BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
PC is better than console.

"but you do still have to set and download them to alter your own experience, which is great if you have the time."I already explained how most mods are as easy to download as downloading a game on PC/Console."However, this still requires technical skills and time"Being unable to drag a file to a folder or pressing a download button is concerning, and if you are talking about setting up PCs, just buy a prebuilt. Same setup as a console. I didn't read the entire article, but I'm pretty sure it's talking about that people don't know how to use newer software or computers in general, but most people who buy a PC just for gaming and maybe some light browsing don't need to be computer genuises. Playing games on a PC is just as easy as a console.1. Download steam/gog. Search it using Google then press the download button on the webpage. (Seeing how you are on debate.org I think you can do this.)2. Look the game you want to buy, or play if it's f2p, by using steams search engine, since the majority of people now how to search and type letters this shouldn't be a problem.3. Once you entered your payment method which you have to do on consoles as well since games aren't free unless you buy physical copies (PC has pyhsical copies too, but they are not as popular. For example, FO4 and GTA V have physical PC copies.)4. Press download then wait depending on your internet and the game's size.5. Then press play. The game will then automatically set your settings that will give you the best performance and graphics for your system. IF YOU WANT TO, you can change your settings if you want better performance or better graphics (one reason why PC is better than console).That's it.Isn't that exactly what you do on a console. Sure if the game is developed bad and it doesn't work you can fix it, however the difference between console and PC is that you can fix it IF YOU WANT TO while on console you have two options. Refund OR Wait until an update "And as dozens of top game designers have said "With a console, you know everybody is working from the same starting line and has the same hardware, so it allows you to be more creative without supporting lesser hardware."Look at the dev for A Way Out. They criticized the PS4 to be limiting to develop for than the PC."You want the honest truth? This machine is not so strong as you think, (Gestures to PS4)This is like a five-year-old PC. If consoles were as powerful as PCs are today, you would see all different games. Most of the work developers put out there is to make them work on consoles." ~ Josef Fares, head of Hazelight Studios (development studio of A Way Out)"so can a 1998 MAC, and they have to design it that way."What kind of idiot developer, devolps for a 20 year old MAC, or any MAC in general."More and more companies are discovering that you can bleed your enemies to death with legal fees whether or not there"s actually merit to your case! They've actually sued hundreds of their own users for "emotional distress" when they leave negative comments about their games."Same can be said for console companies.Sorry you have not convinced me.
PC is better than console.

Although it is true with innovation we are bridging the gap between the differences of PC and Console gaming, they are almost identical now you can hook your tv to your pc and your controller to your computer and you don't have to work on mods yourself but you do still have to set and download them to alter your own experience, which is great if you have the time. However, this still requires technical skills and time, which most people do not have. Kids raised in high schools where they teach on laptops only started 4 years ago, https://medium.com... Microsoft actually denied it's users cross play compatibility because they thought if they didn't share they would earn more money, thankfully Sony kept pressing until they caved and everyone was to benefit. More and more companies are discovering that you can bleed your enemies to death with legal fees whether or not there"s actually merit to your case! They've actually sued hundreds of their own users for "emotional distress" when they leave negative comments about their games. http://www.breitbart.com... (ew breitbart... my bad...it was the first one that popped up) https://www.polygon.com... https://www.forbes.com... And as dozens of top game designers have said "With a console, you know everybody is working from the same starting line and has the same hardware, so it allows you to be more creative without supporting lesser hardware. Which while today's PC may be able to run the new COD, so can a 1998 MAC, and they have to design it that way. So I hope I might be able to convince you, that consoles are better for the future of gaming, socially between player and designer, and for the progress of the hardware itself. Though undeniably I must concede a new age gaming PC will always have higher end performance.
Sanction is not an effective tool for resolving international conflicts.

