BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Filthy console peasants, glorious pc master race

Crashes Nonsense. The console is pathetic. PC crashes only if you put viruses or root it, which can happen with the console as well. Connectivity issues are in the console as well, it depends on your wifi, not the device. Stuff A laptop has a keyboard, mouse built-in, and the charger is equivalent to the console plug. A graphical chip is already in-built and I have 2 pcs for 5 years I never had to buy 1. For console you have the games, the controller, the wires connecting to the tv and the console, and another controller for your multiplayer. Models You are biased. I still have windows 7. And consoles are not portable, they are larger than a laptop! The models were to rebut your argument about "We started out with the Nintendo 64 and Sega Genisis and now we have the Ps4 and Xbox One". Free games What sort of pathetic pc you have?? PC rarely crashes. Plus, your free games need to be downloaded, and they have a large gb size. And my wifi is 500 kb/s. I don't think they offer that many free cds, do you? On PC, there are diverse games ranging from 10mb to 1 gb. Moreover, are these free games on the same console model? Or are they spanned out? On PC, every game works on all pcs, from a supercomputer to a home laptop. Plus, Armor games and kongregate have about 100,000 games together, you can't thrash them all. Try freefall tournament, kings road, or swords and potions. There are many more, but I can't remember them. Exclusives Uncharted was on PC, I think. Moreover, console gamers are increasing as its "the new, in and cool thing". Peasants are always more in number than the master race. Kingdom Rush is a great game on PC. And adventure capitalist is okay, Diversity I thought sonic was a pc game. Console games are far too easy and far too costly. Pro's list of free games is just about 30 games, pc has more than a million free games. He tells me to buy them, but since I already wasted money on the console and my parents are disapproving I don't think thats gonna happen. And many pc paid games are out there as well, for the rich. Once you buy a console, buy new games every month. Once you buy a pc, you buy a pc Easiness PC gaming has lot of easy games as well, its not just for hard-core gamers. We have different difficulty levels for all. Arguments not rebutted USB controller Multi-tasking money saving pc Storage Batteries Hybrid skills Glorious PC master race!!
Filthy console peasants, glorious pc master race

The PC crashes much more than the console. Whether it be connectivity issues or system errors, consoles suffer less then the Pc does. As for the keyboard, you made the argument for me, it requires skill while the controller can easily be used by a veteran or a newbie as it has far more less buttons to press. The new gen consoles pretty much guarentee a wireless experience, you can enjoy a game of Black Ops Zombies with only 2 wires needed: the connection plug and the hdmi cable. A console can easily be put into a suitcase and all you need to get the best console experience is the console, 2 wires, and one controller. That is literally just 4 things. To get the pc experience, you need the computer/laptop, a keyboard, a mouse, a charger(for the laptop), a graphical chip that you buy every 6 months and not mention much more. If you wanna talk about models ,then why not mention how slim and portable the Playstation and Xbox consoles have become. When a new Operating System like Windows comes out, people just leave the previous Os behind while when it comes to consoles, thousands to even millions still have their Xbox 360, Nintendo 64 and Playstation 2 handy and well. Money Free console games? Ok, here are a couple of free games: Blacklight Retribution, Loadout, Warframe,Dc Universe Online,Evolve,Hustle Kings,Planetside 2, Resident Evil Revelations 2,P.T and War Thunder. As for our demos, trust me they are that good that you WILL buy the full game. As for Armorgames and kongregate, yeah they USED to be pretty good, now they're full of crappy discount Dotas and some games you play because you have nothing better to do. And lets talk about games, you want a game that even then best of the best rage on, How about Dark Souls. I know its on PC but we all know how it did there, so many errors. I tried it on Pc once and the only thing I raged on was the game crashing again and again and again. Exclusives No doubt that console slays Pc when it comes to excluives. Companys like Naughty Dog and Ubisoft make many diverse video games exclusively for console like:Demon"s Souls, Mario Galaxy, Last of Us, Trials HD, Valkyria Chronicles, Journey and Uncharted. Diversity Consoles have: shooters,stealth,adventure,racing,sports,strategy, platformers,RPG, survival,interactive simulations and MMOs. History: As mentioned before, the bloodline of consoles is there from the 60s. Many memorable video game characters are console exclusve like : Master Cheif, Joel and Ellie, Nathan Drake,Mario,Link,Snake,Ryu,Leon s Kennedy,Sonic and everyones favourite badass, Kratos. The Pc Master race is good but not good enough to reach the level of awesomeness that is the powerful,mighty,legendary Console Warrior race.
Filthy console peasants, glorious pc master race

