BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
PS3 is better than Xbox360

Now I'm not going to open this debate, by saying the Xbox 360 is much better because it has Halo 3. The Xbox 360 is better than the PS3, in ways like it include built-in HDMI, and come with HDMI cables, unlike the PS3, so you can play your games on HD TVs. Another reason is the choice of three Xbox 360 types, so you can choose what you could use it for. For example the Xbox 360 Arcade is for light users that just play every now and then. The Xbox 360 Elite, on the other hand, is for gamers who like a kick in there gaming because it comes with a 120G Hard drive, while the PS3 only packs a puny 80G. Yes while the PS3 has its fancy Blu-ray player, the Xbox 360 Elite comes with an external HMDI DVD player. While the Xbox 360 has 3 types even the Elite ($400) is $100 cheaper than the standard PS3. The PS3 has only 2 USB ports, while the 360 has 3. Both have Ethernet ports, but the Xbox 360 has overall faster receiving of the internet. The Xbox 360 is backwards compatible with Xbox games, while the PS3 only can do PS1 games. In all reality, no many people own PS1 games. Let's talk about online. Yes the Playstation Network is free, but is it really that good? Xbox LIVE can be bought for small fees ranging from 1 month ($7.95) to 13 months ($59.99). The headsets for PS3 are $30, while the standard Xbox comes with a headset. Xbox LIVE is easier to navigate, the NXE update was awesome, MSN chatting is a big plus, and some games are solely based on this excellent internet network. The Marketplace is a much better than the PS3 Store, because you can buy themes, games, gamer pictures, DLC packs, and more. In terms of games, Xbox 360 has a list of many good games exclusive to it such as: Mass Effect, Halo 3, Ace Combat 6, Gears of War (Original/2), Fallout 3, Street Fighter IV, and The Naruto series. The Xbox 360 may not have as nice graphics, but the games handle like a dream. I conclude my round one argument; I leave the floor open to my opponent now.
School Starts At A Perfect Time

Because different schools are obviously going to have different starting and ending times, I am proposing that schools are only allowed to start at 8:30 or later, as suggested by http://www.cdc.gov.... That source also shows that the National Sleep Foundation and The American Academy of Pediatrics both suggest this time. When a school has early start times, kids are consequently having to wake up early so they don't come late. While time management is an important thing school teaches us, we shouldn't have to cut back on our extra curricular activities such as sports so that we can get more sleep. Not doing sports reduces our physical activity, and kids don't always participate or try their best in PE. Yes, motivation, home problems, nutrition, and all of the other possible factors that you listed could affect students' grades, but lack of sleep causes health problems such as lack of concentration and alertness, depression, and can harm your memory, according to http://www.webmd.com.... "Oh lord, which study?". This is my source: http://articles.baltimoresun.com... I understand that my personal experience isn't the same as everyone else in the US, but is the minority of kids that have early start times, myself included, that are being harmed from this problem. Some kids do hurt their sleep due to poor choices, but that doesn't discredit all of the kids who are affected by the school but still make good choices. Next round, I hope you don't just try to discredit my logic and research, and instead actually make an opposing argument.
School Starts At A Perfect Time

So my question to the "Con" in this argument would be, "with all of your criticism of your particular school district (because not all schools start and end at the same time), what is your proposed starting time"? All of the "points" you make are over generalizations, and can be answered with common sense. "With wake up times and loads of homework, kids are getting a little amount of sleep." First of all, "wake up times" means what exactly? When is the wake up time you are referring to? What is your alternative? You have to wake up at sometime, just like you have to go to bed at sometime. Maybe you could go to sleep earlier, manage your time better, take less extra curricular activities, play less video games, not goof off in study hall, watch porn, or whatever it is that "kids" do, and manage your time better to meet your responsibilities. Maybe schools are designed to teach children responsibility and overcoming some obstacles in order to accomplish a goal, in addition to learning any other academic subject? "This is negatively affecting their grades and health" Yes, if you sleep less and are over-worked I am sure you can find statistics that show your work performance goes down. Here is the fault in your logic: why is it the default cause of this hypothetical drop in performance (of which you provide no sources) that schools are starting too early? Why could it not be any other number of confounding factors? Motivation, nutrition, problems at home, lack of educational funding, poor time management, over-reaching...are any of those possible contributors to your unsubstantiated statistic? "At study claimed"....Oh Lord, which study? "I have to wake up at 5:30 am everyday...." No one cares. Your personal experience does not constitute a generalization for the public school system across the United States of America. Take pride in the fact that you wake up early. "..even though their lack of sleep is due to the school's early start time and lots of homework." Oh, and not as a result of their own personal choices? Manage your time better, eat better, drink coffee, exercise better, find a way to make it work. Real life does not care about you being tired. Why should schools coddle children and not prepare them for real life by not reflecting a normal workday? Again, you cite no statistics to back your claims. I hope your next round in debating is something more than you just projecting your own personal experiences and whining onto the population at large.
School Starts At A Perfect Time

