BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wii vs PS3

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for the chance to debate this. It seems whenever I see a debate like this it's "360 vs. PS3" and since they're similar in most essential ways, they always bore me. The difference here is that the Wii and the PS3 could not be anymore different and sitll be considered in the same class of product. Therefore I think and hope that this debate will yield some interesting discussion. I must make a confession going into this debate though, I honestly personally know very little about any of this type of thing so I ask my opponent and readers to forgive me if I sound newbish. Now on to the debate, as per the setup by my opponent I will use this round only for arguments and will not present any rebuttals until R3.Contention. Game quality between the consoles.Games will most likely be the primary focus of this debate seeing as they are the primary purpose of GAME consoles. So one way to argue in favor of one console would be to show why it produces better quality games then the other. I will show that the PS3 beats Wii in game quality. The following statistics were taken from Metacritic[1]. In 2006, the Wii had the PS3 beat in game quality in every area except for the 80-89% rating group (there were four groups in all: 70-79, 80-89, 90-100, and 70-100). However, beginning in 2007, the PS3 began catching up, beating the Wii in all groups except for the 90-100 group and has been gaining a large lead ever since. Besides losing in the 70-79 group in '08 and '09. the PS3 has beat out the Wii in every group every year since 2007. In fact, in 2011, the PS3 at least doubled the Wii's score in all four groups. From 2005 to 2011, the PS3 also produced 548 games with a rank of 70 or better, compared to 308 by the Wii[1].===Of course, I don't want readers to think that by only providing a primary argument from game quality, that I am ignoring the other points my opponent brought up. On the contrary, in the next round I plan on showing that each point my opponent made applies either equally or more so to the PS3. But for now, I'll simply pass the debate back to my opponent.======Sources===[1] http://www.ps-analog.com...
Wii vs PS3

Clearly the PS3 has more power under the hood than the Wii, that is a given, but power is not always that important. It is the gameplay that matters, and that was the purpose of the innovation inherent in the Wii's new control system using motion sensing. This is backed up by the Legend of Zelda: The Twilight Princess, where standard controls could no longer cut it on full console versions of the Zelda series, in which Sony conceded to this when they released the PlayStation Move a year and a half ago while maintaining a focus on core games instead of putting out a plethora of ‘casual' games on their market. The PlayStation 3 released as the most reliable console, but after a year and a half we found out that all original PS3's were doomed to overheat as lead could not be used. This replacement lead is not strong enough to stay solid after long periods of time with the system heated up, as this machine requires a lot of energy and exudes a lot of energy. The Wii on the other hand came out almost flawlessly, with only minor errors in the manufacturing of the Sensory Bars, which only came down to a fraction of the Wii's released [3]. Comparing software exclusives, the primary force behind Sony and Nintendo's consoles, there is clearly quality on both sides, but the Wii exploded in sales from a tech demo: Wii Sports, a feat no console before has succeeded in. For 4-5 years this made the Wii the dominant console on the market, and it did not even suffer from Chronic Call of Duty Syndrome like the PS3 was unfortunately afflicted with. Instead we saw two 3D Mario games in Mario Galaxy 1&2, both with astounding reviews [1] [2]. Additionally the Wii received Donkey Kong Country Returns among numerous other great exclusives that emphasized fun and giving a great experience instead of trying to have the prettiest picture. The PS3 wanted to be the powerful Almighty as stated by Ken Kutaragi by saying: "If you consider the PlayStation 3 a toy, then yes, it is an expensive toy. However, it is more than a toy. It is a PlayStation 3. And it is the only PlayStation 3. I hope that those who understand this will gladly purchase it," [4]. The Wii is a device to bring the family together in the living to compete in digital experiences without the humdrum exiting the home and having to find the appropriate places to enjoy the activities. These advances were not restricted to familial ties, titles such as Wii Sports brought the elderly too their feet, and made strides towards preventing them from falling [5]. Nintendo has never been known to take the profitable way out. Instead they take huge risks such as the Nintendo DS because they believe it is the premier way for people to enjoy video games, which like the Wii, ‘printed money.' [1] http://www.metacritic.com... [2] http://www.metacritic.com... [3] http://www.squaretrade.com... [4] http://www.gamesradar.com... [5] http://articles.cnn.com...
Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else!