Reliability Consoles always needs to be plugged in and are not easy to transport. Plus, my xbox crashed once, its not like it happens only with pc. The cd can have a virus, or the internet speed can get slow. Keyboard That's why we are the master race. Your thumb thing doesn't require any skills. Moreover, joypad/sticks can be connected to the pc through USB, for those little easy gamers out there. It is much more awesome and masterful to use the entire keyboard to perform your moves than use the thumb twiddler. Multiplayer Split screen is there in pc games also, and pc lan is good with the bluetooth. If the screen is small, connect it to the tv with the usb. You say too much space for pc and chairs, yet consoles need all that wiring and plugging as well as no. of chairs= no. of players. And you can't take your console when you on a vacation, but I will drag my laptop. Models I don't need to mention the evolution of pc models, from large size desktops to small notebooks and tab convertibles. My arguments Money All consoles have very few free games, and just trials/demos. You have to buy every game from the store. No problem with pc. With hacks, free gaming sites and developers tools, we have enough games on pc. Armorgames.com and kongregate are just two examples of the many free gaming sites out there. Money Part 2 Furthermore, a console costs far too much compared to the pc, because in a console you can only play games, but on a pc you can debate on DDO and do much more stuff. Multi-tasking your work and games is possible for the glorious master race. And console guys have to pay for every game and have no other form of apps except games. How sad. Mobility Take my laptop anywhere, but my consoles stuck at home. What a bummer Storage Some consoles always need the cd plugged in to play that game. No such problem for the master race, download all the games and play them anywhere. Batteries Oh no my controller is out of batteries! No my plug point is broken! No stop walking in front of the screen! Never the pc gamer said oh no my mouse is out of batteries! Hybrid skills/difficulty Can the console gamer use two devices at once? PC gamers use the keyboard and the mouse together in shooters and stuff. The challenging level of PC is extremely high. Apart from shooters, console games are not difficult, and I lose the shooters due to the camera controls. The casual gamers also play capitalism games, which I have not yet saw on any console. PC gaming is diverse. Console gaming is a nutshell. Stop wasting your money. Join the PC master race!!
Filthy console peasants, glorious pc master race

The PC race may have the fps advantage and whatnot but the console warriors have the bloodline. We started out with the Nintendo 64 and Sega Genisis and now we have the Ps4 and Xbox One. Consoles are far more reliable because you dont have to worry about the system crashing. And the keyboard, why waste time adjusting that large rectangle when you can use a comfortable, finger friendy controller. Also. When you're offline and still want to play with real humans, then you just tell your bud to grab his controller and play split screen. The pc lan party is just pathetic, too many computers, too many chairs and too much space that's needed. Console Life all the way.
God is not almighty or does not exist

I believe that God allows bad things to happen.Why? Because it helps us,here is a example ...When a doctor operates on you,it may cause temporary pain.But it will help you in the future.Your body will be stronger,instead of weak like it was before the operation. When God allows bad things in your life he is operating on your life,he is trying to make you a stronger person.And after the bad things you will come out stronger and wiser. If you are also saying that God is wrong for allowing death,then I would say you are wrong.God created us and has the right to end us.But he is only ending your physical body and not your soul. You will have a spiritual body after you die.And if you are a believer and saved you will be with God..
God is not almighty or does not exist

YOU believe that the bible is true, but would you believe in a book full of garbage if people told you its thousands of years old and some random people wrote it ? No, so why would you believe in the bible. There is no proof that almost anything in the bible is true but its been proved by many paradoxes that God is not almighty. ""God," he says, "either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak " and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful " which is equally foreign to god"s nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? " Epicurus fragment 374. You can think anything about something, but if I told you that there is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere in between of mars and earth its nonsensical for me to think that people would believe me on the grounds that they cannot prove me wrong.
God is not almighty or does not exist

I Con believe that the Bible is true and do not contain errors. Pro says that the bible has many contradictions. I disagree ,In his example, Genesis 1:31 says "And God saw everything that he made,and behold, it was very good..". Then Genesis 6:6 says "And it repented the Lord that he made man on the Earth,and it grieved him at his heart."So why would God say this the explanation is in Genesis 6:5 "And God saw that the wickedness of man was widespread in the Earth,and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." There is no contradiction here.Pro just did not read the chapters he says there is a contradiction. Pro also said that God is not almighty because if he was he would not allow "bad"in the world. The reason that there is bad in the world is because man is bad ..God allows free will in the world.It is up to us to decide if we will obey him or not.It would not be fair if God made everyone obey him.
God is not almighty or does not exist

