BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
PC gaming is better than console gaming

Suicide rates for hardcore PC Gamers is 27 Million annually where there is 0 suicides a year for console gamers. Console is much more relaxing as you can lie down on a couch and play, although you can connect a controller to your PC i believe it must be plugged in. Although you say on PC you can mod it, on console it is a better online experience as there is less chance of hackers, therefore a more fair gaming experience.
PC gaming is better than console gaming

"You say that PC gaming games are cheaper, that is because they suck more balls" Clearly emotion is getting in the way of your argument, video games are made on a PC... then downgraded to a console because there is a middle man (in this case it is the disc)- Discs have a storage capacity meaning that it is possible to have a console game that is 'too large' to actually fit onto your console. "that is because they suck more balls" What does that even mean, to say 'because they suck more balls' means nothing its equivalent to saying 'because it is!' as a counter argument, do you have any facts to support your "facts?""The thing with PC games is that you NEED a good PC to run good games" My microwave at home can run Arma 3 at 60 fps, with decent graphics settings, this is made possible because PC's have graphics settings, if your console is too old and cant run newer games without frame skip there is a very slim chance that you will be able to get it to run without it lagging.-----------------------------------*paragraph*-----------------------------------True GTA V may not run on a $500 PC, but can you play Dota 2, League of Legends, World of Warcraft, Age of empires 1, 2 and 3 on a console? Yes you may be able to run GTA V on a Xbox or a Playstation but is it worth sacrificing all of these good exclusives for a few AAA titles; Also AAA titles aren't even that good, they have become copy pasted 'name games' that sell just because they are call of duty. I'm actually glad people don't really play CoD on PC because from my experience I'm sick of the fanboys. Also the only way to get games on consoles is through Microsoft and Playstation so they decide the price of their games, yes you can head to trade me but their prices are still subliminally directed through the large consoles, but on a PC you can go to G2A and humble bundle to get games cheaper.For example on humblebundle.com I picked uphttp://www.trademe.co.nz...http://www.trademe.co.nz...http://www.trademe.co.nz... The Beta for Rainbow Six SiegeAnd many morefor just 1$, yes 1$ with all of these games on consoles (some of which aren't even on consoles) would easily cost more than 4000% of the humblebundle price, can you see a humblebundle for console games? because there is even one for mobile.
PC gaming is better than console gaming

You say that PC gaming games are cheaper, that is because they suck more balls, console games look better, perform better and look nicer. You don't need a username to play offline on PS4. I personally don't play very many games, so I don't need too many games. The thing with PC games is that you NEED a good PC to run good games, where GTA 5 wont run well on a $500 PC but will run perfectly on a $500 PS4 and a $300 PS3. __________________________________________________*PARAGRAPH*______________________________________________________ All the money you save from games being cheaper, you spend on $1300 mice and $1700 keyboards.
PC gaming is better than console gaming

Saying access to sunlight makes no sense as it is all up to how to play. If your console breaks you can search up your problem on the internet but there is a very slim chance of it working. (I know this from experience and we had to send the xBox to microsoft and get them to replace it) Consoles run 30 frames per second so saying that they have better graphics is a lie because pc's can run at 60 and beyond frames per second, also depending on your build you can run games at infinitely better graphics. Saying access to girlfriends makes no sense as it is all up to how to play. _____________________________________*Paragraph*_____________________________________ Now that my counter arguments are done... Pc gaming is better than console gaming because the games are cheaper and we have access to websites like "G2A.com" and humble bundle for getting games extremely cheap... The money that you save from buying an PS4 you will very quickly get back from the money that you save from buying games from "GABEN... THE KING OF 70% OFF"
Affirmative action is effective at combating racial inequality.

Affirmative action is not discriminatory, is here to try to repair wrong actions in the pass. It does not try to discriminate against any group, but to help the group of which was once discriminated and held from accomplishing anything. If it was something to take it back on those who did them wrong, I'll completely support CON's argument, of which it as he put it; "It is not beneficial to society to punish a large group of people (many of whom aren't even guilty of anything at this point) the same way that an individual would be punished. With that mentality, you only end up making the hatred/anger that this discrimination stems from worse. ". However, that is not what affirmative action is for, it is the attempt to repair the fairness of such of group, of which, never had the chance to have what they should from the beginning.
Affirmative action is effective at combating racial inequality.

