BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pc vs Console

Sure consoles can do some things like Netflix, And Search the net although the pc can do this plus a tremendous amount. And pc can be hooked up to any monitor and is not specific to size. If you build a decent computer around the same price of a ps4 upgrading is a preference more then a necessity for a long time to come. Computer controls (mouse and keyboard) are far better than a controller. Almost every eSports game out there use a keyboard and mouse. This is due to a huge increase in accuracy and usability also keyboards are more versatile and can be used to search the web and Netflix a LOT faster. The direct X graphics architecture has been around since 2004 and widely adopted. This show's that graphics drivers almost never go out of date. IF they do the console would be useless by this point anyway. Also, There are several games Ps4 exclusive although look at a steam library. There are drastically more computer exclusives.
Pc vs Console

Consoles like X-box or Playstation are waaay better than a PC because I buy one console and I'm good for 10 years, Meanwhile with a PC, I have to keep spending money on hardware, Constantly updating my video card, My sound car, My monitor, While I use a TV for my consoles. Also who the hell wants to game with a mouse and keyboard. I get an awesome controller with my console. There are more better exclusive sport games on the consoles especially PS4 where I get an awesome MLB The Show (best game in the world) NHL Hockey and NBA and Football and soccer games not made for PC. Sure the PC can be used for other applications other then gaming but so can the consoles now, I can watch Netflix, Search the net and watch everything on a 75" TV, And watch DVD's with the console and the PS4 records the last 15 minutes of any gaming session so I can recorded and share with friends on line The bottom line is that a console is a lot cheaper for the next 10 years then a PC that constantly needs new running software, Updates and hardware constantly as the graphics card and sound cards can't keep up with new technology Consoles are better then PC's MIC DROP
The Christian Doctrine Of Free Will Is Impossible

I thank Rook for this response. If God is responsible for every single human thought, and our thoughts cause mental states and physical actions, then God is responsible for every single mental state and physical action. Just as sample of mental states and physical actions: 1. The mental state of atheism 2. The physical action of murder Why would God lead people to do these things? The Christian God would obviously NOT want humans to engage in these activities, as he is all-loving and all-good. However, some people do these very things. If I was the sole creator of every single thought/action in the universe I would surely want those thoughts and actions to at least please me to some certain degree. Is this how our universe works? Here is a more likely scenario: Yes, God created the external environment. However, we as humans who have free will can decide how we respond to the environment. You and I might be trapped inside a burning building, you might try to escape and I might try rescue others who are trapped. Without free will, there is no such thing as morality, as what we do isn't actually our fault and hence shouldn't be punished for it. However, according to the Bible, God does punish people for their wrongful actions. Also, my opponent said that God created our thought process. Why would God create this thought process if "thought" really doesn't exist? If God is all powerful and he implements our thoughts, then we don't need a thought process because we don't need to think, God tells us what to think. However, since God created this thought process he must of wanted us to think for ourselves, and not wanted him to do the thinking.
The Christian Doctrine Of Free Will Is Impossible

My opponent argues that though God knows our thoughts and desires, he is not responsible for their creation. But yet, isn't God, by very definition, creator of all things? Therefore, he would have to be the creator of our nature. He would have to have created some sort of pattern to human thought, or else we would not be able to think at all. Therefore, he is responsible for our every action,. We are simply following our nature, because it is impossible to do otherwise. Secondly, he would be thus directly responsible for all thoughts we would think as a result of environmental conditions. And yes, I see my error in the title now, thank you for pointing it out.
The Christian Doctrine Of Free Will Is Impossible

Unfortunately, my opponent has made quite a big mistake that all people who use the Theological Challenge to Freedom do. He has confused foreknowledge with predestination. Just because God knows of something that is going to happen, it doesn't mean he forced it to be that way. God could know that tomorrow you will get in an argument with your wife, but that doesn't mean God made you fight your wife. He just simply knows it is going to happen. So, why does he not stop it? Because that would violate free will. My opponent: "Furthermore, no thoughts could exist that did not originate from God, because he is the creator of all things, and thoughts that were unknown to him would violate his nature, being omniscient." So God knows our thoughts? This is true, however it doesn't mean that God implemented our thoughts. God has created an environment, we can each respond to that environment in different ways, making us free. Note: My opponent has said free will is IMPOSSIBLE. That means that if I can provide the smallest bit of evidence to make free will at least somewhat possible, then I win.
The Christian Doctrine Of Free Will Is Impossible