God doesn't exist because God is a man made phenomenon. The only proof of God is the bible, but the bible has many condriations. For example "God is satisfied with his works Gen 1:31 God is dissatisfied with his works."Gen 6:6" This means that the bible is not legit proof and its just fiction maby based on some true events. If God is perfectly good, he wants to get rid of the bad. If he also is allmighty he could get rid of all the bad. The bad still exist so god cant be allmighty and all good at the same time. Also if God is almighty he should be able to create an object so big you could not lift it up meaning god is not almighty
in the united states, the principle of jury nullificatin is a just check on the government

beliefs arent exactly valid in this debate, ld is a semantics debate not a beliefs debate, i chose a side and i back it up with my own definitions and argument. It's a belief with a bit of factual backup, but I did say "I believe". I believe if you have a law that is wrong, then to force the people to it is unjust, and (ironically) unlawful well so is getting high in ones bedroom and drinking in public, but that is beside, and i donot know that there are currently any wrong laws. "morally wrong or unacceptable" murder, rape, stealing, and any other violation of the law is morally wrong and unacceptable!!! if you commit a crime then there is punishment and if convicted you are ablle to appeal later on, but jury nullification is "morally wrong or unacceptable" . okay i understand circumstantial evidence, and if evidence doesnt necessarily prove a person to be guilty then the person should not be declared guilty inthe first place but if persay there was a witness to the crime (see scenario) then this person has been proven guilty and there should be no way to get out of it (jury nullification) i can understand not wanting the government to become like hitler or whatever, but the government to some extent need to ensure that the people are kept in check just as the government is. what really controls the judge is the law, which (if we are talking a law on the federal level) is passed by the government. If you take jury nullification away, and the government has passed an unjust law, then the judge must abide by it, and there is nothing stopping that law. Therefor, the government has power over that judge, and nothing is there to stop that law, allowing the government to get away with any law they can manage to pass. Jury nullification keeps the government in check, because in the most essential way, the judge is representing the government since they have the authority over him or her." i still am not convinced in any way that jury nullification is just, so how would it bu unjust to take it away? democracy means government by the people, everyone in congress and or senate that pass laws are in fact people, americans, to be more exact, these people are put in senate by us to make the decisions for us, there for it is whatever they think is best, because we put them where they are in their position of power so if they pardon me , mess up then it is no doubt the fault of the american voters. i think i a, now supposed to present voter issues i only have one big one and that is that the opponent never has proven that jury nullification is a good thing. i think that this is my last rebuttal so i ask you all to vote negative, and thanks to my opponent for debating this case with me. "
in the united states, the principle of jury nullificatin is a just check on the government

can you quote a source for your definition of crime or is this :"crime to be something against the law that inflicts mental, physical, or emotional trauma on another person (or animal too, I suppose), or on the person's property. " just your belifes? because according to oxford, the definition of crime is : " An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction", that is my definition of crime ,different from mine, no doubt. and it doesnt necessarily have to be a prison sentence, in some cases it is a mear fine. this point, makes no sence, i am aware that you are in affirmation of jury nullification, but since the jury do make the decision and not the judge jury nullification is a useless act : "I'm aware that the judge doesn't make the decision and the jury does. That would be why I am in the affirmative position of this resolution. I'm arguing why it is just to have jury nullification, and unjust not to. Therefor, yes, a lot of my argument is based on the fact that it is unjust to leave all power to the judge, because I'm attempting to prove my point that jury nullification is just, and trying to say why lacking it is unjust. I'm sorry if I didn't make that very clear" " Jury nullification isn't used for something like this, it's used in cases where the law itself is questioned. I suppose you could be thinking of something like the O.J. Simpson case, in which the jury ruled "not guilty", but that wasn't jury nullification, that was simply a bad jury ruling. There is a difference" really, can you back this point up, yes i understand the oj simpson case, but the resolution nor any of the sites that i have checked state any limit to how jury nullification can be used. as for this point, i already explained that if some one commits a crime that they deserve to be punished, their case should not have been nullified in the first place. "Also, do you realize that even on the off chance that a murder case was nullified, and the same man came back to the same court, that the chances of them nullifying it over and over, every time they committed the crime is absurd? A jury is made up of common, everyday people. You find me one common, everyday person who would want to set a convicted murderer or rapist free. Then find me a group of them, a big enough group to make up the majority of the jury. I can guarantee that you are going to have an exponentially hard time doing this. And to then find an equally rare group of people for each murder case that the same man is charged with, so that he may be set free time and time again. It's so highly implausible that I don't believe that it really supports your statement of jury nullification being a danger to society." and your point about it not being a danger to society, if harm is caused by it then it is a danger to society, and using the scenario that i used then those two people died didnt they? what does keeping the government in check even mean? jury nullification would be keeping the judge in check, not the government.
in the united states, the principle of jury nullificatin is a just check on the government

