BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Xbox 360 is better than Play Station 3

The slightly higher add-on prices for the PS3 make up for the free online connection. Even with the prices being higher the Xbox 360 will cost more in the long run for the same service. To counter your more games available argument all of these games are available exclusively for PS3 God of War 3, Heavy Rain,Resistance 3,Gran Turismo 5,The Last Guardian,Killzone 3, ModNation Racers, MAG, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, The Agency, Agent, Uncharted 1/2,LittleBigPlanet, Singstar, MGS 4, Killzone 2, Resistance 1/2, and the God of War Collection. While the Xbox has Alan Wake, Splinter Cell: Conviction, Fable III, Halo Reach, CrackDown 2, Gears of War 3,Portal 2 exclusively. By my count thats 18 games exclusively for PS3 and 7 games exclusively for Xbox 360 Thanks for the debate. http://www.thesixthaxis.com...
Xbox 360 is better than Play Station 3

Like my opponent said, "The PS3 is better but comes at a higher cost...but Xbox live will...be alot of money 1 year around so in the length PS3 is better..." The only argument in the last round my opponent didn't make for me was that XBOX has Halo as an exclusive game. Call of Duty which is available for either systems is almost as good if not better, while the PS3 has exclusive games that cannot be rivaled by its closest competition (MLB the Show)
Xbox 360 is better than Play Station 3

But the Xbox has still sold more than the ps3. And even some really popular games like halo is currently only available on the Xbox. The PS3 is better but comes at a higher cost than the Xbox. But Xbox live will still be alot of money 1 year around so in the length PS3 is better like that but you do not have to pay for Xbox live and can enoy the many single player modes of Halo.
Xbox 360 is better than Play Station 3

Okay fine. So the controller is better in your opinion, but does that actually make the system? If there was a system with the most perfect controller in the world, but had graphics worse than pong, ran extremely slow, and was just flat out painful to play do you really think that is a good system? What I'm trying to say is that the controller doesn't make the system. Sure, the Xbox 360 might have a better controller, but it doesn't matter, it's just a minor aesthetic detail in the overall picture. Also, while the Xbox 360 might connect faster, the PS3 has a free internet service provider which performs at an even level and does the exact same thing as the 360
The Bible Teaches We Don't Have to Keep the Weekly Sabbath

Matthew 5: 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven" Now I admit other authors of the bible may contradict this, but he asked if the bible teaches Christians should obey the law, then Matthew is part of the bible and it should be kept. Lets a look at a couple of things. Firstly what is the law we are referring to. Well since Jesus was a Jew that would be the Torah. So he is talking about the 5 books of Moses at the very least and this is where the law comes from. This law clearly above the smallest letter so it should be kept. Now who should keep the law, well in this quote Jesus says anyone. So this refers to anyone not just a certain group of people. Another common misrepresentations Christians make here is he fulfilled the law, but firstly you don't fulfill law, you fulfill prophecy which strangely enough the line about fulfilling comes after discussing the prophets, talk about an excuse taking a line out of context. For my opponent to say that the bible does not teach this, would do a great injustice to the author of Matthew as he was not Paul, nor did he share Paul's view about the law.
The Bible Teaches We Don't Have to Keep the Weekly Sabbath

My opponent in this debate must defend the position that the Bible teaches Christians are obigated to keep the weekly sabbath, and turn down my evidence to the contrary. The Sabbath is a shadow of Christ (Col 2:16-17), and Christians don't live in the sahdows, we live in the reality. Jesus has put an end to the law of Moses with its sabbath requirement (Col 2:14; Eph 2:15), hence, Christians are not under the law. (Gal 5:18; Rom 6:14). We have freedom of choice in this matter of holydays, we can esteem everyday alike if we want (Rom 14:5). Paul even warned his brothers against being caught up in the observance of days as thought there were some law to do so. (Gal 4:10-11). Immediately after saying that Christians were delivered from the law, what example from the law does Paul cite? "Thou shalt not covet," the tenth commandment, showing that the decalogue was included in that law from which they were freed. (Rom 7:6-7) In 2 Corinthians 3:7 he speaks of the decalogue as being gorious, then in verse 11 he says that which was glorious was done away with. To make sure he meant the decalogue he tells us that it was written in stone, and reminds us of the occasion when Moses came down the mountain with the tablets in his hands. (vss 7, 13; see Exo 34:29-35) Hebrews 8:6-9:4 informs us that the old covenant, the decalogue, is replaced by a better covenant; that ends the sabbath day! There is no command under the New Covenant for Christians to keep the sabbath, and even those who keep it cannot prove which days is the seventh day on which they should keep it. Which day did Jesus die? Which day was he resurrected? Which day was the seventh-day sabbath? They can't prove these things, which merely indicates that the day cannot be that important, otherwise God would have furnished them with proof! I look forwards to hearing my opponent in this matter.
Should light yagami have died in death note series