I contend that the Christian God would not be able to provide Free Will if he existed, because he would have foreknowledge (and would have been the creator) of every factor or thought that would cause a person to take action. Furthermore, no thoughts could exist that did not originate from God, because he is the creator of all things, and thoughts that were unknown to him would violate his nature, being omniscient. I define the Christian God as a Omnipotent and Omniscient being who is the solely responsible author of The Bible, and all things. Free Will will be defined as the belief that God allows humans to choose their own actions without any interference from God himself. Note: This is my first debate on here, so please alert me if I have set up a poor format, or made any other mistakes. Thank You. :)
People under the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

Oh GARG!!!! YOU RAT OCTOPUS.YOUR HEAD VILL MELT ON A BURNING STICK FOREVER!!! In Them desserts they hunt lots of fish in the grass!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU SILARGS YOU INTOLERANT SLAVE I DEFY YOU.I DONT CARE ANY MORE ALL HUMANS MUST DIE! MY NEXT DEBATE VILL "BE PEOPLE UNDER AND OLDER THE AGE OF 55 must die to increase the HUMAN POPULARGS! After your head is on the burning wooden stick the ancient tribal shamans will dance around the campfire singing death to logic! Then they will melt your brain like a marshmellow on them fires!!! YESYESYESYESYES YES THEN VE VILL EAT SALMON.AND SING 01010101010101010101001110111011101110101011101111010110110110110101201010101010101089101010101i81010101018189891080110190810 BLARG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AM GOD MY HOLY EMPIRE VILL LAST FOREVER SLAVES! DEATH IS AL YOU SEE!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://en.wikipedia.org... MY HOLY EMPIRE VILL LAST FOR 10 TRILLION YEARS THEN ANOTHER !) TRILLION YEARS ARG YOU SILARGS FUTILE LABORING PEASENT!!! PEASENT!!!!!! PEASENT!!!!! ARG THEY LIKE THEM SHEEP!!!! ARGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH BLARG !!!!!! "frogs breath salmon out of there buts" OH GARG! OH BLARG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ybrgiosdbrgfiowbreusrbvseovfrsjbndovbsodfvgosubnrvonsdovnosd AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!arg DEATH TO ALL WHO SUPPORT/OPPOSE ME
People under the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

Ok I have evidence to refute my opponents claims. From now on I will now call him supreme overlord hierarchal dictator 1. The US interstate highway system requires that one mile in every five be straight. These straight sections function as airstrips in times of war and other emergencies. 2.Turtles can breathe through their butts 3. 315 entries in Webster's 1996 dictionary were misspelled I have disproved everything you said through simple reason and logic
People under the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

Many of my opponent's definitions make no sense. He defines "be" as "Belgium," "put" as "Putsch," etc. He also defines "of" as a district in Trabzon, which makes the resolution grammatically impossible to affirm. I ask that all of the definitions which do not truly relate to the original word be tossed out. In conclusion, my opponent has made no arguments against my three contentions. The resolution remains negated.
People under the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

It appears my opponent does not understand what I was saying so I will TEACH him People: http://en.wikipedia.org... Under: http://en.wikipedia.org... The: http://en.wikipedia.org... age: http://en.wikipedia.org... of: http://en.wikipedia.org...(District),_Trabzon 55: http://en.wikipedia.org... should: http://en.wikipedia.org... be: http://en.wikipedia.org... put: http://en.wikipedia.org... to: http://en.wikipedia.org... sleep: http://en.wikipedia.org... for: http://en.wikipedia.org... population: http://en.wikipedia.org... reduction: http://en.wikipedia.org... Dictionary: http://en.wikipedia.org...
People under the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