No, I completely understand the context of your criminal analogy. I'm not taking it as an attack at all.However, you're comparing the actions of members of an extremely large group of people to the actions of an individual. It is not beneficial to society to punish a large group of people (many of whom aren't even guilty of anything at this point) the same way that an individual would be punished. With that mentality, you only end up making the hatred/anger that this discrimination stems from worse.I don't think that anybody should forget slavery or forget the years of discrimination that African Americans experienced, but we should look back on the experience, accept that what we did was wrong, treat people equally regardless of race, and move on. If we don't move on as a society. If our society doesn't move on, then the problem will only get worse. You're trying to correct something that is morally wrong by doing the same thing in reverse, which doesn't make it any less wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right.As for your point about people still among us that want to discriminate, that will never go away. There are laws in place to protect minorities against discrimination, and those are effective because these people know that they'll be sued and lose if they attempt to.
Affirmative action is effective at combating racial inequality.

I like that you brought out the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Before this act was put in place, and even a period after such, those people were just abandoned to the very bottom. Not only that, but because of discrimination against them, they weren't even allowed to try to rise to anything above what they already had, which was little to nothing. This is what happened. They were "freed" from a cruel act, which is slavery, and were dumped on the streets filled with discriminatory people that did not want them there, and would even refuse to sell or let them use any of those facilities. After a long wait "enjoying" (insert sarcasm here) a locked "freedom", the government finally pass such of act, which is an embarrassing thing for the nation (imagine, your government had to force you to not discriminate). After such of act, the people didn't just willing listen to their government, it took time for the people to get used to obey such of act. This wasn't such of a long time ago, many of the people from that time still live among us (I say this mostly for the cruel people that hold those suffering people back. Imagine this, they are still living among us). So not even half of a century has passed, and many of those who live in such of cruelty still alive today. When is enough you say? There would never be enough, no matter how much you try to set things right, it will never be, what was done was an atrocity and will be forever so. All you can do, is try to repair, even if it cannot be (kind of like when you send someone to jail after they kill someone, it doesn't matter how long that person will stay in jail, the life s/he took will never be given back, it doesn't mean we will just let the guy walk free because of that). The system should go at least until there is a balance in equality, which is far from it, after less than half of a decade. When you do something horrible to someone, you try to pay it back with more than your damage, and not think as; what would a reasonable payment be in this case? You are pretty much acting like the criminal that I compared to. You serve a few years, and are wondering; how much more should I serve? At one point, you should all just go on with your lives and forget what I did. (I hope you don't take this in a bad way) __
Affirmative action is effective at combating racial inequality.

My apologies for the late response- been busy for the past few days. My opponent's argument largely revolves around slavery and how it was very difficult for freed African Americans to get on their feet because of being denied so many rights for so long, and I can understand affirmative action more in the wake of that. However, my opponent makes no strong argument for why it should still be in place in 2012. Even since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it's been nearly half a century- there comes a time to move on. However, I am still maintaining my position that this is not a good way to combat racial inequality. Hiring or accepting should always be done based on qualifications and ignore race altogether. It is not the right solution to try to make up for our past mistakes by making things unequal in the other direction- we need to focus on treating everybody the same way regardless of things such as race and gender if we want to move forward as a society.
Affirmative action is effective at combating racial inequality.

My opponent uses the term; "fight fire with fire". I don't know if he is aware, but you can actually fight fire with fire. I have witnessed myself before. Here is a link that shows this very well; . http://www.fireparadox.org... --------- You could actually visualize this using that own analogy of "fire with fire" that my opponent brought out. When the system was first put into place, the system excluded a very large part of the population. They had no rights what so ever, and they weren't allowed in the system even know they were part of (you could visualize this as the begin of an unjust mistake, and the begin of fire burning from one side). Once they finally accept the injustice they have put this part of the population into it, the system had already being put in place for years, and those people were left at the very bottom of the system. This system is a system of capitalism, which the opportunities are greater from the starting point. From there on, whoever is at the top has more opportunities, and better chances to stay there, those who are on the bottom has less opportunities, and in consequence chances are more favorable for them remaining there. Affirmative action, is an action to try to accomplish bringing back the same opportunities for those generation of oppressive people that never had the chance to start from where they should have (the beginning point). They were there at the beginning, but were denied the rights. The fire that was started, was a fire to consume all, the fire from affirmative action, was a different fire, started to control the burning flames that exists, and hopefully at one point, bring that fire to extinguish. ____
Affirmative action is effective at combating racial inequality.