I believe that school starts too early. With early wake up times and loads of homework, kids are getting a little amount of sleep. This is negatively affecting their grades and health. A study claimed that kids have a hard time learning before 10am. I have to wake up at 5:30 am everyday for school and my homework usually lasts until 12:30. The average adult requires at least 8 to 9 hours of sleep, but kids require more. Kids are falling asleep in class and getting in trouble because of it, even though their lack of sleep is due to the school's early start time and lots of homework. Many kids also have extracurricular activities such as academic clubs and sports, which takes up even more of their time.
Universal

Con has not presented a counter. I will judge the debate as my victory based on Con's submission. To argue against Con is to engage in back to back sub-arguments, and to complete the sub-arguments in full will spur an opinion-based vote, rather than a vote based on the debaters. In other words, Con calls out for voters to win the debate for him but cannot debate me himself. Con has lost because he submits to my argument. Whatever the course of this debate, it doesn't void my clear victory. Con has a few more chances to counter and I will respond if that's the case; if he doesn't counter, I won this debate in Round 3. Any intelligent person agrees.
Universal

TopicallityIn this debate, it is generally the instigater's role in the debate to outline the terms and definitions of the debate. In both rounds 1 and 2 he had the chance to do so and declined. He attempted to give it a shot in the comments section, but has failed to actually clearly outline the resolution. As a result, we are debating a fluid debate. This pratice is Atopical, showing that it harms the aspect of the debate due to the neglect of Pro to do so which would allow him to change the resolution to meet whatever arguments he see's fit and use it to negate arguments. In each an every debate, the terms and resolution are paramount. This violation is a priori meaning that it comes first before any and all debate arguments and should be considered the only one in this debate. This is ultamately a voting issue due to teh issue that my opponent has caused and due to the unclarity of it, it harms the purpose of the debate and is a clear violation and should warrent a clear ballot in Negation just from it alone. Ignore all and everything else. ===Rebuttals===My opponent states that we should focus on the heartbeat. This too, is still evil. We'd have to see that if it stimulates the thought, and the thoughts and humans are generally evil, then the heart is not only evil, but corrupt. There can be no actual communication if everyone is selfish and evil, in it for themselves. Here my opponent is simply refuting the name. It really doesn't matter here and is just a Red Herring, through it out of the debate. My opponent never actually shows how of why the child will realize that it was manipulated. As a result, my argument stands. Extend it across.
Universal

Con's arguments, from what I understand, is that humans are evil, and 'Tabula Rasa'; where humans are manipulatable, and nothing more than puppets to puppeteers. I will address Con's first argument. Con's sources are, a psychoanalysis from Sigmund Freud, and another from Thomas Hobbes. The sources are similar and I will contest them together. Con, if the resolution of my opening argument is true, human sense of reality is abstracted. The evidence that supports my resolution needs to be countered, not dismissed. However, I will accept a sub-argument. Our sense of reality is abstracted ( in reference to the majority of humanity ), therefore, humans will be evil; they will rape and pillage, they will appear wasteful to more resourceful humans. I argue, Con, that this is not set in stone, and the thought that it is set in stone, is submission to the abstracted sense of reality, and whatever entity supports it. Further, to emphasize that this argument is a sub-argument, humans being evil wouldn't void universal communication, and universal communication continues nonetheless. In other words, a majority of low intelligence humans, do not void the higher intelligence human's resolutions. For example, a heartbeat stimulates thought. To voice that your thoughts are great without your heartbeat, is incorrect. In our societies there are many people who claim to have great minds and pay no respect to their heartbeat. The heart and mind communicate, but a majority forget; the truth of the matter is forgotten, but prevails. To continue this sub-argument, onto Tabula Rasa, I disagree with the term 'slate', and would replace it with 'human'. Humans are born as blank humans, which automatically indicts a new born as a pursuer of a humane knowledge. Parental figures ( including educators ), can help or hinder ( manipulation, falsehood ) this pursuit. The new born will, over time, understand itself, and is capable of realizing it was manipulated. Although, in circumstances like the present day, this realization may be abstruse; some may even deny the harsh truth because it's uncomfortable... To conclude on Tabula Rasa, and my argument this round, humans a powerful organism and they can distinguish between truth and falsehood given enough evidence; the argument against this is that we're weak and stupid, which I dismiss as submission to an abstracted sense or reality.
Universal