"This is AMERICA where you can do WHAT you want WHERE you want WHEN you want." Really? So why can't employers pay entry-level employees less and deny them employee benefits until they prove themselves? I think you should change that statement to 'this is America where you can do what you want where you want when you want as long as it does not contradict my opinion'. "YOU would only COMPLAIN that I'm using LIBERAL sources anyway." How would you know? At this point, it's too late for you to provide a source anyway, but I would've looked at any source - liberal or not. "YOUR resources are all CONSERVATIVE sources." Actually, one's unbiased and the other is bordering on socialist. I used Cornell Law University for an (unbiased) interpretation of the tenth amendment, and I used a poll from an article from a website advocating for universal healthcare - a socialist concept. "FACTS are FACTS!" What facts? You just typed your opinion each round (no sources) and capitalized every other word. "the BOTTOM get paid AWFUL wages with NO benefits." So why doesn't this 'bottom' find a job that pays well? Why doesn't this 'bottom' start their own business, or at least something part-time on the side? I doubt that this 'bottom' you refer to is stupid. "almost EVERYONE can agree THAT is WRONG." Who is 'almost everyone'? Do you have a poll to prove it? Some sort of study conducted by a credible organization? Anything? Or are you just assuming that 'almost everyone' sides with you because 'almost everyone' shares your mentality, your beliefs, and your opinions? Look, I know you mean well and you want to help the so-called 99%, but I must respectfully disagree with you. Thanks for this debate and I hope we can do it again sometime.
Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else!

FACTS are FACTS, I do NOT have to provide ANY source!!! This is AMERICA where you can do WHAT you want WHERE you want WHEN you want. YOU would only COMPLAIN that I'm using LIBERAL sources anyway, JUST like YOUR resources are all CONSERVATIVE sources. FACTS are FACTS! the BOTTOM get paid AWFUL wages with NO benefits and almost EVERYONE can agree THAT is WRONG,
Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else!

My opponent has only repeated (word for word) their previous argument - and, not surprisingly, there are still NO SOURCES!!! In America, you are either self-employed or you work for someone else. When you work for someone else, you have to PROVE YOURSELF by demonstrating that you are a valuable asset to the company; you must EARN your benefits rather than immediately receive them - that's how it works! Next round, please defend against my round 3 rebuttal - and provide a SOURCE!!!
Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else!

MOST employees who make LESS than $15/hour do NOT get offered ANY benefits! No Sick Pay No Holiday Pay No Vacation Pay No Disability Pay no Life Insurance, no Health Insurance, no Dental Insurance, no Optical Insurance, No Perks, No Discounts, No Retirement Benefits No 401k, no Pension!!!! You are CRAZY if you think MOST Americans think thats "ok". Also WHAT "false" information do you CLAIM that I made? THAT statement I just made is COMMON SENSE and EVERY poll EVER taken will AGREE with me!!! EVERYONE gets SICK, EVERYONE will eventually get SOME form of Cancer if they live long enough, EVERYONE NEEDS their Teeth Cleaned every 6 months, EVERYONE NEEDS a YEARLY phyiscal exam to make sure they have no diseases or illnesses!! Again EVERYONE NEEDS healthcare or else they will IMMEDIATELY go into BANKRUPTCY with ANY medical condition that they acquire!!! And the people who NEED health insurance/care the MOST are the people who make MINIMUM WAGE! Just because SOME People are SELFISH and HOSTILE towards the poor and very low income that make SO LITTLE that they are eligible for Food Stamps or Medicaid does NOT mean that is RIGHT or FAIR or JUST behavior, it's SELFISH behavior. By the way EVERYTHING you are sharing is from CONSERVATIVE and REPUBLICAN leaning sources. The Affordable Care Act (NOT "obamacare, that name is RACIST) helped TENS of MILLIONS of Americans GET insurance who BEFORE were NOT offered insurance by their employer and others who were DENIED coverage because of Pre-existing conditions! EVERY FIRST world country ON THE PLANT OFFERS FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for ALL of their citizens EXCEPT the US!!!!!! HOW do you expect people making FIVE to TEN dollars an hour to AFFORD healthcare on THEIR income on the PRIVATE market? MOST of us have SOME type of Pre Existing condition, so that means HIGH RISK insurance that costs HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of dollars! HOW are they supposed to afford that on MINIMUM WAGE? They CANT, that's how. Grow up
Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else!