Alright, I would like to point out that my opponent has completely and deliberately misquoted me. I said that the right to life would be violated, not supported. I said that the human race would become extinct, not expanded. I said that the process would cost too much, not too little. "My opponent does not understand the laws of physics.He bindly[sic] and ignorantly assumes that he can somehow justify his absurd claim." The first statement is untrue, and the second more accurately describes my opponent than me. So, the conclusion is that we still disagree on both points. Try again.
People under the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

He bindly and ignorantly assumes that he can somehow justify his absurd claim. I will go buy quotes of what he said "1. It would support the right to life of numerous individuals, including both me and my opponent. " Yes I agree with me it would support the right to life to numerous individuals including ourselves "2. We would have people at the age of 55 and over left, which would lead to the expansion of the human race. " Yes I agree with you there would be more people "3. It would cost too little in taxpayer dollars. " Yes i agree with you it would cost no money at all you could donate if you like at . http://www.vhemt.org... CONCLUSION We agree that. .. 1. the right to life would be granted 2. it would lead the "expansion of the human race" 3. It would cost no tax money in fact you would be paid for it!
People under the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

Thank you for instigating this debate. "The human population is unsustainable." My opponent gives no evidence for this statement, and it is completely false. http://www.geocities.com... It's a myth. "We should peacefully massacre them in a genocide bigger than any other in history." Reasons are required. My contentions: 1. It would violate the right to life of numerous individuals, including both me and my opponent. 2. We would only have people at the age of 55 and over left, which would lead to the extinction of the human race. 3. It would cost too much in taxpayer dollars. That will be all for now.
Ron Weasley wasn't good enough for Hermione Granger

See, the argument here isn't that their personalities wouldn't quite match up. When someone says that someone isn't "enough" for someone else, you don't think, oh, they just wouldn't go together well in a relationship. The way it was worded was degrading, as if everything Ron did in the books wasn't good enough because he wasn't the hero or the "Boy who lived." In my opinion, when Ron was jealous of Krum, he wasn't super, overly controlling-ly jealous, and it was around the time when he was just figuring out his feelings (he was 14-15 ish. No excuse, but he was immature.) And The only reason he was seen as overly jealous with Hermione and Harry was because of the darkness of the Horcrux. It's normal to feel a little jealous sometimes, and that was probably all he was feeling before the Horcrux made it into something nasty. I feel that a more mature Ron who was aware of the fact that Hermione did like him back would handle both of these situations better. Anyway, Ron and Hermione was never really something I shipped, just a trope I expected to happen. My only problem with the whole thing was how it was worded? Like, Rowling said she hadn"t meant for Ron and Hermione to get together. Cool. But saying that the reason is because Ron would never "be enough" for her kind of ticked me off? Maybe Ron wasn"t book smart, but nobody could beat that boy at wizard"s chess. You don"t have to be book smart to be an interesting, stimulating person. Yeah, so he wasn"t very good at making potions, but he knew everything there was to know about quidditch. And maybe he wasn"t the big hero or "the Boy Who Lived," but he dived into a mysterious lake to save his drowning friend and he sacrificed himself in the real life game of wizard"s chess and he fought in the battle of Hogwarts with everyone else when he could have run away and he went into the bathroom and saved Hermione from that troll even though they weren"t friends yet and he fought in the Department of Mysteries and went to save Sirius and he defied Umbridge and joined the D.A. and memorized Harry"s Parsletongue to reopen the Chamber of Secrets and snuck into Gringotts and rode on the back of a dragon and destroyed Horcruxes and overpowered the hold a Horcrux had over him after managing to wear it for days. My point is, Ronald Weasley is amazing and interesting and no one, not even JK Rowling, will convince me that he isn"t enough for someone because he doesn"t like to study.
The Autobots would defeat the Decepticons.