I thank my opponent for allowing me to accept this debate and in this debate I shall be showing how humans do not communicate through a language the Universe understands, or something of that matter. Sigmund Freud has stated that humans are selfishly aggressive. Let me give you an example. Say you're walking down the street and you see a homeless man begging for change. You give the man change. You feel good knowing that now he has money to get some food into his stomach, but Freud has agrued that this was only done, because you want to save the genes of the human race and you want it to continue. Also that you now get a feel good feeling and if you didn't you would feel guilty and ashamed. You could have easily done it just so you can feel good about yourself. Here he is quoted."I have found little that is 'good' about human beings on the whole. In my experience most of them are trash, no matter whether they publicly subscribe to this or that ethical doctrine or to none at all. That is something that you cannot say aloud, or perhaps even think." [1]Thomas Hobbes has also shown that humanity, by nature, is rotten. That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. This of course being laws and punishment. Otherwise we would end up in chaos and anarchy. [2]“one, the postulate of human greed by which each man insists upon his own private use of common property; the other, the postulate of natural reason, by which each man strives to avoid violent death [3]."We can see here above that simply we go to avoid death and we all know that one of the leading fears is death. Why do we fear death? What will happen to our families when we die? How will I be remembered? Could I have done better? What's next? Am I going to heaven or hell? These are all questions that we ponder when it comes to the afterlife. We simply fear the unknown.The amount of selfishness the human expierences show that they only care about themselves and what they do. Communiciation is impossible as there is no need to communicate due to the selfish evil nature of humanity as they only take, steal, and pillage. There is nothing that they need nor care for. The last section of this debate here is that of Tabula Rasa. Tabula Rasa is the philosophy that is one is born with a blank slate. The individual is born without knowledge, expierence, or even a code of ethics. The reason this aspect is harmful towards the resolution is another aspect that Hobbes had hammared on. With this blank slate, the individual can been manipulate, pratically brainwashed to believe certain idea or certain view point in society. This aspect shows that humans are nothing more than puppets in soceity controlled by puppetiers. There cannot be communication since humanity has been brainwashed repetively from birth to believe certain aspects to the point where they are unable to voice their own actual voices in communications, since they obey a different master and have no actual opinions of their own. Sources1. (http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (http://tinyurl.com...) 3. De Cive, Epistle Dedicatory
Citizens United (resolution in first round)

Resolved: On balance, The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process.Pro must begin arguing in round 1, and will forfeit round 4 in order to keep it even. Burden of proof is on pro. I will not be posting arguments of my own.Upon request in comments, this can be made into a 5 round debate. Additionally, while I set the time to argue to 72 hours, I would prefer that my opponent operate as quickly as possible. I will be attending a tournament on the 16th, and would have to forfeit if the debate lasts that long. Rules: Definitions/RA/Framework is open.No plan advocacy.No semantics/lawyering/etc.Forfeit in any round is an automatic loss unless a mutual agreement can be reached.No new arguments can be made in the final round in which you argue. No arguing in comments over rfds. srslyI set this debate so it can only be accepted by someone ranked as good or better than me (which isn't hard, lol). If you can't accept, post in comments.
DDO Should Remove the Instigator's Ability to Set an Age Minimum

As my opponent stated, there is definitely a maturity and intelligence stereotype in age groups. Being only fourteen myself, I face said stereotypes. However, this is not the only reason for said restrictions on age. There are certain topics that are inappropriate for a minor to discuss. For instance, topics that describe sexual activity could arise a legal issue when involving a minor for pornographic text. If someone is debating the topic of sexual fetishes, they may include such language that would be considered pornographic and vulgar, inappropriate for minors to discuss. My opponent states that a young person can be as skilled as an adult, which I agree with. I have a debate in which I argue for the opinions of minors to be taken seriously, however minors are not able to logically and intellectually debate on every topic.
DDO Should Remove the Instigator's Ability to Set an Age Minimum