I have been cornered at a wall indefinately parallel to my very unruffled impacable person by my opponent on this motion. REBUTTALLS: 1. SANCTION IS SLOW BUT IT WORKS: MY adversary rightly pointed two contradicting words here. 1.Slow 2.Works. Now when something is slow but it works, it actually means that it is not effective not to talk of efficient. Now take computer system for example, if your internet browser is slow, when you want to download a movie, will you say it is effective? Far from it, sanction is not effective because it doesn't get to its targets. South Africa was sanctioned and yet, south Africa was chained in the midst of Apartheid till currently that they got their independence after their resources have been milked by their colonial masters. 2.EXCLUSION DOES NOT HAVE DEVASTATING EFFECTS: NOW my adversary also pointed this out. Don't you know that exclusion of some countries in the united nations means discrimination? Or how do you expect other countries to obey international laws when they are been excluded from the united nations?. IRAN COMING TO NEGOTIATION TABLE: 3. My adversary said, that Iran came to negotiation table. Now is it not the same iran that is terrorising other relative close nations? Why is it that united state have decided to intervene?. NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT NOT PUNISHED WITH CONSENSUS: 5.I wonder what my opponent meant. But no matter how you coin it, sanction never worked. Since based on definition, effective is getting to targeted something. Why is it that sanction placed on Nigeria never got its full effects. WEAKNESS: 1.MY ADVERSARY HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THAT SANCTION IS EFFECTIVE IN ALL THE ROUNDS. 2.MY ADVERSARY KEEP GIVING EXAMPLES OF SANCTIONS. Not knowing that diplomatic and military sanctions have failed in all ramification. 3.My adversary have failed to address the over killing issue which is: how sanction have helped to solve international conflicts. CONCLUSION: SINCE BURDEN OF PROOF RELY ON MY ADVERSARY, I HAVE REBUTTED HIS KEY ARGUMENTS SOLUTIONS: 1.All nations should involve in decision making of united nation. 2. The big five should be removed. And all nations should involve in it. 3. There should be proper investigation before sanction is placed. If this is followed, sanction will be effective but for now, it is not.
Sanction is not an effective tool for resolving international conflicts.

In round four, I will do my rebutals. To start with, I never said that sanction doesn't work, what am saying is this: it is not effective' My argument is this, that sanction is not an effective tool in resolving international conflicts which means, I will be giving ways to make it effective or I will suggest a new tool that will replace sanction. Now like I said in my previous round about the big five countries at the united nation(un), it is practically impossible for sanction to attain its full cost if there is no collectivity of embassy's ideas in different countries of the world. Now when the big five which we all believe to be the most cordinated, and efficient states makes decision, other country won't challenge them even though such decisions are affecting lives of citizens. DECISION MAKING' At the united nation, all country have their embassies which means everybody participates in the look and cranny decisions, but what am saying is this, let the power not rest on this big five who will inturn claim to be the most powerful nation. That you are the most powerful does not mean your country is corruption free. The most annoying thing there is this, U.S.A once sanction Iran and iraq for importing tools and other facilities for the creation of nuclear weapons, now reason for the sanction was asked and they replied that iran and iraq are building weapons of war. But the same u.S.A, are studying how to create bomb in their universities and thesame u.S.A,explored the space in other to get equipments for the creation of atomic and nuclear weapons. Now let me ask my adversary, what is it meant for? Is it not for thesame war? Why is it that u.S.A were not sanctioned?. Promotion of trade: talking about economic buoyancy of states. Some states that have been sanctioned due to one reason or the other has confessed that it is blessing in disguise why? Because they if a country is sanctioned not to trade, it means that they will now depend on locally made products which means they are encouraging locally made products. And the probability that the sanction will restrict them from exporting their trade is not quaranted. So sanction does exist but it is not effective. Let me further talk about Nigeria's sanction in the year 1998 by the united nation, as lead by united state of America. Jesse jackson came to Nigeria in other to act as an investigating body to actually see the then military dictator Sani Abacha. In his investigations he reported that their is denial of fair trail, denial of human rights and corruption. Now Nigeria was given military sanction and economic sanction not to eXPORT or import goods but that sanction never worked. It was that same year, that Nigeria's G.D.P gross domestic product increaded thereby making the Net national income to increase. Inversely, the economy rose and it encouraged utilization of domestic products. This illustration shows that it is not effective even though it does exist.
Sanction is not an effective tool for resolving international conflicts.

Thanks for accepting. I do start by definition of terms and present my arguments.In subsequent rounds, I will start my rebutals. DEFINITIONS. sanc""tion - /"0"4saNG(k)SH"0"5n/ noun 1. a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule. 2. official permission or approval for an action. verb 1. give official permission or approval for (an action). 2. impose a sanction or penalty on. ef""fec""tive - /i"0"4fektiv/ adjective 1. successful in producing a desired or intended result. 2. fulfilling a specified function in fact, though not formally acknowledged as such. International lawis the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and between nations. [ 1 ] [ 2 ]It serves as a framework for the practice of stable and organized international relations. Now, based on the definitions which I have, it can be clearly seen that the motion is based on one angle which is: how effective is sanction? It is left for my adversary to prove that sanction is effective while I will be rebutting his argument. But based on his opening speech, he has just succeeded in giving examples of sanctions been placed on some countries. I am still waiting for him to present an argument and logical arguments to show that sanction is effective. The examples which he presented, is quite okay but has not proven that sanction is effective. I am saying that sanction is not effective based on the fact that the countries that place this sanctions re actually the big five of united nations which includes: U.S.A, france, china, japan, partly north korea. And the probability that this big five will place sanction in an effective way is not there. Let me ask, if japan should violate international laws, how can u.S.A place sanction on them since they are one of the big five?. Why is it that other nations won't contribute to the sanctions? My adversary should address these questions in his next argument. I will continue my presentation in my next round.
UN should make agreement to dismantle all nuclear weapons.

