BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pc Gaming Vs. Console

The Pc may have more powerful capabilities that is no doubt true but as we stated before the cost to purchase a gaming focused pc is quite expensive compared to investing in a console game. Furthermore even if it is more powerful what does that achieve? Perhaps faster load times and graphics? I will admit shorted load times may be a nice perk, but are graphics really all that important. A game can look beautiful but if you cant play it properly what does it matter? Controls are essential when it comes to a video game and in terms of controls consoles almost always provide a better medium. Even if this flaw can be amended in some cases with accessories for the pc, its still one must go out of their way to acquire. When it comes to a console your given a controller right from the start and is mush more reliable than any keyboard or mouse. Furthermore, even if the average gamer does not own every console, there is still a greater variety of games available over all the main generation consoles; some of which pc users could not get access to playing (motion sensor controlled games). The Pc may be a viable medium to play games upon, however consoles are more easily controlled and affordable to the general public. As such, at this point in time, I insist that consoles are still superior mediums to ply games upon.
Pc Gaming Vs. Console

Showing an Increase shows that the fans are stating to move to PC's over consoles Which typically means they like It more then the other which would show superiority and the sale are total profits earned for any sales console r PC based not just new games i should've been more specific In conclusion i Believe that Pc Gaming is not only superior to console gaming not only that fans are starting to agree. Pc's are more reliable, more powerful, easily upgraded, Games are cheaper on average, plus their is always so much more you can do on a PC then a console
Pc Gaming Vs. Console

First I would like to state that it is always advised that one backs up their arguments with data like my opponent has been doing. However, his most resent citation does not exactly prove the point of this debate. The fact that there have been decline in sails o console games but a rise in sales of pc games doesn't prove that pcs are better for playing games. What the data shows can reflect many things, such as a rise in popularity in pc gaming which, on its own, does not prove pc gaming superior to console gaming. Furthermore what is this data actually taking the revenue of? Is it showing the sales of console games versus pc games, the sales of consoles and pcs themselves, or does it take into account both. Also does this data take into account the sales of used games and consoles which has become a popular practice or the sales of downloadable content and games? Data is important but this information is quite vague and isn't entirely relevant to the debate itself anyway.
Pc Gaming Vs. Console

While a Gaming PC would start at a high price it would last though a gaming generation or 2 with minimum upgrades while to upgrade though console you buy the next one. Eventually they phase out a system while PC's don't. Also PC's have the ability to buy almost any game as they come out online so that all you have to do is download it and play you never have to leave your house. While systems have this ability it is only for older games that were for older systems. In Comparison for the best selling games for consoles and PC's in 2010 the best selling console only game was NCAA Football '11 Selling 692,000. While the PC's best selling game was Starcraft II Selling 721,000 Copies The 2011 Games Market Revenue Report by Newzoo Show's a rapid decline for Consoles while PC's is Climbing Consoles 2009-$13,626 2010-$9,932 2011-$8,009 Pc's 2009-$8,910 2010-$10,807 2011-$11,575
Pc Gaming Vs. Console

Perhaps some games, like RTS (real time strategy), do control better on pcs, however a lot of other game genres do not. Action RPGs like Oblivion or Skyrim feel much more natural to control using the console based controlers than they do on pc controls. Furthermore, games from the sports genre are almost impossible to control on a pc. On average the controls on a console are much more fluid and enjoyable on a console. Additionally when it comes to pricing the most expensive system at the moment, the PS3, will cost about $250 with the average game costing $60. Now in comparison a good quality gaming pc, built to last a good number of years, will roughly cost you $1000-$1200. That price is well beyond what one would pay for a console and quite a number of games just to obtain the pc itself sans any games to play on it. I would also like to point out that though the PC may have more variety of games available than one particular console, the consoles themselves have a greater variety of game genres which the pc can not play at all. All three main console systems (PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii) have accessibility to motion sensor controlled games which the pc has no access too. As such consoles can provide games which involve dancing, fitness or swordplay.
Pc Gaming Vs. Console

While I will agree with you on those points Some games Work way better for a Mouse and Keyboard Most people will agree that First person shooter's are better also RTS games are also Part of that group Pc's have a Bigger Variety of games then each Individual System all together they have more but you would need to buy all the system's to accommodate that. Pc's can be more powerful then any system Reaching a GPU of 1Ghz While the most powerful console the PS3 only gets 550 Mhz thats almost twice the amount. Pc's are more reliable they won't break as often and when they do break you can fix the part that is broken while if the console break's you have to pay to get the whole thing fixed or buy a new one.
Supercar Brand Debate on Performance (Koenigsegg, Pro; Your Choice, Con)

