular). -I think it is also to be noted that i'm only comparing the gaming aspect, I thought this was obvious because steam is only for gaming, but i'm just reminding you. Accessibility: Since Steam is on the PC and Xbox Live is on the Xbox, it is much easier to access steam. Since many people already use computers, it is easier for them to simply download Steam and start playing, where as if you want to get games off of Xbox live, you have to go buy the console, which is anywhere from 200-500 [U.S.] dollars. Pricing: Using Steam is free. This is a HUGE advantage of steam compared to Xbox Live. in order to use Xbox Live you must pay $60 a year, whether you download games from it or not. So let's say that you are having a tough time in school, or you just have too much work to do that month, you can not play on Steam for the whole month and nothing really happens. Where as in Xbox Live, the $5 that you are paying that month is basically wasted Prices [of games]: Steam has MANY different sales. it has a daily deal, a weekly sale, midweek madness (which a sale that goes from wednsday to friday), and these aren't just a couple of games on sale. There are at all times, at least 20 games on sale on steam EVERY DAY. Steam also hosts 2 major sales - The Summer Sale and The Winter Sale (or the holiday sale), in which many of the titles are - at minimum - 30% off. Some major titles (Civillization V, Skyrim, Call of Duty, Borderlands 2, etc.) are 75% off. That's a huge drop! Where as in Xbox Live - while there are sales from time to time - it cannot compete with the amount of sales steam has. Community: steam has a community page for every single game. This means that there is a place for discussion, a place to post artwork and screenshots, a place to post videos, a place to look at all the upcoming news, to look at anouncements made by developers, a place to look at community made guides, and reviews of EVERY SINGLE GAME ON STEAM. The friends system is also great. You can also join community groups. Not only can you voice chat, but you can also text chat! (something not accessible on Xbox Live.) Xbox Live also has a friend system - and you can voice chat - but it lacks the other key features that i mentioned. The amount of Users: It's important to know how many players actually play on Xbox live and Steam. Steam currently has 65 million active users, where as Xbox Live only has 48 million. The amount of games: Steam has 3,000 games Since all the consoles (Xbox, Xbox 360, and Xbox One) all have Xbox live, but not every system can play every game: Xbox: 967 games Xbox 360: 1,119 games Xbox One: 119 games I'll conclude now. I'm looking foreword to my opponents arguments
abortion

Everyday we experience situations where we have to decide whether or not to act moral. Most of us disregard that not everyone in life is perfect and daily we may do certain things that are not morally acceptable. Everyday in society theirs people that commit crimes, lie, discriminate acts, steal, etc. Some woman need to have an abortion because they have a weak uterus. Their are times when the fetus is in the wrong tube and she can experience a misscarriage. If a woman is not healthy she can lose her life from giving birth.
abortion

Abortion is morally unacceptable. Your taking the life of an innocent human being which can be considered commiting a crime. When a woman has an abortino she can go threw a deep depression. A woman can encounter many physical side affects. After the abortion she can have severe abdominal pain which can affect you from standing up. your menstrual cycle changes. Cervix and organ damage can affect the possibilty of having children. A woman is free and has the right to decide on choosing what she wants but is it worth putting yourself in such predictament of losing your life? or affecting your losing your moral values and affecting your emotional stability?
abortion

Laws do not stop abortion they regualte it, but many legalize it because women should have their equal rights. Every experience hhas a lesson to be learned. when an indivdual experience having an abortion they may feel regret or guilt but thats not something a phychologist can help with. This can lead a person closer to god or realize how important it is to take precaution and using contreception. Abortion can also be a life lesson to find out what you want in life, if having a baby is important to you. If the abortion cannot be waived, or have no insuarnce a person can also realize how expensive this procedure is. A person should research the many types of abortions such as induce, herbs, medical,surgical,and misscarge to decide which one is better for your health.
abortion

Abortion is a controversial topic in society today. This matter concerns ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issues. Many people question whether its right or wrong to go through this procedure. I believe a woman has every control to do whatever she wishes to her body. Their are many reason an individual can have to go through taking the choice of getting an abortion. A woman can be too young, not be emotionally prepared,not have support by her significant other, she can not be economically stable, have health problems, she could have even been raped, etc. Its not an easy procedure that takes alot of thinking and a woman can encounter many risks but if a woman is going through any of the following options above i belive abortion is the right option to take.
abortion