i suppose i can get behind it's better for everyone to have a lot less than we currently have. i dont think the USA should get rid of all its nukes and i wouldnt expect others to either,even if they said they were going to. i dont know why con said something about invading UN natinos etc, as i didnt mention it. i am curious how itd be enforced though, and if con is getting at we put relentless anything goes pressure on them, why is that the best approch? why start a fight when one doens't exist? i dont see a WWIII likely in the foreseeable future. everyone realizes it hurts everyone. but the prospect of WWIII i can agree should make us want to reduce the nukes everyone has. i guess the UN could make a resolution to dismantle them all, and people just not abide by it, but it could also just make a resaultion that says we're going to reduce the number. itd be mroe honest.
UN should make agreement to dismantle all nuclear weapons.

R1) Even if some countries hid few nukes, we still reduced a potential catastrophe. R2) No country would declare war on vast majority of UN, because it is pure suicide, even if that vast majority had no nukes. R3) Chances for WWIII to occur are high enough to be taken seriously. Two blocks are formed already (US + EU and India + Russia + China). US + EU has more military, and other block has better growing economy. There already is a small war in Ukraine between those 2 blocks, and it could easily escalate.
UN should make agreement to dismantle all nuclear weapons.

there's problems with some countries hiding nukes. we'd want to have some handy in case russia didnt give em all up and we end up in a war or something. plus, it's possible to juts make more, so having them ready or not is somewhat of a minor point. plus, how and why would you enforce this? if a north korea or another doesn't want to follow the rules, are we doing to start a war just to enforce it? might it be better to only go to war if it looks like they might try to use them, or start making more and more? as it is now, counties aren't doing much with making or using them, they just have them. the status quo is better than starting a war when it might not even be needed. and if it was needed, would be better done when it actually is needed. this way, if it's never needed we avoided an unnecessary war.
Im Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

I do not know where you are getting statistics from. According to the CDC, murders spike up when gun control laws are placed(https://crimeresearch.org...). In addition violent crime and murders go down 50% according to the FBI where people were allowed to conceal and carry(http://www.gunfacts.info...). Guns save far more lives in America than take them(http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...). I did my own math, and according to the Gleck-Kurtz study, 15.7% of people said they almost certainly saved their's or someone else's life in their defensive gun use, which are about 2.5 million a year according to the CDC. In addition, a other 14% said they "probably" would have saved a life if it weren't for their DGU. Since I want to be very conservative with my numbers, I'll assume everyone of the "probably" people are wrong. That means that at minimum, even if their are only 1 million DGUs, 157,000 lives are saved by guns. Using the CDC 2.5 million DGU statistics, almost 400,000 lives are saved by guns. That is far more than gun deaths and gun homicides.
Im Pro-Gun: Change my Mind

People may say, "Gun control doesn't work," but it certainly does. Countries with stricter gun control than the US nearly all have far fewer gun deaths and a lower murder rate. The exceptions are generally places where government is so ineffective they could be called a fail state. Meanwhile, the states with the worst rates of gun murders are states with lax gun control. And, in places with strict gun control but high levels of gun violence. Guns are easily obtained and transported from neighboring states like Michigan and Indiana, or Virginia and West Virginia, with some of the most relaxed gun restrictions on Earth
The Dualshock 4 controller (PS4) is better than the xBox One Controller (Not Elite)

XB1C is much better because it has more versatility, you can easily connect it to your computer or tablet. So would you rather have a controller that only works for one of your electronics? OR Do you want a real controller that can do it all. I will now attempt to dismiss both your arguments For your first argument I AM A MAN, I HAVE MAN HANDS I cannot use such a tiny controller therefor as a man I need a Mans controller like the XB1C it is huge like my hand. As far as joystick positioning I don't have to constantly outstretch my thumb and over exert it. It's in a good enough position to effortlessly move it around. For the right hand it constantly switches from the ABXY and the joystick which is good, gives it a good workout. Now to shut down your second argument. The DS4 just has a bunch of bells and whistles. The audio quality isn't that great, and you can't use the headphone jack argument cause both of them have it. As far as the screen being in the middle, Why would I want to look away from the screen just to look at the map? It's better if it's all on one HUD that way I don't die trying to find out where I am going.
The Dualshock 4 controller (PS4) is better than the xBox One Controller (Not Elite)