To clarify:This debate is on the performance of any one car you choose from a certain brand. I choose the Koenigsegg One:1.The Koenigsegg One:1 has the highest horsepower to kilogram ratio out of all street-legal cars. In fact it has a perfect ratio of one to one. Hence the name: The Koenigsegg One:1. This is a very impressive feat considering it's horsepower is 1341. That makes it the second most powerful Also, it produces one full mega-watt of power. The Koenigsegg One:1 also is the world's first megacar. It is the first production car to produce one megawatt of power. This keeps it in a class above the rest.This car can also go from 0-60 in under 2.9 seconds according to t3.com (http://www.t3.com...). The One:1 also set record for 0-300-0 km. It went from 0-300-0 in just 17.95 seconds according to topgear.com (http://www.topgear.com...). This record shows acceleration and braking of the Koenigsegg One:1 is amazing. The top speed of this beast is around 273 miles per hour according to Andreas from Koenigsegg.Looking at the horsepower, top speed, acceleration, and braking of this megacar, you would expect it to break a few records, right? Yup. In fact, it set the new record for the Spa-Francorchamps with a 2:32.14 lap time. This car also set an unnoficial of 2:17.57 at Suzuka in Japan. They were not planning to smash a record, and the driver had not spent much time at the track before.The One:1 is an amazing piece of machinery with the perfect horsepower to weight ratio: 1:1. It also has a top speed about 273 miles per hour and a 0-60 time of under 2.9 seconds. As if that isn't enough, it holds the record for the fastest 0-300-0 km with a time fo 17.95 seconds. On top of that record, it also holds the top times for the Spa-Francorchamps and the Suzuka. Clearly, this car is the current leader of the pack in performance cars.
The New Testament is not a reliable historical document

It is an honor to debate Mr.Infidel once again, I look forward to an exciting disputation. The defense accepts the terms appointed by Pro and agrees to abide by said rules throughout the remainder of this debate. A couple of points to be addressed:- Con will be defending the authenticity of the New Testament- Other books banned from the Bible, such as the Apocrypha, will not be defended by ConLet the debate commence; may we arrive at truth.
The New Testament is not a reliable historical document

I. IntroductionI would like to thankmy friend for debating this topic with me. Given the last debate, I can tell this will be tough. II. ThesisIn spite of the Christian argument that says the Bible does not contradict known history, the New Testament is an unreliable historical document. The New Testament contains some gross historical mistakes that shows the New Testament is mostly false. III. DefinitionsNew Testament: The 27 books of the New Testament that tells the story of Yeshua and the "fulfillment" of the Tanach.IV. Rules A. Structure Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening ArgumentsRound 3: 1st RebuttalsRound 4: 2nd Rebuttals. Round 5: Closing statements. B. Technical A. VotingPlease read the entire debate before voting. Conduct: A violation of any rule results in an automatic conduct loss of the conduct vote.Spelling: I am not too picky about spelling; but please spell appropriately. Points may be awarded for superb spelling/grammar and/or structure.Please post a detaied RFD. An RFD that may be deemed a "vote bomb" may be nullified. B. AttacksA display of any anti-sematic behaviour, or behaviour that constitutes ad hom. attacks will result in an automatic loss. C. SourcesPlease do not plagarise. Plagarism is an automatic loss.D. Forfeiting. If you desire to resign the debate, please do so honorably---do not troll or prolong the debate. E. Structure The arguments should be clear and easy to follow. Please tag the arguments (i.e,, contention 1; premise 1 etc.) V. Acceptance In round 1, please post that you have read and agree to abide by the rules to the debate. Moreover, you are more than welcome to post your thesis and/or any other definitions you see fit. You may post a summary of your arguments.If you troll this debate, you will be blocked and reported.Only members rated as good or better than me may accept.VI. Burden of Proof The burden of proof is on me. I must prove the New Testament is historically unreliable. Good luck!:-)
The New Testament is not a reliable historical document

At this point in time, there is nothing I can really address. All of my opponent's arguments hold water; I currently cannot find adequate evidence to refute his contentions. I hope that my opponent will forgive me for my withdrawal, as I feel ashamed that I cannot defend my position with absolute certainty. Running out of time, I refuse an attempt to respond with a lack of knowledge on the subject; this would be unfair to my opponent and to the voters. I hereby surrender this debate to Mr. Infidel; maybe one day we can debate this resolution again. I thank Mr. Infidel for his time, and for any of his time that I have selfishly wasted. As of now, the resolution stands as is; so I would urge the voters to vote in my opponent's favor.
The proletariat have the right to roam the countryside.