Let us begin. To clarify on what this debate means, we are debating whether or not it was proper to have Light Yagami die at the end of the Death Note series. As evident by my opponent's first round, it is rather clear that he believes Light should have remained alive. Ergo, I shall argue against this. --------->RE: I think Light yagami ahould have had a plan in case something like this happend. and i think there was another way to continue the series for at least another 4 books or 15 episodes 1) Light isn't some omnipotent/omniscient being who can always come out on top regardless of the situation at hand. He made errors when battling L, therefore, it is not unreasonable for him to have made errors when battling Near as well. 2) Light had no incentive to create another plan. How was he to know that Mikami would behave "out of character" and go against his orders by getting the real death note and writing Takada's name in it, hence allowing Near to deduce Light's plan? -------->My personal argument: Having Light die in the end is most reasonable as his crimes were worthy of retribution. In addition, this would fulfill Ryuk's initial prediction in the series (that those who use the death note will inevitably die). After all, what made Light any different from those previously doomed souls who had used the death note? Nothing. And that'll do it for now.
Should light yagami have died in death note series

It doesn't matter whether or not there was a piece of the death note in his wallet. When he had attempted to use the piece of the death note stored in his watch, matsuda fired upon him to the point to where writing was rendered impossible for Light, so any additional death note piece would not have done him any good. Ryuk was aware of this hence why he killed him immediately. Hence, taking into consideration this round as well as all of what my opponent has failed to answer the previous round, it is rather clear that I have successfully upheld my stance as the contender this debate. Thank you.
Should light yagami have died in death note series

hello im very sorry for not debateing for the last two rounds, my computer had been acting up lately and freezeing every ten minutes. I remember in the anime that light put a piece of the death note in his wallet from a long time ago he could have used when he got away(anime). I'm asking people if they wanted light to die in such a way there was no chance there could have been more in the death note.
Should light yagami have died in death note series

--------------->RE:"yes I know light could not have known mikimi would make a unnecessary action before the day of the meeting, but light was smart enough to think of a scenario like that and made up a plan like "get mikimi to tear a page out of the real death note and use that for the meeting." I do not disagree on Light having the potential to think up a plan that could get him out of the jam he was in, but as my opponent points out, he HAD NO REASON to think up such a fail safe plan. If he has no reason plot it out, why is he going to plot it out? Example: Let us say that a middle school bully is waiting in the middle school bathroom to pick on a middle schooler whom he has never picked on in the past. Let us further say that by the time this middle schooler gets in the bathroom, the bully decides to pick on him. Now, if the middle schooler had known about the bullies decision to wait for him in the bathroom, could the middle schooler have found a way to thwart the bully's scheme? Of course. However, without knowing of the scheme or having any reason to conclude that there would be a scheme in the first place, the middle schooler has no reason to not to go into the bathroom, hence fall into the bully's trap. ------------>RE: and I personally think that lights way of thinking was not evil or good just mixed up the ability to kill people with there name and face with godly powers but really it was more like the powers of the devil. 1) This is completely irrelevant as whether or not we could conclude Light was good or evil, this suggest nothing concerning whether Light should have lived or died (at least is correspondence to my argument). 2) To pacify my opponent, there is no "devil" in the death note universe. As stated in the series, when people die, they simply cease to exist; they become nothing. There are only humans and shinigami. ------------>RE: But as I think light should have used the shinigami's eyes trade before hand to ensure that he would win." The shinigami eyes would not have aided him in winning as the problem didn't boil down to not knowing the names of Near and his team. Rather, it came down to not having time to write his name (or anyone's elses) without Matsuda interfering. Finally, my opponent has neglected to respond to my personal argument which I brought up in round 1. Indeed, Ryuk's prediction was fulfilled through having Light die. I ask once more: What made Light any different from those previously doomed souls who had used the death note? Nothing. Till Round Three . . .
Should light yagami have died in death note series

yes I know light could not have known mikimi would make a unnecessary action before the day of the meeting, but light was smart enough to think of a scenario like that and made up a plan like "get mikimi to tear a page out of the real death note and use that for the meeting. and I personally think that lights way of thinking was not evil or good just mixed up the ability to kill people with there name and face with godly powers but really it was more like the powers of the devil. but at least he was killing criminals and not innocent civilians, but he was not god to decide who dies and who lives. but when Kira was killing people the small and weak had some sort of person to protect them. But as I think light should have used the shinigami's eyes trade before hand to ensure that he would win.
Intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution

