BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The PS3 is better than the Xbox 360.

The PS3 is better than the Xbox 360 for multiple reasons. First of all, to access multiplayer on the PS3, you do not have to pay any extra charges. On the Xbox 360 however, multiplayer, more commonly known as "Xbox Live", is $50 to $60 dollars a year. Before you bring up things like, "Oh, the Xbox has better matchmaking," I would like to point out that $60 a year for "better matchmaking" is absurd. The PS3 has perfectly fine matchmaking and it's multiplayer is free. Secondly, PS3 has blu-ray discs, while the Xbox 360 is not compatible with these. Hence, the PS3 has better graphics. Thirdly, lets take a look at the controllers. The PS3 runs on fully rechargeable, wireless, Sixaxis controllers, while the Xbox 360 has controllers which take a lot more effort to charge, and the Xbox 360's controllers has easily jammable buttons. Next, the games. PS3 has hundreds of original titles, only available for the PS3, which are far better than some of the popular games for both consoles out there. This does not mean that the popular games are bad, but instead shows that the PS3 exclusive games are good. Xbox 360 has FAR fewer original titles than the PS3, which is another reason why the PS3 is superior. Lastly, before you bring up any of the 2010 PSN hacking scandal, I want to bring these points to you. 1. The PS3 was not an intended target because of their security. Everyone is talking about how the PS3 security was "at fault" and that the PS3's security "sucks". This is untrue. It is because the group of hackers were professionals. They could of hacked the Xbox 360's network if they wanted too, but they chose a target at random, and chose the PS3's, which is known as PlayStation Network. 2. The PS3's security has improved over the years. Many attempts to hack PlayStation Network has failed, due to the vast improvement in security. 3. A network outage like what happened two years ago will never happen again. These outages are prone to happen once in a consoles lifetime, and it happened here, with the PS3. This cause a vast improvement in security, as I have stated above, and ensures that these things will never happen again.
Ron Paul would save this country if he was president

Well then why doesn't Ron Paul oppose all subsidies instead of just subsidies for the poor? $13 billion is pocket change. How about trillion? http://www.moneyandmarkets.com... Ron Paul is trying to stop construction of low-income housing. The government is not subsidizing mansions. It is subsidizing housing for the homeless. The banks caused the housing crisis. Big Bucks has been scamming the process of home building for years, and as long as we pay them off there is no problem. For them of course. But now we are not paying them off. This they did not count on. They never had any intention of owning houses, and the important basic economic fact here is that there is nothing you can do with a house except let someone live in it. Discounting of course the Spitzer-Clinton plan to turn them all into houses of ill repute. So what else can the banks do except let us live in their stupid houses anyway? Just let it be. But they know we will not do that, and they didn't get rich by letting suckers off the hook. If Big Bucks can create a problem by evicting millions of people that can be solved by making a generous offering to the Church of Big Bucks, and we are sophisticated enough to fall for it then we have only ourselves to blame. Ron Paul is a con.
Ron Paul would save this country if he was president

The media loves to take things out of context. The comments your referring to came out of a private newsletter that I couldn't find anywhere. Without the entirety of the text or even seeing the publication with his name signed on it, I do not accept that Ron Paul is a racist. Ron Paul denies writing these articles saying "Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, they're the heroes [of my life]." and "People who know me, nobody is going to believe this," he said. "That's just not my language. It's not my life." http://www.cnn.com... Ron Paul predicted our current economic crisis in 2003. "Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing." http://politicalinquirer.com...
Ron Paul would save this country if he was president

This guy is more of a lunatic than I thought. http://web.archive.org... "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers." "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said. "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism. Well he got one out of four right. Get him out of office.
Ron Paul would save this country if he was president

Ron Paul, unlike President Obama, would save this country by returning America to a free market system. He would cut spending by bringing ALL of our troops home, getting rid of unnecessary departments such as the Department of Education, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Commerce. He would restrict the Federal Government to doing only what was delegated to them by the constitution; keeping the American people safe with border control and a non-interventionist foreign policy, ensuring fair markets, having a strong monetary policy backed by gold, and cutting, if not doing away with, all taxes.
Ron Paul would save this country if he was president