Abortion is a very contravertion topic, Laws should be made to avoid causes that lead to that, such as under age pregnancy. Abortion can also be very regretable later in life. You do not know know what kind of wonderful person that this aborted, unborn child could of became. That is why condoms should be used. In other countries it is considered murder. Any docter should avoid this practice of the sake of their careers and the patient's future. Abortion can also be a big guilt on your mind until the day you die. There is also a chance you may never be able to have another child again. There are options to avoid abortion such as thinking with the brain inside your skull rather then the one between your legs, and there are pills the person could take prier that is why strict laws on this type of issue could prevent this sort of thing.
The way Donald Trump is handling immigration

Well the trick is he plans on cutting trade with Mexico, which would put their country into an economic crisis, thus cause a diplomatic disputes between both the U.S. and Mexico, however the U.S. could care less about what any other country has to say, especially with Trump's "America First!" intiative. Not only that, Money for the wall will not be that much of a priority because within the first few weeks of his presidency he spoke to the biggest manufactures and companies in the U.S. to pull out their factories from foreign lands and bring them to the U.S. This will also be a pretty hard hit on Mexico's economy as well, so trump plans on using that with force. The wall cutting into civilization and animal habitats is an issue that will most likely be disputed in the future I'm sure. However, as much as I love animals, I don't love the fact that America's money is being spent constantly on the "war on drugs" which is mainly being brought over through Mexico's borders. So really, I ask my opponent. Do the Pros actually out weigh the cons of a wall, but I do not disagree with you that even though there may be a course of action to ensure that minimal money is being spent by America on a wall, it doesn't change the fact that yes, there will still be conflicts in between U.S. and Mexico. Especially NAFTA.
The way Donald Trump is handling immigration

Trump is handling it a bit bluntly to say the least. Let me be fair saying that I am not a Trump supporter. I just wanted Hillary to lose. P.S. I am a Kasich supporter Anyways, I think Trump's immigration policies is giving the biggest sense of security this country needs (even if they don't actually work.) Given all the drug epidemics and terror attacks, the people just want a sense of safety from all these irrational fears of getting blown up or drugged up. I'm not saying it's right what he's doing but he understands how we as a nation will react.
The way Donald Trump is handling immigration

So Donald Trump is president some, people support it some don't, But is the way Donald Trump is trying to "fix" Immigration a good way? Honestly I don't think so because first of all, he is deporting people who have been here for years, which I really don't support at all. Plus, Donald Trump is planning on building a wall, but 40 percent of illegal immigrants enter on planes I don't think he can build a wall higher then planes fly haha. I have other reasons some including how immigrants do jobs that most Americans don't want to ect. I am not saying I support Hillary Clinton, but I Don't support some things that Donald Trump wants.
The Law of parsimony prefers Intelligent Design

Sure, I'll take it. This is pretty much a debate of fact, but I don't blame you for thinking that ID is parsimonious. At first glance, it is a whole lot simpler! I've also read the previous debate on this very subject, and I will try to clear up some of the misconceptions that InquireTruth had. Whether you believe that evolution happened by its own accord or through the guidance of a sentient being, knowing what parsimony really is will help you understand the scientific method. It is often frustrating to me that, ironically, it is very hard to explain Occam's Razor in simple terms. It is easy to confuse "the easiest theory to understand" with "the simplest theory". Occam's Razor is also defined as the rule: "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity". Even this lead InquireTruth to confusion, stating that ID fit the bill because it made a paltry single assumption (the existence of God) to explain a host of natural phenomena that would otherwise each require their own theories to explain. After all, doesn't the law of parsimony favor a single theory that explains a wide array of phenomena? The laws of gravity explained both how objects fall and how stars move with a single model, and we celebrate it as a triumph in parsimony. So that I can better help you understand parsimony, I would like you to it in your own terms. Explain why the law (or more accurately, the heuristic) of parsimony is useful, and tell me what it really means to "explain" a natural phenomena.
The Law of parsimony prefers Intelligent Design