Comrades living in the capitalist West will be all too familiar with the many laws that the decadent ruling classes have introduced to preserve their privileged positions in society - often oppressing the masses by denying them their birth rights as citizens in the process. One example of this type of perverse legislation is the assumption in law that the landed gentry, parasitic aristocrats, fat-cat farmers and other filthy-rich property owners have the right to "sole enjoyment" of their land and are, therefore, entitled to exclude the general public from it. Clearly, these laws date back to feudal times and have no place in the modern, democratic socialist societies that the more enlightened amongst us hope will soon replace the corrupt and discredited capitalist regimes of Western Europe and North America. On this issue, we must follow the example of former Soviet bloc states in Eastern Europe, where the interests of the people continue to take precedence over the vested interests of the Bourgeoisie. For example, my grandmother-in-law owns several hundred acres of the forest that overlooks the village in Slovakia where she lives. Although I'm sure she has sufficient appreciation of the concept of noblesse oblige not to want to deprive her fellow citizens from enjoying her land, she is not, in any case, legally able to do so. Therefore, anybody is at perfect liberty to wander across her land, which they do in their droves during the early mornings of the warmer months when they pick wild mushrooms to cook with scrambled eggs for their breakfasts. Provided they cause no damage, they are committing no offence and this is the way it should be. Clearly, certain restrictions to access land should be made, for example to prevent people entering sheep farmers' fields during the lambing season, but the default ruling should be that the proletariat have the right to roam the countryside. Thank you.
The proletariat have the right to roam the countryside.

First of all, I should like to clarify that the right of the population to enjoy the natural beauty in no way amounts to taking from the rich to give to the poor as my opponent implies. Neither is it an attack on the rich, or any other landowners. All that is being required of those in society privileged enough to own open countryside is to adopt a sense of noblesse oblige and share their good fortune with other people by allowing them reasonable access to their land. It must be recognised that many landowners already do this and they should be duly congratulated – it is the selfish, petty-minded people who cling to the belief that being wealthy entitles them to deprive ordinary people of the simple pleasures that walk in the countryside provides that need to be tackled. It is not about hating the rich, but rich people who behave so selfishly are hated, and deservedly so. My opponent went on to argue that the presumption should be that somebody seeking to access private land are doing so for nefarious purposes, even though this is very rarely the case. At best, this is punishing the many for the crimes of the few and, at worst, it is a draconian repression of the free movement of the masses only justified by the most spurious of arguments. If someone commits a crime on private land they should be punished but you cannot, in a free country, restrict the activities of the populace on the basis that they might abuse their freedom. What's next, nobody except those who can afford to employ government-approved chauffeurs should be allowed to drive just in case they decide to exceed the speed limit? My opponent also used emotive words to evoke images of ordinary people "taking" and even "stealing" private land. This is not what is being suggested at all, only that the public should be allowed free access the countryside – property owners will still be able to buy and sell land without let or hindrance. Finally, I realise that landowners in America and in the UK and in the rest of the world have very different backgrounds and, thankfully, the ‘braying toffs' that infest the rural shires of England are an anachronism outside this country. That said, the same principles of public access apply worldwide and unless a landowner can give a very good, practical reason why his property should be off-limits, the people should be allowed to exercise their right to roam the countryside. Thank you.
Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people

I would first like to refute my opponents arguments, and then strengthen my own case. My opponent stated in his first contention that the unemployment rates will increase. He stated that we are hurting the future of America if we raise the minimum wage, which I have already proven incorrect because even though the adolescents are losing jobs to more skilled workers (which they aren't), their parents are making more money. They are making enough money so that the kids don't have to work. Many of the adolescents that are working minimum wage are doing so because their parents aren't making enough money for the whole family. My opponent also stated that the 1996 legislation change is not applicable because the economy has changed, but what my opponent fails to understand is that no matter how bad or good the economy is, the effects will be the same. The varying economy does not change how increasing the minimum wage will do in the long run. This is why my opponents first contention falls. My opponent states in his second contention that raising the minimum wage will lower the incentive to find education. However, this is not true because good jobs still make 10-30 dollars or more over the minimum wage. All this is doing is letting families be able to live of their income, because today, it is hard to find jobs, so finding a minimum wage job is better than no job. This is why my opponents second contention falls. I am out of time, so I do not have a chance to refute my opponents 3rd contention, so I will do so in my next speech. This is why I believe the proposition is wining this debate, and urge for a proposition vote.
Resolved: Minimum wages in the United States should be raised to ensure the welfare of its people

I am in strong affirmation of the resolution, which states that the national minimum wage should be increased. I will now give my contentions. Contention 1: A $15/hour minimum wage won't result in major job losses because it would put money in the pockets of millions of low-wage workers who will spend it -- thereby giving working families and the overall economy a boost, and creating jobs. In 1996, we raised the minimum wage, and businesses predicted millions of job losses; in fact, we had more job gains over the next four years than in any comparable period in American history. (Robert Reich, Professor of Public policy, California University Berkeley) Contention 2: Working full time should produce enough money to support a family. In 1968, the minimum wage was high enough to keep a family of three out of poverty. In 1980, the minimum wage was at least high enough to keep a family of two out of poverty. Today, the minimum wage leaves a working parent with one child in poverty. This is fundamentally wrong. (Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History Emeritus) Contention 3: By under-paying workers, corporations are shifting the real costs of doing business to the general public. According to a study released this October by the University of California and the University of Illinois, 52 percent of America's fast food workers receive assistance from public programs like food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Medicaid, thanks to their poverty-level wages. As a result, taxpayers are contributing $7 billion per year to pick up the cost of supporting these fast-food workers. These taxpayers are paying enormous amounts to support the impoverished employees of Wal-Mart and other giant companies. (Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History Emeritus) This is why I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution.
Rap Battle

