BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
PC v Console

Ok. I think consoles are better for a few reasons. Consistency, game optimization, and ease of access. Pcs can have these but having one sacrifices the other if you are on a budget. Consoles have all 3 of these at a fair price. Consistency: If I am playing a game with my friend on console, I know we are having the same experience. No one has an advantage or disadvantage. This is fair especially online. When playing multiplayer, we all have the same specs and framerate. Now on PC, I think you can decide from here. Game Optimization: Games tend to be more optimized on consoles than PC. I mean look at Batman Arkham Knight. Everyone has the same console so it is easier to optimize a game while PC has many different factors that devs need to account for leading to worse optimization. Ease of access: Consoles are extremely easy to use. Buy, plug in, play. All at a cheap price. Now a PC on the other hand is tougher. You can make your own cheaply but that ruins the ease of access factor. You can buy a prebuilt one but those are usually more expensive. I understand the advantages of Pc however. Consoles are more budget friendly. PC is superior if budget isn't holding you back but most of us have a budget and consoles are more budget friendly. There is one factor that ultimately decides what you should get. Friends. If your friends have a console, get a console. If they have a PC, get a PC. Friends make the experience the best. What machine you play on doesn't matter if you have no friends to play it with.
PC v Console

Yes, the cost may be consistent but that leaves little to no room for expansion, you can put a few hundred dollars in at first and upgrade overtime with PC. Console is the set price and yes it may be on a level playing field for tournaments, but it is also the same for PC gaming (League of Legends for example), they will order X amount of PC's that are necessary for any amount of players at any given time. Optimization: Yes xbox comes as what you see is what you get, but PC has the chance to be upgraded for optimization to the buyers standard or budget. With room for expansion and easy access, the PC would take the crown if budget was not something that holds you back. If it is, you can always just spend a little on a PC and upgrade slowly over time instead of blowing a large amount of money at once. PC has more versatility for upgrades and changes to the functionality and performance. Next round (round four) should be conclusions on why your side, PC or console, is better than the other, no debating against each other, just put what you think defends your side. Good luck! :D -Chaos
PC v Console

-Cost: You can buy an Xbox One S for 299$ for the most of the time. This is for a new console. A used one is usually cheaper. Now buying a PC that can match the performance while having the same price is very difficult. You can't use used parts in building one because then the price for the XB1S used is way cheaper. It can be a set price but you get consistency. In a tournament, you can be sure that the console they have there will be the same as the one you have. Consoles have the consistency. -Performance/Graphical Power-See above. You get consistency along with a fair price. There is another section that I wish to discuss and that is optimization. I think it is best if we leave that for next round though and let the 3rd round be about that. the last one can be a summary/good game type of thing.
PC v Console

-PC/laptops have been around for a long time, not to say consoles have not, but there has been a vast improvement in the capability of these machines. In the early days, computers would take up an entire room and would be able to do basic tasks. Since the first computer in 1946, they have become more personal and much more powerful. By the time 1981 rolled around, these machines that would take up an entire room, was now capable of being brought around with you on your travels. Computers now are have a vast capability of storing countless amounts of information, running games that would impress anyone, availability to create mods for games or just create your own game. -Cost, this can be pushed either way, you can choose to spend $400-$600 on a console which is a rather set sticker price. On PC/laptops you have the ability to spend $300 to the upwards of $10,000. Obviously the more you spend the better performance you will receive. Because of this price range there is a lot of flexibility in parts, size and capability of the machine you are looking into making. In all fairness, you never expect to spend the amount that you want on a pc, it normally go over, while on console it's a set price and not changing. -Performance, for console it's normally going to be a 'what you see is what you get' kind of situation. For PC, you have a vast majority of choices that will enhance your performance, and you also have the possibility to change the graphics card. On console you do not have as easy of a upgrading parts. You can build a PC from scratch while the console just comes at a sticker price and what the performance is would be rather standard and unavailable to change. -Graphical Process Power, along the same lines as performance, what you see is what you get for console. PC has a wide variety of choices to choose from and possess the capabilities for upgrades. If there are any other sections you wish to touch on, please feel free too, I shall respond next round Best of luck! -Chaos
Atlantis existed