On the contrary: Shockwave was one of the nicest Senators on Cybertron until Proteus and his crew performed Epurata and Shadowplay (two highly dangerous mind control operations) on him, turning him evil. Shockwave enlisted in the Decepticon Army and became Megatron's most prized strategist. He was also one of the most powerful Decepticons, with a plasma blaster on one arm and an alt mode being a space gun. Also: Bumblebee is one of the weakest Autobots, and was easily killed in Dark Cybertron. Also, if he defeated the entire squadron of Dinobots (Spotlight: Shockwave), then he is not weak at all, the Dinobots being an almost undefeatable force. Thanks.
The Autobots would defeat the Decepticons.

But usually, unless it's something like "The Death of ****", the good guys always win, and the bad guys always lose. Even if the bad guy has some overpowered weapon that can kill the good guy, for instance, Overlord, Sixshot, and Tarn, the good guys always strike back to destroy it once and for all. Plus, since you never stated how strong Shockwave was, if he only used knoledge, he must be very weak, and can easily be defeated by SideSwipe or Bumblebee.
The Autobots would defeat the Decepticons.

However, in the IDW Comics, the Decepticons had control over all of Cybertron, and the Autobots were forced to leave Earth (All Hail Megatron) and Cybertron became a wasteland (Infiltration, Ironhide). The Decepticon Justice Division (Tarn, Vos, Kaon, Helex, Tesaurus [and previously the Autobot Skids]) had taken over an entire planet, Messatine (MTMTE Volume 2), leaving Pharma and other Autobots with no choice but to slaughter their own fighting force. Also, the Autobot force known as the Wreckers was destroyed by a Phase Sixer named Overlord (The Last Stand of the Wreckers). If a force as powerful as the Wreckers could be destroyed by only one Decepticon, the Autobots cannot be very powerful. Lastly, the Decepticon scientist known as Shockwave, or Senator Shockwave, took over Cybertron with only his knowledge. Even the Autobot Prowl quoted, "[We have our own fighters, like Grimlock and Roller], but they all pale when compared to the likes of Overlord, Sixshot, and Tarn." Thanks for the debate, and I am ready for my opponent's rebuttal.
The Autobots would defeat the Decepticons.

The Autobots would win for the following reasons: * They have such bots as: the Twins, Mudflap, and Skids, the medic Ratchet, Sideswipe, Bumblebee, and of course, the leader Optimus Prime. And don't go saying "but Yomama, Megatron killed Optimus that one time", because we all know, and since he revived, now the Autobots have the thing that can revive them. *In every single movie/video game I have ever seen, the good guys always win. *About half of the Decepticons, StarScream, Megatron, and that giant thing made of different construction equipment, all died in the Third Movie. I await my opponent's rebuttals. Thanks for the chance to debate this.
The Autobots would defeat the Decepticons.

-PLEASE ACCEPT CHALLENGE, I REALLY WANT TO DEBATE- The Decepticons would defeat the Autobots for the following reasons: The Decepticons, according to IDW Classic Transformers Volume One, had a massive fighting force that took over Cybertron because Optimus Prime and a handful of other Autobots on board the Ark crashed into Earth. Meanwhile, the Decepticon Army has the Phase Sixers, which were Heretech, Overlord, Sixshot, and Black Shadow. The Decepticons also have the legendary DJD (Decepticon Justice Division), which has never been defeated. The scientist Shockwave, the communications officer Soundwave, the traitor Starscream and the Headmaster Scorponok all belong to this powerful armada. Thank you.
The fight against Terrorism is a battle that is impossible to win.

wow, what on earth are you talking about? alright first yes the war in Iraq is very tangible people are dieing and it costs our government trillions. but then again the war on terror and the war in Iraq are two very different things. the war in Iraq was a war against nuclear weapons, and then when the government acknowledged that there weren't any WMD's then it changed to a part of the war on terror but then when we found out that Sadam had no connections to any terrorist organizations so it was kinda for nothing (and dont say 9/11 the guy we think did that is in another country all together) and yeah terrorism usually doesn't defeat an army, however the fear that if they form an army they will be effectively be wiped off the face of the planet suppresses that army. but of course terrorism isn't a tactic to get rid of terrorism (yet) its like fighting fire with fire all you have is more fire. back to the disease analogy the disease is wreaking havoc on the body while our war in Iraq is like mending a stubbed toe. and yes military tactics fight other militaries not terrorism. Terrorism isn't tangible and that's what the war on terror is trying to get rid of. its not something we can win not only with the tactics we are using right now but without creating a larger fear to suppress the terror.
The fight against Terrorism is a battle that is impossible to win.