I am disheartened at your stunning inability to learn. I wanted to teach you, but instead you have covered your ears and shouted at the top of your lungs. The definition of parsimony is not under contention, we both agree that it means that the theory with the simpler and fewer premises may be more likely to be true. What you don't understand is what "simpler" means. I have explained what being "simple" really means in the context of theories. I explained that black box theories like ID don't simplify information, they abstract it all away. I explained why science automatically rejects these kinds of theories. Sadly you have not tried to push back against any of my assertions. Instead you simply repeat the fine tuning argument. If I am wrong about parsimony, then why did you not show me the flaws in my reasoning? Had you attempted to fight back against my explanation of parsimony, I would have gladly explained away your confusion until you either came to understand what I'm saying or lost the will to try. Do you know why I asked you to explain parsimony in your own terms? Simply copying a dictionary definition doesn't show whether or not you know the MEANING behind those words. I can't blame you with the horrendous education you are probably receiving from school, but the theory of evolution by natural selection is among the most powerful, respected, and accepted theories in modern science. Only with a tragic lack of understanding can anyone make the claim that ID and the theory of evolution are evenly matched. There was no need to put forth another theory (not that ID is a theory in the first place, but that's besides the point), as its plainly obvious what the "alternate explanation" is. The very NATURE of ID prevents it from ever becoming a scientific theory, though. If Darwin had never lived and the whole of science had never thought that traits could be selected for, the principle of parsimony would still strike Intelligent Design down as a scientific theory. It works well enough as a conventional theory, yes, but not a scientific theory.
The Law of parsimony prefers Intelligent Design

That's funny, I thought the title of this debate was "The law of parsimony prefers Intelligent Design", not "The fine tuning argument shows that there must be a creator". For all your clamoring about the fine tuning argument, it really is irrelevant in this debate. It all comes down to what parsimony actually means. If it means what you think it means, then ID wins hands down, no contest. If by chance parsimony means what it actually means, then ID loses hands down, no contest. The fine tuning argument doesn't even factor in at all. You have one more round to at least TRY to argue that your definition of parsimony is correct. Let me use the wonderful power of analogy to explain just what is going on here. You challenge me to a debate: "The moon is softer than a damp kitchen sponge". In your opening argument, you make it clear that you think the word "softer" means "has more mass". I point you to a dictionary and explain that "soft" doesn't mean what you think it means. However, you reply back saying that this is not a debate about semantics, and implore me to prove that a sponge has more mass than the moon. The more I tell you that your definitions are mistaken, the more you come to me with calculations and measurements comparing the volume and density of the moon versus a sponge. Finally, you conclude by telling me that I've twisted the definition of "soft" without explaining why your definition is better. Does that make it clear? You will never understand science until you understand why it rejects ID and similar "theories of magic". I can only show you the door. You're the one who has to dodge bullets in slow motion. >>>Say you took a very large cup, and you tore little pieces of paper up, each with one number on each piece, numbering from one to a trillion, you then shook up the cup and took out one piece at a time, evolution suggests that it is more likely that the pieces came out in numerical order. Or....maybe you've just been trolling me this whole time. With creationists, its kind of hard to tell the difference. I'm sure there are some people out there who actually do believe that what you just wrote here makes any sense whatsoever. I really hope you're not one of them.
Is the kalam cosmological argument sound

P1:"When I say something coming from nothing, I mean something randomly popping into being for no reason. If this were possible, we would see this happening all the time."It seems my point has been missed here, so I'll try and explain it in a different manner. Everywhere we can see is a part of the Universe, and so the Universe is there. As such, there is no "nothing" within the Universe. That we have no "nothing" to see is why we do not see this, something coming from nothing, happening all the time.Applying P1 to P2:For those unfamiliar with the taxi-cab fallacy, here is a link to an explanation of it ( http://www.onthebox.us... ).My argument does not commit such a fallacy, but again, I'll attempt to explain my point in a different manner. I am not arguing while ignoring an otherwise accepted system. I'm arguing that the accepted system itself would not have existed when nothing existed.The physical laws that we know of exist within the Universe. For all we know, all of existence is within our Universe, and that if our Universe did not exist, there would be nothing. If nothing existed, then physical laws would not exist, and so there would be no boundaries on what could happen. If anything is possible, then your guess is as good as mine, but both of us are still just guessing.The biggest problem with the KCA (which to my knowledge is the same problem with ANY argument addressing the origin of the universe) is that we don't know what, or even if anything, is beyond our Universe, or what, if any, rules apply. Because of this, the KCA is operating on assumption, as opposed to knowledge, and therefore cannot be considered true. As an argument must be both valid and true to be considered sound, the KCA cannot be considered sound.
Is the kalam cosmological argument sound

P1: My opponent here claims that we can't know whether something can come from nothing or not. However, this isn't the case. When I say something coming from nothing, I mean something randomly popping into being for no reason. If this were possible, we would see this happening all the time. Applying P1 to P2: My opponent here says that everything within the universe that begins to exist must have a cause, but not the universe itself. That's the taxicab fallacy; why should the universe be immune to the first premise?
Is the kalam cosmological argument sound