With all due respect, im not really sure what your talking about. Let me spell this out for you so you can see what Ron Paul's plan is. http://www.realclearpolitics.com... The role of government is the following points: 1. Protect our freedoms 2. Guard Our Borders 3. Have a sound currency We don't need the government to build low income housing, we don't need the government to regulate the banking industry. The whole reason were in this financial crisis, as i quoted earlier from Ron Paul, is that the government got involved by saying they feel everyone deserves to own their own home. So when the Federal Reserve loaned the banks money they had strings attached, through Barney Frank himself, saying you must use this money for loans to low-income family's. Ron Paul is for GETTING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF YOUR LIFE. That is what is important. The free market can solve any problem. The problem is that the government steps in every time and makes things worse.
ObamaCare should be repealed

1. Your facts are wrong and are from a biased source. A health care repeal would cost 109 billion ( http://www.cbsnews.com...) so I have no idea where you are getting this 7 trillion dollar debt from 2. A total of 2.6 trillion dollars is gone from social security and part of that money has been allocated towards obamacare. http://www.forbes.com... 3. Why should we give the poor tax breaks when they pay so little in taxes, and why should we increase taxes on the rich when the 1% pays more than 50% of our income taxes each year. The answer is not to keep taxing the rich until they pay 75% because that money would be used to fuel more idiotic programs like Obamacare.
ObamaCare should be repealed

Background info:Without Obamacare, we would have to keep spending more and more on social security, Medicare, and etc. Obamacare is there to assist those who cannot afford medical insurance and or those who have very low incomes while making up for that through raising taxes of the more affluent and putting light burdens on businesses. If it were not there, the increased debt from our current health insurance programs would exceed that of the current debt of Obamacare. DebtThough its existence increases debt in the long run if changes to it are not made despite increased taxes and forced corporate assistance, Obama plans on cutting the debt in other places of spending, such as the military(where spending is beyond excessive). Also, repealing it will cost around 6.2 trillion USD over the next 75 years.Social SecurityObamacare does not take from social security, it works with it, along with Medicare, Medicaid, and etc. TaxesThe lower middle class and the poor will receive significant tax breaks actually, from Obamacare. The only tax hikes will be for the more affluent. Sources:http://obamacarefacts.com...http://obamacarefacts.com...http://www.washingtonpost.com...
ObamaCare should be repealed

R1. "repealing it will cost around 6.2 trillion USD over the next 75 years." -Me"A health care repeal would cost 109 billion ( http://www.cbsnews.com......)"The article from CBS News cites the Congressional Budget Office, which says that the 109 billion cost of repealing Obamacare would be for the years 2013-2022, not over the course of the next 75 years. Also, it only takes into account of direct spending(spending from the program, because it is the topic of the headline), not the exponentially increasing spending of the other health insurance programs such as social security, Medicare, Medicaid, and etc. The article used this article as its source: http://www.cbo.gov...R2."A total of 2.6 trillion dollars is gone from social security and part of that money has been allocated towards obamacare. http://www.forbes.com...;That article does not mention the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare/Obama's Health Insurance Policy at all. R3"Why should we give the poor tax breaks when they pay so little in taxes . . ."The poor earn less, and therefore should pay less because the more affluent still have financial advantages over them. " . . . and why should we increase taxes on the rich when the 1% pays more than 50% of our income taxes each year."If you think about it, the government has to pay for a lot of things, such as protection, public works, health care, and etc. You are suggesting that we start taking more from the poor and less from those who can more than afford it -on top of lavish luxuries. "The answer is not to keep taxing the rich until they pay 75% because that money would be used to fuel more idiotic programs like Obamacare."I apologize if I sound terse but this is a formal debate and insulting your opponent's position is not respectful.
Evolution and Science Require Faith

As my opponent has forfeited the previous round, I will not add any further comments other than to clarify my previous remark: "As this discussion was about Science requiring faith and not specifically Evolution, I do not feel this is a valid to this debate and instead will simply present a point by point rebuttal of Hovind available in the following link." I misspoke here, as this is about both science and evolution. It would have been more apt to say "not specifically about the intricate details of evolution" which my opponents hour long video was considering without citing any specific part or portion as evidence or source indicating evolution requires faith. As a result of this and the 2000 word limit on this debate I felt it more appropriate to link the appropriate rebuttal to my opponents video (as he makes no specific claim about faith and evolution) rather than try and squeeze such a rebuttal into a tiny number of words.
Evolution and Science Require Faith