So let me get this straight, you HONESTLY expect the readers in here to AGREE with you that it's OKAY that MOST employees who make LESS than $15/hour do NOT get offered ANY benefits! No Sick Pay No Holiday Pay No Vacation Pay No Disability Pay no Life Insurance, no Health Insurance, no Dental Insurance, no Optical Insurance, No Perks, No Discounts, No Retirement Benefits No 401k, no Pension!!!! You are CRAZY if you think MOST Americans think thats "ok". Also WHAT "false" information do you CLAIM that I made? THAT statement I just made is COMMON SENSE and EVERY poll EVER taken will AGREE with me!!! EVERYONE gets SICK, EVERYONE will eventually get SOME form of Cancer if they live long enough, EVERYONE NEEDS their Teeth Cleaned every 6 months, EVERYONE NEEDS a YEARLY phyiscal exam to make sure they have no diseases or illnesses!! Again EVERYONE NEEDS healthcare or else they will IMMEDIATELY go into BANKRUPTCY with ANY medical condition that they acquire!!! And the people who NEED health insurance/care the MOST are the people who make MINIMUM WAGE! Just because SOME People are SELFISH and HOSTILE towards the poor and very low income that make SO LITTLE that they are eligible for Food Stamps or Medicaid does NOT mean that is RIGHT or FAIR or JUST behavior, it's SELFISH behavior. By the way EVERYTHING you are sharing is from CONSERVATIVE and REPUBLICAN leaning sources. The Affordable Care Act (NOT "obamacare, that name is RACIST) helped TENS of MILLIONS of Americans GET insurance who BEFORE were NOT offered insurance by their employer and others who were DENIED coverage because of Pre-existing conditions! EVERY FIRST world country ON THE PLANT OFFERS FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE for ALL of their citizens EXCEPT the US!!!!!! HOW do you expect people making FIVE to TEN dollars an hour to AFFORD healthcare on THEIR income on the PRIVATE market? MOST of us have SOME type of Pre Existing condition, so that means HIGH RISK insurance that costs HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of dollars. HOW do someone making MINIMUM WAGE afford healthcare WITHOUT government assistance? THEY DONT!!! "hard work" has NOTHING to do with what happens at work. It's IF your supervisor or manager LIKES you which determines the SIZE of your yearly raises and IF or WHEN you are given a promotion, WAKE UP to how EMPLOYMENT WORKS. I work in HR and know EVERYTHING about the realities of employment and promotions and raises.
Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else!