Thank you, Tala, for initiating this debate. As to any past forfeits on your part, hopefully time will allow you to complete this debate, but I'll understand if more pressing matters prevent your continued participation. As to the KCA, I concede that the second premise, that the universe began to exist, is true. To the best of my knowledge, cosmologists have shown this to be the case beyond a reasonable doubt.However, I do disagree that the first premise can be proven in the context of nothingness. Furthermore, short of such proof, the first premise cannot be applied to the second premise. P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.I agree, as Pro says, that for something to come into being without cause would mean it came from nothing. However, logically speaking, our experiences and observations (or in this case, lack thereof) cannot even address the question of whether or not something can come from nothing. This is because there is no actual nothingness for us to observe. Even the vacuum that is Space, which is mostly "empty", is still occupied in all places by the Universe. Because our observations are limited to within the Universe, it is impossible for us to observe nothingness. The closest we can come is observing "nothing but the Universe". I'll even go as far as saying that observing nothingness is a logical contradiction, as there would be nothing to observe.Of course, not knowing that something can't come from nothing doesn't mean something can come from nothing. However, logic would suggest that such is possible. Actual nothingness would have no physical laws governing it, otherwise it would be "nothing but law" rather than "nothing". So if there were actually nothing before our Universe, there would have been no physical laws preventing the Universe from coming into being without cause. Applying P1 to P2:As I said, the first premise cannot be applied to the second premise. It's true that things don't come into being without cause within the Universe. But it is fallacious to assume the physical laws that apply within the Universe also applied without the Universe. And because we have no way of knowing what, if any, physical laws there were without the Universe, the first premise cannot be applied to the second premise, and so the KCA fails. Pros conclusions about the cause: As these conclusions are irrelevant to this debate, I won't address them extensively here. However, I'd be happy to have a seperate debate with Pro (or anyone else) about the possibility or validity of these conclusions.I will say that these conclusions assume there was, in fact, nothing before the Universe, in which case, there would be nothing stopping the Universe from coming into being without cause. If there is existence outside of the Universe, we are left with an essentially infinite number of possibilities as to what that existence is, at which point even attempting to argue in favor of anything would be folly.I'll leave it at that for this round, and pass the reins back to Pro.
Is the kalam cosmological argument sound

Hello, it's good to be back! I apologize for fore fitting some of my debates. Here is the kalam cosmological argument: -Whatever begins to exist has a cause -The universe began to exist -Therefore, the universe had a cause Defense of P1: It's silly to think things can just pop into being without causes behind them. Implying something comes into being without a cause, is saying it came from nothing. This just isn't possible, why don't we see this happening all the time? Why don't root-beer and desks, and chairs, and radios come into existence from nothing. Logic + everyday experience confirm the first premise. Defence of P2: If the universe never began to exist, than the number of past events in our universe are infinite. But mathematicians recognize that you can't have an infinite number of things. For example, imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and an infinite number of guests. Someone comes into the hotel and says, "I'd like to rent a room, please." And they say, "Sorry, we're full. But no problem, we'll just move every guest up this room." So they move an infinite number of guests to an infinite number of rooms, you could do this over, and over again all day. This shows that an infinite number of things is impossible. Therefore, the universe began to exist. Another defense of P2: The universe is expanding, which means if you trace the origins of the universe back in time, it gets smaller and smaller. Eventually, you'll reach a very hot, dense point in time which is called by cosmologists the singularity. Nothing existed before this singularity, this represents the origins of the universe from an ex-nhilo creation. In other words, the creation of the universe from nothing. Alternative models of the universe to explain the expansion of the universe, and still show it had a beginning have been made. For example, some cosmologists have said that there are many universes in a multiverse. However, Alexander Velankian's theory shows that even a multiverse would need a beginning. Another Defense of P2: Thermodynamics tells us that eventually, all the matter and energy that makes up the universe will eventually spread evenly throughout the universe. If the universe had been here forever, this would have happened by now. Conclusion: Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, it logically follows that the universe had a cause. What must this cause be? Since it transcends space and time, the cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, changeless. It must also be powerful, since it created all of space and time. It must also be personal. It must be personal for two reasons: first, the only two things which can exist beyond space and time are a unembodied mind, or an abstract object. But, abstract objects can't cause anything. Another reason as to why the cause of the universe must be personal is how else could a timeless entity cause a temporal universe?