Ignoring the fact that my opponent appears to have conceded the debate, I will continue. Some aspects of science are not facts. This is indeed correct. Many aspects of science are facts these are primarily concerning repeated observable and empirically measured evidence.[1] Such observable evidence does not require any faith to believe in. These are then explained using scientific theories; an explanation that offers testable predictions, the ability to proved wrong and is generally well corroborated by both evidence and corroborated with repeated testing.[2][3] Theories are only ever tentative, as new evidence can always be provided in the future (and has in other theories), that contradict the theory in the future.[4] This is for the very reason that we can only be as sure as the evidence can determine. Because scientific theories ARE evidenced based, they do not require the faith my opponent implies: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" as they are not believed without question; but are all considered provisional. Even then best supported ones. This includes Evolution, which is well supported by genetics, morphology, atavism's, vestigiality, repeated experimental testing and validation [5]. Evolution is only well believed because it is well supported by all the evidence. As this discussion was about Science requiring faith and not specifically Evolution, I do not feel this is a valid to this debate and instead will simply present a point by point rebuttal of Hovind available in the following link:http://www.youtube.com... [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2]http://www.livescience.com... [3]http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://undsci.berkeley.edu... [5]http://en.wikipedia.org... [6]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Evolution and Science Require Faith

I apologise, as I have made a mistake. Science means Knowledge and should not require faith, however, the point I was trying to make is that some aspects of science are not facts. Such things are considered scientific, however they are not factual and therefore cannot be as they require faith. The whole point of Science is that it requires no faith, therefore Evolution isn't part of Science. My mistake, however, if you believe that evolution does not require faith, I want to just add that every piece of factual evidence for the theory thus far, has been disproved. IT THEREFORE REQUIRES FAITH, HOWEVER IF YOU STILL BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTION IS FACT, PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO WHENEVER YOU'RE FREE!!!! http://www.youtube.com...
Evolution and Science Require Faith

As my opponent has not made any formal terms for this debate, I am assuming he has started his primary argument; but in case this is was not his intent, I will provide a brief summary of my argument rather launching into something large. Faith, the belief of something not based on proof[1], and stands opposed to what science is and how it works. At a fundamental level, science and via association Evolution (which is part of science) is an investigation into the natural world based on evidence and experimentation [2]. Science does not "beleive" things, it does not have "faith" that something is true; for anything to be scientific it must demonstrate that the process, mechanism and theory match the facts and provides useful testable predictions. What is accepted by science is what can be demonstrated, theories are not held as absolute fact but as simply our best understanding of the nature of the world with the facts we have. For this reason many scientific theories have been overturned[3] While the questions you raise about the origins of the universe are completely valid questions. They are metaphysical and religious questions. These are not questions that science even attempt to answer for very reason that they cannot be tested, and we cannot obtain objective facts about them. As a result, until such statements about the underlying root cause of the universe can be empirically tested and validated, it will forever live outside the realm of science. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]. http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]. http://undsci.berkeley.edu...
Evolution and Science Require Faith

Well, the main question asked in Science is how this universe began to exist. However one of the following 2 things had to have happened in order for anything to exist. Either something has eternally existed or came into existence from nothing. Both of which are logically impossible to us because, scientifically, everything has a beginning, and a cause. Therefore everyone, whether creationist or atheist needs faith and has faith. If there was no need for faith to believe in God, everyone would believe, which is the same if you don't believe in God. If there were one absolute truth to every individual, there would be no need for faith. We all have faith because we believe differently.
One is justified in believing that god exists.

I will be taking the pro position that god does exist and that we can find evidence of this. Definitions: God: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions http://www.google.com... Exist: to be actual rather than merely possible http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Justified: To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
they not

You"ve got to be kidding me. I"ve been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It"s just common sense.
they not

What you have is wrong you can still talk to people you can do it over online and other things it doest matter if games make kids lose marks its your choice to play or study games are just a helper to make people happy if they need to be it never going to work to stop this it does not make people bad or anything its your choice to play or not they are good for kids if kids have a bd day they want to get away from it all and thats what i do and im fine i dont want to hurt any one im fine
Are human beings evil