My opponent, rather than defending against my argument, replied with false information and no source to back it up. I will now disprove my opponents argument that 'MOST Americans agree that EVERYONE NEEDS Healthcare [and all the programs after it]'. Before I do, allow me to clarify something: Americans do need healthcare, but the healthcare my opponent refers to is healthcare that is provided by employers to employees, hence the resolution 'Entry level employees deserve... the SAME benefits as everyone else.' "With the advent of the Affordable Care Act, the share of Americans convinced that health care is a right shrank from a majority to a minority." "The erosion of the belief in health care as a government-protected right is perhaps the most dramatic reflection of these trends. In 2006, by a margin of more than two to one, 69-28, those surveyed by Gallup said that the federal government should guarantee health care coverage for all citizens of the United States. By late 2014, however, Gallup found that this percentage had fallen 24 points to 45 percent, while the percentage of respondents who said health care is not a federal responsibility nearly doubled to 52 percent." "The Structure of Inequality and Americans" Attitudes Toward Redistribution," suggests that Democratic programs providing tax-financed benefits to the poor are facing growing hostility. The author of the paper, Matthew Luttig, a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Minnesota, found that while "numerous political theorists suggest that rising inequality and the shift in the distribution of income to those at the top should lead to increasing support for liberal policies," in practice, "rising inequality in the United States has largely promoted ideological conservatism." "Even worse for Democrats, the paper found that "information about inequality also makes respondents trust government less," decreasing "by nearly twenty percent the share of respondents who "trust government" most of the time." To sum it all up, after the implementation of Obamacare, the majority of Americans OPPOSED government-provided healthcare and programs like it. Everyone does need healthcare, they just should not have to rely on someone else for it, nor do they want to rely on someone else for it. If entry-level employees want the same benefits as those with more experience, they should work hard for it and EARN it - and given the information I provided, it would seem most Americans are okay with that. SOURCES: http://pnhp.org...
Entry level employees deserve MUCH better pay and the SAME benefits as everyone else!

Definitions: 1. Entry level employees: of, relating to, or filling a low-level job in which an employee may gain experience or skills. 2. Deserve: to be worthy of, qualified for, or have a claim to reward, punishment, recompense. 3. Better: of superior quality or excellence. SOURCES: http://www.dictionary.com... http://www.dictionary.com... http://www.dictionary.com... In other words, my opponent is arguing that an individual filling a low-level job with little to no experience or skills is qualified to receive equal benefits as everyone else and superior pay compared to what they receive now. Now for my argument: 1. Salary and Employee Benefits are to be Decided by Employers The tenth amendment to the US Constitution states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The US Constitution does not have anything on entry level positions, and (as far as I have seen), not one of the fifty states have made any laws regarding entry level positions. Therefore, the right to decide salaries and employee benefits belongs to the people, more specifically, the business owner. Furthermore, employees have the right to turn down a job opportunity or leave at any time (given that they did not sign any legal contract binding them for a specific time), and on top of that, some businesses allow employees to negotiate their salaries. 2. That's Not How Entry Level Works Entry level jobs are supposed to give the employee skills and experience; it's illogical to pay someone with less skill and less experience higher or equal to employees who have much more skill and much more experience (especially if they have put in more time for that specific business). They also help employers find out if the employee will be a valuable asset to the company. Of course this process takes time; an employer can't immediately tell if someone will benefit they're company just by looking at them. SOURCES: https://www.law.cornell.edu...
Should teenage marriage be allowed? ages 17-19

RebuttalCon argues that 17-19 is too young. In fact, many 18 year olds are responsible adults who hold a job, and are therefore perfectly capable of making this decision without the government interfering.Constructive CaseMarriage from 17-19 should be allowed because it would be unfair to deny the tax breaks that come with marriage, to a consenting couple. It's true, that for most people, this age bracket is too young, but no one will force teens to marry. Simply by permitting it, you remove any unjust situation by which a healthy consenting couple do not receive marriage's benefits, despite being no different to any other couple in all attributes but age.ConclusionIf two people love each other with consent, and are capable of raising healthy children, there is no reason for them not to be able to marry.
Abortion in cases of rape or incest should not be legal.

Abortion in cases of rape or incest should be legal. If a female is raped, and would like to get an abortion, she should be able to. It is her right to do anything to her body and the things in her body that she wants. She should not have to go through the pain of child birth and the after affects, all because of some monster. I hope that you all think about the points I have made, and thank you for reading my arguments.
Abortion in cases of rape or incest should not be legal.