crime is an action against the law. okay you agree that the jury make the final decision but alot of your argument is about how it is unjust to allow the decision to fall into the hands of the judge, the judge doesnot make the decision, the jury do. i am infact discussing LAWS. and that breaking them is a crime. do you not agree? for example, it is against the law to kill someone, that is a crime and entails punishment. it is the peoples choice to be in the government by doing so they know what it entails. constructive: vp: justice c: it is the jurys responsibility to declare someone who is proven to be guilty to be so, to judge the facts and the law. use the scenario of a murder case, the defendant has evidence against him or her and there was a witness to the crime the judge is convinced that this person is guilty but the jury nullify the case . now every thing could be okay, however majority chance is that when you let this person go that they will commit crime over and over, are you just going to keep nullifying the case? think of the victims family of his kids who will have to grow up without a parent. jury nullification is a danger to society!!! i guess what i am trying to say is that it is a just check on the people for jury nullification to be eradicated. opponents case: yeah the government should be kept in check but jury nullification is not the act to use to do so. the us government is made up of american citizens so you say that it is the duty of people to keep other people in check, i agree but the people who go into the government have that choice, and if it is thepeoples job to keep the government in line then how are the people to be kept in line? You are putting the life of one man into another man's hands and praying that he is correct in his decision. trial by jury is a just way of deciding the verdict. and the judge doesnot make the decision
in the united states, the principle of jury nullificatin is a just check on the government

i will post cross examination and post my negative constructive when my opponent responds. do you believe that if someone commits a crime that they should not be punished? would you say that it is the duty of the government to keep the people in check? it is in fact the jury that makes the decision of the veridict, not the judge, correct? can you give atleast two examples of current laws in the us that are wrong or unjust? are the government not made up of the american people? thanks for accepting this debate!!!
logic determines right and wrong and thus morality

By claiming he does not know what the Holocaust is, my opponent appears to have dropped my initial argument.is it resonable to close your eye as you try to read on and respond? ..this is the proof..to add morality, is it resonable to tell your daughter to read this and that she should close her eyes while doing it, and when she does it she will get an ice cream? ...I am not closing my eyes (organs of which I possess two) as I am reading my opponent's argument. Furthermore, my opponent has failed to demonstrate how the status of one's eyelids is related to logic, and to morality. I ask again that my opponent clarify this.
logic determines right and wrong and thus morality

My opponent appears not to have responded to my actual argument. I apologise if this is due to a misinterpretation of his post, but should no further clarification be provided, I suggest that the voters consider my initial argument dropped.cause+effect=logicMy opponent has laid out a bare assertion here, with no explanation whatsoever of its significance in his line of reasoning. how do you study if its resonable to close your eyes if the purpose is reading on?Unfortunately, the meaning of this sentence is vague and ambiguous. Syntactic ambiguity only adds to this opacity, for 'if' can be interpreted as 'whether', or as a subordinating conjunction indicating condition. I would like to politely request that my opponent clarify this sentence. reason+intent=morality i cant be immoral if i cant tell right from wrong, like an animal, and i cant be immoral if i have no intent. like a rock cant be immorallogic is true, not false is genocide wrong? logic+experience of it=reason(concept, mental simulation of logic) My opponent then asserts that one cannot be immoral if one cannot tell from right and wrong. While I do not challenge this conjecture, I would like to remind my opponent that this does not prove logic determines right and wrong. As for his statement 'logic is true, not false', I would like to say that based on the definition, logic studies what is true and what is false. I will give a simple example: Boolean logic studies truth values, so 1 XOR 0 is 1, 1 OR 0 is 1, 1 AND 0 is 0, and so on. 1 represents 'true' and 0 represents 'false'.Finally, Using simple mathematics, I have come to the following conclusion based on my opponent's equations: logic+experience of logic+intent=moralityHowever, the underlying reasoning behind this equation is unclear, and I would like to ask that my opponent elaborate on it.
logic determines right and wrong and thus morality

cause+effect=logic how do you study if its resonable to close your eyes if the purpose is reading on? reason+intent=morality i cant be immoral if i cant tell right from wrong, like an animal, and i cant be immoral if i have no intent. like a rock cant be immoral logic is true, not false is genocide wrong? logic+experience of it=reason(concept, mental simulation of logic)