Resolution: The ancient city of Atlantis existed at some point in time.I will be arguing Pro, for the existence of the Lost Kingdom, and Con will be arguing that the city never existed.Round 1 is for acceptance on Con's part, and I would additionally ask for no semantic play.I will offer a definition:Atlantis: the city Plato described in the Timaeus and CritiasGood luck to Con, I have never actually argued this before and will be testing out some ideas. I will have the Burden of Proof.
Existence of God

First off, I do not firmly believe in nor do I firmly refute the existence of a higher power. I am here to debate on the thesis that it is impossible to prove or disprove a higher power, and to explain how science is essentially no better than a religion believing in a god. As a former Christian, I believe I have a firm understanding of the bible, and why so many choose to follow its teachings. However, I have turned away from holy books to form my own opinions and understanding of the world. I will begin my counter argument with the following question; If you are so eager to denounce the existence of a widely-accepted higher-power, centered around a book written by hundreds of people with first-hand accounts of a higher power, what makes science, a collection of thousands of people's first-hand accounts, any more legitimate?
Existence of God

Do you believe in science? Do you believe in God? If so which one? Would you believe in that God if you had been born in a foreign country? What makes you so certain your God, religion or holy book is the right one? How did you gain this knowledge? What evidence do you have to back up your beliefs? When I answered these questions honestly I began to see how my beliefs would be very different depending on my living situation and cultural and social influences. That my established ideals were those of others and not my own. I feel that if people will ask themselves the same questions they will cone to the same conclusion as I did; namely that God doesn't exist and that we are here because of evolution.
Genetic Engineering

Genetically modified foods aren"t just a danger to nature, they also pose a threat to farmers, who make their living off crops they grow in their own fields. Pesticides are a big part of what being a self-employed farmer is all about. Pesticides are used to keep living organisms from devouring their crops. Without them, it would be nearly impossible to get a good yield from their fields. Many people aren"t a big fan of these pesticides, since they aren"t exactly healthy, but if a big company where to modify the genes of a crop so that it would no longer need pesticides, it would be much more popular than those grown by farmers forced to use pesticides. This could cause many farmers to go out of business. Now, I said in Round 1 how there are no tests on humans, but there are tests on animals, and not all of them are positive. Feeding mice potatoes transformed with a Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki Cry1 toxin gene was shown to have caused villus epithelial cell hypertrophy and multinucleation, disrupted microvilli, mitochondrial degeneration, increased numbers of lysosomes and autophagic vacuoles and activation of crypt Paneth cells. The results show that despite claims to the contrary, Cry1 toxin gene is very dangerous when used incorrectly, and requires much more extensive testing before it could be ready to be available to humans. Now, you talked about how plants have been genetically modified to be more resistant to herbicides like Roundup, and how if people were to get their hands on these crops that they might apply to much, expecting better results, and end up causing their crops to become unhealthy. Now, we can"t exactly rely on people to become more responsible with these new genetically modified crops. People will be who they want to be, and there"s not much we can do to change that. If we are to release these genetically modified crops into the public, there"s no telling what people might do. We can"t trust people to be responsible with genetically modified crops. Also, comparing genetically modified foods to surgical procedures is inaccurate, since genetically modified foods, if they were to be released into the public, would be everywhere. Not everyone gets surgery in their life, whereas if genetically modified foods were to be released, it is very likely that almost everyone would come into contact with them.
Genetic Engineering

Although i admit some genetically modified foods are harmful but that is true with most other things like surgical procedures or scientific expirements. I believe that even though some genetically modified foods are bad what is worse is when crops are modified to withstand pesticides and herbicides an then the people growing them start to use exessive amounts of either and that would more negatively impact the environment than if the genetically modidfied crops or foods were bad for animals. for example some corn plants have been genetically modified to not be killed by Roundup" a very powerful herbicide so because of this farmers put roundup directly on the corn crops which absorb it and you can never get it off of the plant so when people eat these contaminated crops it can cause many illnesses and is all around very harmful to the human body.
Genetic Engineering

Genetically modified foods and crops sound very appealing, and with our advanced technology, we can alter the genetic material of various foods to become safer, healthier, and even heal ailments. As seductive as that sounds, it is not one hundred percent safe. You should know, that no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies on the human health effects exist on genetically modified foods. This does not mean they"re safe. It does not directly show that they are unsafe, but it"s a dangerous risk. If untested genetically modified foods were distributed on a large scale, and it was discovered that they were harmful to the human body, the results could be catastrophic. On top of that, we don"t know of the effects it could have on the environment, in, say, 20 years time. We have no idea what it could do to the environment to have crops genetically altered. Genetic modification could cause animals to react differently, and possibly negatively, to the plant, since it would be foreign to them. If an animal were to eat the genetically altered plant, without knowing the effects, it could kill the animal.
Genetic Engineering