Soon as a baby has a heartbeat it is a living creature and doesn't deserve to be murdered just because it was conceived in a bad way. A woman has a right to her body and the baby may be a part of her but that childs life has begun and abortion is ending that babys life. That's murder. Yes, it's a terrible thing that a woman may have been abused and shouldn't have to suffer any more than she already has but is her 9 months more important than that babys whole life? The female may not have chosen to be raped but the baby didn't choose to be conceived either. If abortion isn't legal than it's illegal for a reason and that reason shouldn't be exempt just because the baby was conceived in a not so great situation. Understanding not wanting to keep the baby, adoption is a perfect solution. Unfortunately being pregnant from rape or incest is terrible but you can still give that baby the greatest gift ever, which is life.
Teen Smoking

I can't really argue against any of the opponents points- because there are none. I guess I'll just repeat my main points. 1. (a rebuttal, but also can stand up by itself) Smoking creates stress, as it results in people needing to take them or else they get stress. So if you try to quit, it creates stress, and it takes none of the ordinary stress away. 2. (in response to my opponent saying that only a few parents wouldn't care if their child had cigars and only they would give permission) Think about it- should the stupidity of someone's relatives be allowed to negatively affect the life of someone who is still learning about adult life? No, an innocent life should not be derailed by uncaring parents. 3. They will die. Lung cancer and similar health issues will arise. You claim that because almost anything can kill you, it's not an issue that smoking can kill you. But it's an issue when it kills more than it saves- and it's not known for saving people. 4. They'll run out of money. Cigars are expensive, when you light your first cigar you may as well roll up a cheque for 20,000 dollars and set that on fire instead- at least then you end up spending less than if you started to smoke. 5. It's illegal for a reason you know- if a government allowed it, then that's suddenly dropping them a dozen places in life expectancy, in savings per person, and in several similar fields. Internationally that's bad- and in their actual country, all those who had their lives stolen by the stupid cigars would blame them. I'd also hope that for human decency, they'd feel bad about it, but these are politicians.... May the best debater win. And please note that even if you'd posted a completely nonsensical argument, at least voters wouldn't mark you down for forfeiting. Just letting you know that for future debates.
Teen Smoking

You seem to have a misconception that smoking removes stress. Smoking creates it, as it results in people needing to take them or else they get stress. So if you try to quit, it creates stress, and it takes none of the ordinary stress away. And think about it- should the stupidity of someone's relatives be allowed to negatively affect the life of someone who is still learning about adult life? No, an innocent life should not be derailed by uncaring parents. In the long term, teenagers will be glad that the cigars were never an option- they set you back tens of thousands of dollars, and they can give you cancer, and they don't even have superficial benefits. Really, there is absolutely nothing good about smoking, and half a dozen terrible things. Just try to suggest one thing that smoking genuinely is good for that I can't contradict. Even if you can, the con's far outweigh the Pro's.
Teen Smoking

Very well, if you really want it to not affect them any differently than it affects an adult smoker, I'll list what will happen. 1. They will die. Lung cancer and similar health issues will arise. You claim that because almost anything can kill you, it's not an issue that smoking can kill you. But it's an issue when it kills more than it saves- and it's not known for saving people. 2. They'll run out of money. Cigars are expensive, when you light your first cigar you may as well roll up a cheque for 20,000 dollars and set that on fire instead- at least then you end up spending less than if you started to smoke. 3. It's illegal for a reason you know- if a government allowed it, then that's suddenly dropping them a dozen places in life expectancy, in savings per person, and in several similar fields. Internationally that's bad- and in their actual country, all those who had their lives stolen by the stupid cigars would blame them. I'd also hope that for human decency, they'd feel bad about it, but these are politicians.... For all of these reasons and more, it's evident that if teen smoking is legalized, everyone including the smoker will suffer.