isnt the war in Iraq a tangible battle? "it creates a paradox because it would be necessary to suppress any intent to use fear as a coercion tactic the only way to do that would be more fear." That is just not a logical conclusion. Terrorism as a tactic is not the solution to winning the war on terror. Terrorism cannot defeat an army. We are in Iraq with a fully-trained army of soldiers. They are not using terrorism to win the war. They are using military tactics that have been proven to work in the past.
The fight against Terrorism is a battle that is impossible to win.

does war fit the "idea" category too? no war is a tangible battle with an evident winner by annihilation or surrender. "you cannot fight an idea, but you can fight actual terrorists like were doing around the world. Al-Qaeda is not an idea. Hamas is not an idea. Hezbollah is not an idea. These are terrorist organizations that can be fought (as is happening as I type this)." I acknowledge that Al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah are in fact real groups, think of Terrorism as a disease and those groups being symptoms. The removal of the symptoms doesn't destroy the disease it just puts it into a slightly more submissive state. "How do you come to the conclusion that the only way to fight terrorism is by using more of it? We're fighting terrorism abroad without terrorist tactics. Give me an example of this "logical paradox." (logical paradox would be like a man who always lies saying "I am lying") it creates a paradox because it would be necessary to suppress any intent to use fear as a coercion tactic the only way to do that would be more fear.
The fight against Terrorism is a battle that is impossible to win.

"My first argument is that Terrorism is an idea, not unlike patriotism, that the only way to destroy would be to erase the idea off the face of the planet. you cannot fight an idea." so does war fit the "idea" category too? you cannot fight an idea, but you can fight actual terrorists like were doing around the world. Al-Qaeda is not an idea. Hamas is not an idea. Hezbollah is not an idea. These are terrorist organizations that can be fought (as is happening as I type this). "Secondly, the only way to combat terrorism is more terrorism, which creates a logical paradox. its like literally fighting fire with fire all you get is more fire." How do you come to the conclusion that the only way to fight terrorism is by using more of it? We're fighting terrorism abroad without terrorist tactics. Give me an example of this "logical paradox."
The fight against Terrorism is a battle that is impossible to win.

Welcome to this debate definitions first and foremost Terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion Battle: an extended contest, struggle, or controversy impossible : incapable of being or of occurring b: felt to be incapable of being done, attained, or fulfilled http://www.merriam-webster.com... (all from same source) My first argument is that Terrorism is an idea, not unlike patriotism, that the only way to destroy would be to erase the idea off the face of the planet. you cannot fight an idea. Secondly, the only way to combat terrorism is more terrorism, which creates a logical paradox. its like literally fighting fire with fire all you get is more fire.
The fight against Terrorism is a battle that is impossible to win.

what do you mean of my deffinition of the debate topic? my deffinition of the debate topic was basicly the attempt to rid terrorism from the world. which not only is the US going the wrong way in which to accomplish its goal and its impossible. What i would have liked to have seen was a example of why it acctualy is a fight we can win (ie deffinion battle) or how it can be beaten inside my terms. This debate in the grand sceme of things has gotten nowhere. We can try to stop the groups but like the kkk they will be back its like a club anyone can join to hurt other people. and unless we can scare terrorism out of them it can't be done (which is in itself terror) so its unstoppable and this round gos to the affermative side (or my side)
Those pot-smoking atheist communist homosexual peacenik anarchists

What a shame. I sincerely apologise to my esteemed opponent if I have offended him or hurt his feelings in any way. This was certainly not my intention. I accepted this debate in the spirit of fun, something I have noticed my opponent seems quite keen on doing himself. As he didn't rebuke my arguments or post anything relevant to his initial points in subsequent rounds, I urge a Pro vote. Thanks to readers and again to my learned and righteous opponent. That is all.