Would you like to have comfortable triggers with the Xbox 1 controller, or a better all-round controller with the DualShock 4? Choose wisely.Thank you judges, readers, and my most worthy opposition. Today I am here before you to explain why the PlayStation 4's bundled controller (referred to by me as the DualShock 4 or the DS4) is better than the Xbox 1's bundled controller (referred to by me as the Xbox One Controller or the XB1C)I will refer to the PlayStation 4 as the PS4 and the Xbox 1 as the XB1I will state 2 arguments in this section of the debate. The first argument is that the DS4's joysticks and joystick positioning is much better than that of the XB1C, and the second argument is that the DS4 has tons of cool features like a touch pad and a built-in speaker and headphones jack. ARGUMENT 1:The DS4's joysticks are much better than the XB1C's joysticks. The slightly concave, yet also convex shape gives the perfect amount of grip so that it is not uncomfortable while you rest your thumbs or do complex maneuvers. The spacing and positioning is also amazing, being extremely comfortable and ergonomic to hold, while using an XB1C cramps your left hand thumb whilst you use it. I find this uncomfortable, and my friend, who wishes to remain anonymous, has stated that he prefers to play Call of Duty: Black Ops III on the "PS4, hands down." This, combined with the amount of force it takes to move the joysticks, makes the DS4 feel "Much better than the Xbox 1's controller, even in long gaming sessions."ARGUMENT 2:The DS4 has tons of cool features thrown in for none other than the price of free! (Based on the prices at Amazon.ca for no extra cost over the Xbox One controller. (Based on resources Here and here as of December 29the, 2015.) One of these such features is a built in speaker, which, when well utilized, is an amazing add-on that will really enhance your gaming experience, giving you a 3-D sound stage with a much more convincing sense of surround sound than two TV speakers could ever provide, and will even enhance a surround-sound system or a home theater. Another amazing feature is the touch pad or touch surface in the middle of the controller. This is really well implemented in some games, and in Assassins Creed IV the map navigation feels really natural. These are amazing things that, at NO extra cost, make the DS4 a much better deal.In the end, the PlayStation's controller is a much, much better deal overall. Thank you for taking your time to read this and vote for the winner.
Buddhism

Happiness is a state of mind. States of mind are the result of complex chemical processes. The structure of our minds is determined by blind evolution. It chanced upon giving rewards(happiness) to organisms which felt ways(compassion) for their fellows that resulted in greater benefit(reciprocation) for themselves. The mutation contributed to success, and so has become universal to the brain architecture. But there's no reason to think that an accidental way of producing happiness is going to be the optimal way to do so. We have organic features. They provide benefits to us. Legs --> travel, access to resources eyes --> superior modeling of environment, and therefore, reactive capabilities compassion --> reciprocation But these are accidental hacks by blind evolution. None of them are the best way to achieve the benefits they correspond to. Their very nature makes them exceedingly unlikely to be so. And so we have artificial transportation (cars, planes, shoes), artificial sight (eyeglasses, telescopes, microscopes), and with sufficient knowledge, we should be able to produce artificial and superior happiness. It was an accident that made compassion produce happiness. With time, we can improve upon it as we have done upon so many of the other accidents that define our structure, corporeally and cognitively.
Buddhism

I would just like to recount the format, opening, rebuttal, closing. I would be glad to give a definition of "most important" and of course you are welcome to challenge it if you disagree. "Most important"--the thing in a human's life when fulfilled brings the most happiness. I'll start by describing three levels of compassion: selfish, genuine, and trancendental. Selfish compassion is being compassionate because you believe if you treat others in such a way, the same will come back to you. Genuine compassion is showing compassion for others simply because you know the will be happier. Trancendental compassion is compassion for all beings regardless of circumstance on the basis that this creates a universe in which all beings may be happy. I feel I must step back a moment and ask, "why is happiness most important? " If you had a million dollars, what use could you find for it. You could buy a house, take care of your family or even give to charity. You can also buy stocks, invest in future technology, and fund projects. Finally can buy off politicians, bully competition, and destroy others work. The first one you increase happiness, but not wealth. The second you increase happiness and wealth. In the third you increase wealth and not happiness. These same scenerios all are in accord with power, fame, physical strength, etc. But the common thread with all of them is they are not good unless they increase happiness. So happiness must be supreme. I argue compassion is the best way to increase happiness. By heartfeltly caring about and for others we make them happier, and they will most likely reciprocate. Also just caring makes us feel happier as well, giving someone a genuine compliment maked both of us feel better. Finally when we live in a caring universe, made up of compassionate people, we experience the good of happiness with more people, because there is simply more happiness to goaround.