I have written this speech to inform the public about the many beneficial uses of genetic engineering. Some of the many beneficial uses are creating bacteria that make insulin to help those with diabetes or grow new organs or body parts for those whose have been damaged or removed, and i know that there are disadvantages but i believe that the good things significantly outweigh the bad. Biotechnology and Genetic engineering are very closely related because biotechnology is implementing technology into organisms or genetically engineering them. There are many reasons why genetic engineering is good although Stem cells are very controversial with them you can grow bones or tissues for a patient in need this would save a great deal of lives and with more testing amputees could be helped by growing new body parts. Even though some genetically modified foods have proven unsafe with more understanding that problem could be solved and genetically modified crops could be mass produced to help feed the starving masses in other countries.
Genetic Engineering

I never said that the gene pool was fixed. I said it would be impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. I agree that if we always gave in to the fear of the unknown then we wouldn"t be nearly as technologically advanced, but this is quite a risk, and has evidence towards it being dangerous. Most of the health and environmental risks of GMOs are ignored by governments' superficial regulations and safety assessments. The reason for this tragedy is largely political. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, doesn't require a single safety study, does not mandate labeling of GMOs, and allows companies to put their GM foods onto the market without even notifying the agency. Their justification was the claim that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different. But this was a lie. Secret agency memos made public by a lawsuit show that the overwhelming consensus even among the FDA's own scientists was that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. They urged long-term safety studies. But the White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, and the agency official in charge of policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney, later their vice president.
Genetic Engineering

My opponent seems to think that the gene pool is in an perfect unchanging state which is wrong. Genes have been jumping from species to species for ages without human help. Nobody has found a way of creating completely synthetic genes. All work with GMOs involves reactivating or modifying pre-existing genes so I don't see why we shouldn't modify them to suit us or protect against diseases. I believe that even if you do test on lab animals it still isn't the same as a human using it. I am not suggesting that we test these things on humans but that lab results have often been proven wrong. Fear of the unknown is no reason to reject advances in science and technology. If we choose to suppress research we might as well be back in the middle ages.
Genetic Engineering

If you don"t understand the part about the effects of genetically modified potatoes on mice, that is your problem, not mine. The only companies that would use GM crops would be large companies that are already big competition for small farmers, therefore they would already have the money necessary to start a farm devoted to genetically modified crops. I am aware that the FDA has put genetically modified foods on the market already, but these are minor modifications. The kind that we"re talking about pose an allergenic risk since they are untested on humans. Regarding your response to the responsibility of those who use genetically modified crops, you"re nitpicking there. Yes, I said that "we can"t exactly rely on people to become more responsible with these new genetically modified crops", but that implies both. Genetically modified organisms can cross-pollinate, and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.
Genetic Engineering

Even if a big company made it so that pesticide were obsolete what would they do with them there isn't enough money to be made by starting a farm so, they would sell their product to farmers instead of them growing them and helping the environment. If you don't mind could you explain so everybody knows what the part about potatoes means just to clarify what it means. As you might not be aware because of the fda genetically modified foods are already out and in supermarkets it is just that the fda as I was saying does not require the manufacturer to put a label on the item unless it has different significantly different nutritional property, an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present such as a peanut protein in a soybean product, or if a food contains toxicants beyond acceptable limits. so this is probably why most people might not know that they are already in circulation. With regards to being responsible with genetically engineered foods wouldn't it make more sense to be more responsible with the pesticide or herbicides that they are using rather than being more responsible with the plant because the pesticides and herbicides are the true problem not the plant.
American Police are Overly Militarized

American Police, as most recently seen in the ongoing Ferguson, Missouri unrest, are overly militarized. BoP is shared. Overly Militarized = the employment of weapons, equipment, and tactics that are disproportionate to the threat. An overly aggressive posture that is counterproductive. Round 1 = acceptance only (no arguments) Round 2 = opening arguments (no rebuttals) Round 3 = rebuttals Round 4 = response/conclusion
American Police are Overly Militarized