Your opposition to Intelligent Design steams from your belief that Evolution is considered scientific fact when in fact it is a theory yet to be proven, so Intelligent Design should be allowed to be taught because it doesn't oppose anything that is considered actual scientific fact. It would be beneficial to students of religious families as well because as it stands many children are removed and home schooled because religious parents feel as if evolution is unbeneficial knowledge for their children. These home schooled children are not only deprived of knowledge that would be taught through a school curriculum but they would also be deprived of the opportunity to develop social skills through interacting with fellow students. The teaching of Intelligent Design as helps students develop crucial critical think skills (which is the focus of the curriculum for those in the 7 grade and high anyway). The teaching of Intelligent design does not violate the separation between church and state because Intelligent Design is impartial and doesn't claim the teachings of any one religion to be true, instead it says that the way that our planet functions may indicate that certain aspects of the earth and the organisms that live on are too complicated to have happened on its own. On a side note I would like to thank my opponent for being so gracious despite my recklessness that has taken away from his ability to best defend his idea, and the over depth of this particular debate. I look forward to debating you in the future.
Intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution

Intelligent design is in direct opposition to evolution. It holds that life could not evolve through natural selection. While intelligent design may not endorse any particular religion it does clearly endorse religion over non religion. This violates the separation of church and state. If intelligent design was taught beside evolution it would actually show that science and faith are in direct opposition to each other as evolution and intelligent design are opposing ideas. The teaching of intelligent design would harm our children. If intelligent design were taught in our schools it would open up the opportunity for other psuedoscientific ideas to enter into classroom discussion. Placing ideas such as intelligent design in the classroom gives them merit in the minds of our children. Discussing claims with no scientific basis as though they were science would confuse the meaning of science and reality in the minds of our children.
Intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution

Intelligent Design does not deny the scientific merit of evolution and is not supportive of any religion in particular. It is important to teach intelligent design beside evolution because it is important to expose young minds to a wide variety of opinion and theory in all areas of study. In the end the teaching of Intelligent Design does not in any way take away from the education of children. If Intelligent Design were to be taught beside evolution it would show that science and faith are not opposing entities but instead can exist harmoniously, this would help to heal the drift between science and religion that has been created over the last few decades.
I think that the Giants will win the superbowl

Ladies and Gentleman of Debate.org, Obviously my opponent has given himself even more proof that he indeed does not know how to think. He doesn't really have any better explanation for his two contradicting statements other than "if you don't buy that..." From this statement and from this statement in his R2 "if you don't believe anything i have just said" we can justly assume that my opponent assumes this community will think him a liar. Why would he make such a base assumption unless he indeed were truly lying? Next my opponent proposes to shift the burden of proof. This is not so. I did not make the resolution, thusly I do not have to prove it my opponent does. Therefore since he obviously has not proven that he indeed does think the Giants will win the Superbowl. My opponent has no excuse for his equating the holocaust with voting for Con. My opponent clearly said: "My opponent is right, i cannot think for myself." Thus thoroughly disproving his own resolution Th
I think that the Giants will win the superbowl

First just for clarification, when i said i think too much (so i can't just answer yes or no), then said too lazy to think about debate.org- The first one is my main reason, but the second thing i say is meant to be read as "if you don't buy that..." My opponent said that this means i can't think because i have contradicting statements... this would show i can't think rationally, not that i can't think in general. No matter how rational or irrational, i think the Giants will win the superbowl. He says i have the burden of proof- not true. He has the burden of proving that I am lying. I did not say that voting Con will cause a holocaust. I said that is the type of thinking that has created terrible events. The type of thinking that everyone is deceiving you. I do not admit that i don't think the giants will win the superbowl. I said that if you believe my opponent in that i cannot think for MYSELF, then John Madden thinks for me, and the thinks they will win the superbowl.
I think that the Giants will win the superbowl

Ladies and Gentleman of debate.org, If there was not enough evidence prior to Round 1, we can concurrently assume that there is a copious quantity of it in Round 2. As of this point my opponent has conceded the following: 1. He is too lazy to think about his hobbies (debate.org) that he devotes his time to. 2. He makes two statements that contradict each other. Consequentially, both statements are reguarding his thinking. Logically, this leads us to believe he cannot think. The Two Statements: A. "I think too much (referencing debate.org)" B. "I am to lazy to think (about debate.org)" Obviously indicative of someone who can't think. 3. My opponent (who has the burden of proof) provides no evidence that he indeed does think. 4. My opponent has equated voting Con to supporting the Holocaust. 5. He admits he does not think the Giants will win the Superbowl. Since he states that Billy Madden thinks for him, then in essence, >>he<< does not think the Giants will win. Billy does
I think that the Giants will win the superbowl