My opponent claims that I failed to bring up a supported argument against his point on pornographic content as well as his point on a minor's inability to debate every topic, and then attempts to clarify the points. However, I was asking him questions for clarification and flaws in his argument. "My point on the vulgar material was that the pornographic content would be produced by a minor."The instigator's ability to set an age minimum is for participation and not for viewing the debate. If it were gone, "minors" would be able to participate in possibly inappropriate debates for their age. However, Con has not pointed out a significant difference in the development of a child if he or she is participating in an inappropriate debate over only spectating one. "My point on minors being unable to debate every topic is not a stereotype, but a fact of every human being. A mathematics teacher cannot argue the intricate mechanisms of neurological perception."This topic is about people of various ages, not of various fields of knowledge. Hence, Con has brought up an unfitting analogy. Con has not proved here that a lower age lacks some sort of characteristic that allows someone to debate any topic. He has merely stated a claim again except worded differently. "Minors lack the life experience to provide intricate and well developed philosophical arguments. "The life experience needed to provide intricate and well developed philosophical arguments depends on one's education, work ethic, places he or she has been, and etc, which could be manipulated by the amount of time one has been living, but not will. "A minor is also more likely to take a personal offense due to the developing stages of the frontal lobe, which is responsible for emotional response."There is a big difference between more likely and will. For example, it is true that children born into households where parents fight a lot, are more likely to commit cyber-bullying in the future. However, it does not mean will, which is why there are no household tension questions being asked by social media systems to everyone who wants to create a social media account nor social media systems barring children who have belligerent parents from connecting with their friends on social media. Overall, I applause my opponent for his great points -which I agree with. The main issue is simply that they are not supporting the claim that I am wrong.
DDO Should Remove the Instigator's Ability to Set an Age Minimum

My opponent's challenge on my argument of pornographic content and inability to debate every topic are both unsupported. My point on the vulgar material was that the pornographic content would be produced by a minor. My point on minors being unable to debate every topic is not a stereotype, but a fact of every human being. A mathematics teacher cannot argue the intricate mechanisms of neurological perception. Not only are both my opponent's challenges unsupported and flawed, my opponent failed to provide any further evidence on their side. The first, and only argument, is age discrimination. There are perfectly justified instances where an instigator should be allowed to set an age minimum for their debate. Minors lack the life experience to provide intricate and well developed philosophical arguments. A minor is also more likely to take a personal offense due to the developing stages of the frontal lobe, which is responsible for emotional response. My opponent has also lacked any substantial support for any arguments presented, merely personal bias opinion. In fact, my opponent has done nothing but state the very topic of their argument.
DDO Should Remove the Instigator's Ability to Set an Age Minimum

"For instance, topics that describe sexual activity could arise a legal issue when involving a minor for pornographic text. If someone is debating the topic of sexual fetishes, they may include such language that would be considered pornographic and vulgar, inappropriate for minors to discuss."Minors are still able to view those debates but not participate in them. Is that not the same amount of exposure to potential mature content? "minors are not able to logically and intellectually debate on every topic."Is that not a stereotype itself?
Judaism isn't with freedom of belief as they claim

Well, we've still got two rounds left. I hope that Pro will take the time to articulate his arguments over the next several days. This was, after all, his question, and something he seemed genuinely interested in debating. I'm not sure what's keeping him from posting an argument, but, for the time being, I will point out that I am the only one who has fully articulated his arguments, substantiated them with facts, and provided conclusions that reasonably point to my side in this debate. Hopefully, that will change.
Judaism isn't with freedom of belief as they claim

Hello, I want you to know first that the thing that made me ask the question and start that debate is that I'm considering converting to Judaism for it's logical claims and for they don't say that they are the only ones who will have a share in "Olam Ha-Ba" or the world to come, but started the debate to get an answer to my question how do the Jews say that they're OK with freedom of belief, if they demanded Jesus to be killed, I know Jews didn't kill Jesus, but they asked the Roman ruler, Pontius Pilate to execute him and set Barabas free,why because he claimed he's the Messiah, I'm just saying that it would be more Jewish of them if they let Jesus preach whatever he wants and then the rabbis tell the people that he's a false prophet, no one would be dead if they did so, that's simply my question, so I'm speaking historically, don't you think that it would be much more nicer if no-one had to die for a religious teaching... and I know that reform Judaism is with freedom of belief, I like about it that it lets everybody decides his relationship to G'd without having to follow any commandments.
Judaism isn't with freedom of belief as they claim

As a reform Jew myself, I will gladly answer the Instigator's call and accept the challenge. As he provided no argumentation in his first post, I will respond in kind, and merely outline where I'll be going. 1) Jews did not kill Jesus. 2) Jews are not likely to kill any purported Messiahs, either here or in the future. 3) Reform Judaism is for freedom of belief (as my opponent stated "modern Judaism", I feel that this is a more than reasonable focus for this portion of the response).
Judaism isn't with freedom of belief as they claim

Modern day Judaism says it's with the freedom of belief and diversity in beliefs, so why did the ancient Jews demand Jesus to be killed for having different beliefs than they do? P.S I'm not a Christian fanatic, I only am a seeker for truth, I agree that Judaism isn't with freedom of belief and if they had a chance again, in the modern day, they will kill _not only Jesus_ but any other person who claims to be the Messiah. I want to know why do you think my statement is right or wrong.