Evil is very real and very tangible and as i have said in my previous argument, that if you are not doing good you are doing evil. A person who killed 6 million innocent jews for shits and giggles is most definitely evil. Con he raised the point that evil is a human construct therefore is he willing to say that the killing of innocent live is ok? That isis means well? I'd beg to differ. For every one good soul on earth there are thousands that are evil maybe not full on killing evil but they do not care who they trod on to bring themselves up, those who neglect the needy,those who are downright wasteful. Furthermore, my point has been agreed with for a long time as can be seen by a quote from one of mark twain's works "He is the only animal that has it. It is the secret of his degradation. It is the quality which enables him to do wrong. It has no other office. It is incapable of performing any other function. It could never have been intended to perform any other. Without it, man could do no wrong..." Thus I strongly believe that we as a species are evil
Are human beings evil

What is evil and what is not is entirely subjective. Even the most controversial human in existence, Adolf Hitler, is not seen as evil by every person on the planet. The very idea of evil is nothing more than a human construct. Evil does not truly exist, it isn't tangible. Objective evil doesn't exist the same way objective beauty does not exist. Evil is only in the eye of the beholder. Since evil is nothing more than personal oppinion then it can not be said that all human beings are evil for a fact. Oppinions are never absolute.
Are human beings evil

I believe that majority of human beings are evil. Whether sub consciously or not we screw up the earth with fishing,pollution and other stuff, a lot of the times for profit. Given this i believe that because we are not actively seeking to do good we are doing evil. "There is no more neutrality in the world. You either have to be part of the solution, or you're going to be part of the problem"~ Elderidge Cleaver
The letter a is better than the letter k no one likes k

Also a is number 1 in the alphabet, meaning the best.But K is 11 so it has two 1s making it twice as best. Here is what the Greek letter K is used. In graph theory, the connectivity of a graph is given by κ. In differential geometry, the curvature of a curve is given by κ. In physics, the torsional constant of an oscillator is given by κ as well as Einstein constant of gravitation. In structural engineering, κ is the ratio of the smaller factored moment to the larger factored moment and is used to calculate the critical elastic moment of an unbraced steel member. In electrical engineering, κ is the multiplication factor, a function of the R/X ratio of the equivalent power system network, which is used in calculating the peak short-circuit current of a system fault. κ is also used to notate conductivity, the reciprocal of resistivity, rho. In chemistry, the compressibility of a compound is given by κ. In psychology and psychiatry, kappa represents a measure of diagnostic reliability. In biology, kappa and kappa prime are important nucleotide motifs for a tertiary interaction of group II introns. In biology, kappa designates a subtype of an antibody component. In pharmacology, kappa represents a type of opioid receptor. Kappa statistics such as Cohen's kappa and Fleiss' kappa are methods for calculating inter-rater reliability. Upper-case letter Κ is used as a symbol for: In textual criticism, the Byzantine text-type (from Κοινη, Koine, the common text). In set theory, kappa is often used to denote an ordinal that is also a cardinal. And wqhat is alpha used for: Alpha helix, a common motif in the secondary structure of proteins Alpha particle, form of particle radiation Alpha taxonomy, the science of naming organisms Alpha waves, recorded by electroencephalography H-alpha, or H-α, an emission line created by hydrogen atoms α, a symbol for the angle of attack in aerodynamics α, a symbol for angular acceleration in physics α, a symbol for coefficient of thermal expansion in thermodynamics α, a symbol for the fine-structure constant in physics α, a symbol for thermal diffusivity in thermodynamics α, a symbol for common-base current gain of a transistor in electronics α, the isotope fractionation factor between two substances in geochemistry Alpha, the brightest star in a constellation according to the Bayer designation Not nearly as many important things. So K is definitely better than A
The letter a is better than the letter k no one likes k

The letter a is better than the letter k because it is its own word. The letter a is used as the best grade in the grading scale. The letter a has higher relative frequency than the letter k in general and as the first letter of words. Also no one likes k because it is harder to write than a. Also a is number 1 in the alphabet, meaning the best. In Greek a is the equivalent of the alpha, which is used as a term for being the top dog, first, or number one
The letter a is better than the letter k no one likes k

The letter K is in fact better than A because K is the 11th letter and 11 has several special things about it.Here is a link to the article about it because there are too many special things about it to write down here: http://en.wikipedia.org...Then K also has quite a few other special things.It is the abbreviation for karat.It is the abbreviation for potassium.It is the symbol for thousand.It takes more components of the mouth to make the sound than A does.Overall it is a very special letter and therefore better than A.