I'm sorry that Pro missed my bold print in Round 2 stating my (Con) position that our Police need to be militarized. Con gave Pro the reasons why militarization is taking place with a historical overview of our changing social environment. The title of this debate, the stake in the ground, “American Police are Overly Militarized” and the Burden of Proof (BoP) is on Pro. Con gave historical events why such militarization is taking place, where Pro offered an emotional argument lacking any Police force standard on militarization. Since there are no standards, Police force militarization is a decision of the local community, and that is where it should be. Pro made reference to military doctrine as cross reference but such reference is improper. Military is trained to kill and destroy, where Police are trained to protect and save. On a side note, military doctrine today is not the same as it was during WWII, the last combat war we won. All the other stalemate wars, from Korea on up to today, are more like political Police actions. Perhaps, the military should stop acting like Police. In closing, I thank Pro for bringing an important topic to the debating floor, where at least, we have a better understanding why our Police are becoming militarized. And finally, I look forward in meeting Pro again on the debating floor.
American Police are Overly Militarized

Regrettably, I believe my opponent is now way off course. Their argument has gone from irrelevant to strange. I agree that "overly" is a relative term, but that's the whole point - it challenges us both to make a case confirming or denying its application. I believe I have done so, I submit my opponent has not. Con seems to be arguing over the causes of police militarization while simultaneously encouraging me to help reduce the power of the Federal government. This is not at all what the debate is about. The former is irrelevant and the latter is not even an argument. The causes of police militarization, whatever they may be, are a side issue. The issue I was hoping to debate was simply if police are excessively militarized, not how they got that way. While I can appreciate that my opponent seems to feel very strongly about hypothetical race wars, Islam, New World Order, and "the ruling class in DC," this is all irrelevant and unproven. It's a poor excuse at best to employ your police arsenal against "uninvited potential local terrorists. " The potential existence of vague, poorly defined, highly unlikely terrorist activity is no justification for acting like an occupation force in a foreign land. The military itself would not even take such measures. If Al Qaeda attacks the Pumpkin Festival, by all means, bust out the camo and bring the armored personnel carriers. Until then, keep that stuff in the storage closet. Once again, Con has not really provided any relevant points to rebut, so I will conclude. Since Con did not actually address the topic, I ask the vote go for Pro.
American Police are Overly Militarized

Thank you Con for the detailed opening argument. We are now in the rebuttal round. Con's argument covers a wide array of topics. I can identify comments about history, President Obama, 9/11, ISIS, immigration, Constitutional theory, lobbyists, Booker T. Washington, morality, economics, education, secularization, the Andy Griffith Show, to name a few. While I certainly enjoy learning about history and applaud my opponent's use of sources, the only piece that seems to be missing from Con's argument is the actual militarization of police. Con briefly mentions that the police need to be militarized because of all the bad things that are happening in the world. However, that is not really the topic of this debate. Discussing whether police should be militarized is at best a tangential issue that avoids the real argument. The key word in the debate title is "Overly." The argument here is not whether the police should be militarized in any way, but that they are, at present, excessively so. I hope I made it fairly clear in my opening argument that I fully support police retaining equipment and weapons to protect themselves in worst case scenarios. Police are justified in responding in a military style against a militarized threat. My argument, however, is that police have no need to don camouflage uniforms, point sniper rifles into crowds, and conduct routine patrols in IED proof vehicles if there is no realistic threat to justify it. The small town of Doraville, GA (pop. 8,482) [1] has absolutely no need for a military armored personnel carrier filled with assault rifle toting police driving around to the song "die mother f*****, die" followed by the logo from the comic book character "The Punisher." [2] The police in Keene, New Hampshire do not need an IED resistant armored vehicle with gun mounts and thermal optics to prepare for a possible terrorist attack on their annual Pumpkin Festival. (And yes, that was the actual justification used by the Keene PD) [3]. Police departments are increasingly buying and employing equipment best suited for threats found in Baghdad and Kabul. This is the sum of my argument. Since I do not believe Con presented any relevant information to rebut, I must, unfortunately, conclude. Once again, the question is not whether police should be militarized to some degree. I fully support the use of powerful weapons and equipment by police if they face an equivalent threat. But such threats are extremely rare, and the rate at which such responses are used against American citizens is overly aggressive and counterproductive. I look forward to my opponent further clarifying their argument in the next round. [1] http://www.city-data.com... [2] [3] http://keene-equinox.com...