picks up mic* Yo.... Yo... You say I'm gay, but I'm gonna slay that now. I got a girl, she rocks my world. Your single ready to mingle. Even the blind find a better rap mind than you. They say your smell, ring the bell. TKO Time to pay the piper, while a viper bites while we fight but for you, it's lights out. I don't look like butts but you sir are a nut. Your fate is people hate you. Your a gazelle, I am a lion, oh look, little baby is crying! You face looks like it got hit with mace while being hit by a car in a high-speed chase. You want to play this game? While me and my boys aim for fame. You'll wallow in your shame and blame everything. Well, you b*tch a$s has no sass.
Rap Battle

*picks up mic* You talk all this trash, saying that my D is tiny While your boyfriends are behind ya all over your little hiny I date the blind, my good locks would kill them otherwise Meanwhile, you are just staring at other guys Your rapping sounds like they gave a baby the microphone And cause everyone hates you, you are all ways alone. You call yourself an underdog, cause you look and smell like a mutt And your selfies are banned cause they look to much like a butt Trust me when I say you aint seen nothin yet man I'll hit you over the head with a verbal cooking pan To much about you though, its making me ill Beating this fat, sucky punk gives me no thrill
Rap Battle

Yo..... YoYou think you all cool, that you rule this schooltime to get cruel cause your a foolWhere's your sass? You have no class. I'll put your little head in glassHere I go, there's no need to fear, the underdog is here and you my bitch!The people will find you ina ditch, you witch cause you a snitch,Oh no here you come trying to bitch slap me, Snap your hand, and you fall where you stand.You call yourself big D, I got a better name! Change big to small, and d to d!ckTime to ice you, throw the dice you pay the price, with your head full of lice!You must date the blind, you get fined for being a snitch you bitch!*drops mic*
Rap Battle

Yo, yo, yo it's big D in the house Ready to go all feline on this puny little mouse Straight A's in class Coolness to back up my sass At the head of my gang While you will never get to bang Cause you stupid and fat Face resembles a rat And yo mamma, don't get me started Always smells like someone farted Pretty sure thats her dried up barf above your neck Wait its just your face? Dude what the heck To negatives make a positive unless its your body and head People that even hear you near wish they could just be dead Your barbie dolls shoulda told you not to mess with the pros Cause having to stoop down to your level brings me to all time lows *drops mic*
School should be eliminated

:Like I said, I don't WANT to be an engineer, nobody does. And I can learn math by looking it up on the internet instead of sitting in prison.. err school for 6 hours. The assertion that nobody wants to be an engineer is highly inaccurate. Engineer is a popular field, in fact. If you don't want to be an engineer, don't be one... School doesn't teach you how to be an engineer, it teaches you how to be general, which is much more important. :And the last time I learned something in school was first grade. Tell me what 2 * 5 is... 10, right? You learned that after first grade. This is a massively gross exaggeration. :And school is a TERRIBLE provider of education. They push us WAY too hard to learn stuff that's 3 grade levels or more above, which is ridiculous. This is efficient. You can't live life without that kind of push.. And test score between hill billies and high school students would prove your horrible provider assertion quite false. I, for one, have learned in school then out of school. The material is appropriate for your age, you simply think it's above you because of you're no-work attitude. :They only do that so they make their school look good, so the teachers get paid more. Teacher's are paid by number of years, not test scores. The school gets paid by test scores. That's the point... To encourage them to push you to higher goals and levels. :That's all they care about. Most teachers don't even CARE about our education. That's a bullsh!t generalization, and you know it. :And google and youtube I found to be more reliable than school. If you learn everything from Google and Youtube, it's no wounder you think the stuff they are teaching you are levels ahead... Pro has grossly exaggerated everything and used bias claims to defend faulty assertions.
School should be eliminated

Like I said, I don't WANT to be an engineer, nobody does. And I can learn math by looking it up on the internet instead of sitting in prison.. err school for 6 hours. And the last time I learned something in school was first grade. And school is a TERRIBLE provider of education. They push us WAY too hard to learn stuff that's 3 grade levels or more above, which is ridiculous. They only do that so they make their school look good, so the teachers get paid more. That's all they care about. Most teachers don't even CARE about our education. And google and youtube I found to be more reliable than school.