O.K, i have a couple of different approaches to my opponent's argument. First, I think to much, therefore i cannot choose on yes or no answer for those questions on my profile, therefore i don't say. Second, I am too lazy to think about debate.org, i am busy thinking about the giants winning the superbowl Third, By not believing what I am saying we are going down a slippery slope. Simply voting con on this debate shows that you do not trust humanity, and that can lead to terrible things such as the holocaust- Hitler didn't trust the jews. So pretty much voting con will screw the world up even more. Lastly, if you don't believe anything i have just said: My opponent is right, i cannot think for myself. I think what John Madden tells me, and he says that the Giants will win the superbowl.
I think that the Giants will win the superbowl

Obviously ladies and gentleman of the audience, it should be clear to anyone reading this debate that my opponent does not understand how to properly think. He has been present on this website for the past three months, yet he has fallen into the pit of the "Not Saying" category. A notorious group of debaters who simply cannot think of an answer for any of the questions in their profile so they simply put "Not Saying" This is obviously indicative of someone who cannot think for themselves. My contention is not only that my opponent cannot think properly, but also that he is deceiving us for purposes of this debate. Until I have irrefutable proof that my opponent is not only properly thinking but also is telling the truth about what he has typed, the voters of this debate must vote CON. We cannot trust a "Not Saying" "No Answer" member of this website to not only tell the truth but to actually know how to properly think for himself. Thank You
should we promote having children outside of marrige

Because this debate is only one round and my opponent has only made one argument -- and an unsourced one, at that -- I must only provide one counter to win this debate. Not to mention, he doesn't use punctuation or capitalization at all. My opponent's only argument is that there seem to be a lot of single parents today, and therefore we should accept it. This is called a non sequitur. He gives us no reason as to why we should accept this as the norm, or why we should promote it -- and promote is the key word here. Here are my reasons in response to this resolution: 1. Having children out of wedlock is often a function of teenage sexual foreplay, and teenagers are not ready to have children because they are not yet responsible, their brains aren't fully developed, and they have other responsibilities. 2. Issues with custody. 3. Issues with child support. 4. Stigma attached to having children out of wedlock.
Quotes! (reopened)

I laughed at your fat people quote! "There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle." (again) Albert Einstein "They only care when you are dead." (source unknown) "In the hopes of reaching the moon men fail to see the flowers that blossom at their feet." - Albert Schweitzer "Some believe that it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. I found that it is the small things. Every day deeds by ordinary folk that keeps the darkness at bay." - Gandalf "No matter how much cats fight, there always seems to be plenty of kittens." - Abraham Lincoln "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." Douglas Adams
Quotes! (reopened)

"My grandmother started walking five miles a day when she was sixty. She's ninety-seven now, and we don't know where the hell she is."-Ellen DeGeneres "Always end the name of your child with a vowel, so that when you yell the name will carry."-Bill Cosby "I found there was only one way to look thin: hang out with fat people."-Rodney Dangerfield "Life is hard. After all, it kills you."-Katharine Hepburn "A vegetarian is a person who won't eat anything that can have children."-David Brenner ;)
Quotes! (reopened)

"I'm a good person, I hope. But I'm never as good as I want to be, never as nice as I want to be, never as generous as I want to be." - David Tennant "Courage isn't a matter of not being frightened, you know. It's being afraid and doing what you have to do anyway." - John Pertwee as the Doctor "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." James Dean "I don't think God gives a [care] if we have a dog or if a woman wears shorts. I think He gives a [care] about whether you're a good person." - Hassan Harbish
Quotes! (reopened)

;) "Life is a song - sing it. Life is a game - play it. Life is a challenge - meet it. Life is a dream - realize it. Life is a sacrifice - offer it. Life is love - enjoy it."- Sai Baba "There's nothing like a good cheating song to make me want to run home to be with my wife." -Steven Curtis Chapman "Every man dies. Not every man really lives." -William Wallace "Life is 10 percent what you make it, and 90 percent how you take it." -Irving Berlin "Roses are red, violets are blue, God made me pretty, what happened to you?" - Roxy Quiksilver Love your Elmo quote!