I understand that this is still a controversial issue, and I look forward to debating it. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, affirmative action is "an action or policy favoring those who tend to suffer from discrimination, especially in relation to employment or education". The practice is mainly in place to help combat inequality between races. As a method of combatting racial inequality, this is flawed by its very nature; instead of eliminating racial inequality, this merely tries to fight racial inequality by skewing things in the other direction (fighting fire with fire). Clearly, that is NOT the racial equality that our civil rights leaders fought for. True racial quality would be admitting people to positions based on qualifications alone and completely ignoring race.
Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals

". .. The positive association between violent video games and aggressive personality is consistent with a developmental model in which extensive exposure to violent video games (and other violent media) contributes to the creation of an aggressive personality. " -This is the report my opponent has posted in his opening argument. It was quite clear from his arguments that he was claiming violent video games lead to a more aggressive personality, which means it would leave a permanent mark on the individual. *Essentially my opponent is playing a semantics debate. He jumped from his original position of wholly supporting that violent video games lead to aggressive personalities, to now stating what he meant was that individuals show temporary physiological responses. He has failed to meet his burden and it is evident from his opening argument that he initially intended to argue for a permanent result from violent video games, until he noticed his evidence was lacking. Sure, you could vote for Pro. .. if you like sneaky semantic debaters!
Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals

I would like to remind you that the proposition is "violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals" not "Violent video games lead to violent acts." 1. Yes, I have proved that violent video games invokes physiological responses, such as AGGRESSION. 2. Saying that aggression dies down after a period of time does is not contrary to the fact that violent video games invoke aggression. 3. I urge you to vote PRO. Even my opponent, as evident, has conceded that violent video games elicit aggression.
Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals

"I would like to include that I am not suggesting a correlation between video games and violent acts, such as murder. The supporting and dissenting evidence, regarding this subject, is lacking, so I will not make such an empty claim. " -So let me get this straight. You say you aren't claiming that violent video games cause or even correlate with aggression in individuals. .. it it just me or is that a forfeit in disguise? "Repeated and long terms exposure exposure to violent video games cause aggressive arousal by a number of physiological and hormonal cues. This effect does wear off after a period of time. " -As is the same with porn and horror movies. The physiological effects are temporary. Thus, my opponent has once again admitted that violent video games do not lead to more violent people in real life. *Basically as of now, my opponent has only shown that playing violent video games invoke physiological responses, which in themselves don't show much. He has admitted to saying that it eventually dies down (usually in less than a hour), and that there is no correlation or causal link between violent video games and aggression in individuals.
Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals

I would like to include that I am not suggesting a correlation between video games and violent acts, such as murder. The supporting and dissenting evidence, regarding this subject, is lacking, so I will not make such an empty claim. Repeated and long terms exposure exposure to violent video games cause aggressive arousal by a number of physiological and hormonal cues. This effect does wear off after a period of time. These Salient cues, such as a provocation, can result in misattribution of arousal that was engendered by a violent video game. For example, an individual could anger at a salient provoking person, which in turn could increase the likelihood of an aggressive behavioral attack. As with the affect state, this arousal effect is not specific to violent video games, but could occur with any game that happens to be very exciting. [1] Long-term media violence effects on aggression result from the development, overlearning, and reinforcement of aggression related knowledge structures. Each time people are exposed to violent video games, they rehearse aggressive scripts that teach and reinforce vigilance for enemies (i.e., hostile perception bias), aggressive action against others, expectations that others will behave aggressively, positive attitudes toward use of violence, and beliefs that violent solutions are effective and appropriate. 1. http://www.apa.org...
Violent videos games lead to aggression in individuals

As of now, every lawsuit that has been filed against the game industry for cases such as this have been thrown out. Why, you ask? Because the science doesn't back up such claims. As we all should very well know, correlation doesn't imply causation; this is basic psychology. The burden of proof is on my opponent to show the causal link between video game violence and an increase in aggression. As is with most studies, the one my you have posted simply concludes that individuals who play violent video games experience an increase in physiological signs of aggression. However, this still does not address the issue at hand, of whether or not violent video games lead to real life violence. Such experiments are methodologically unsound' the environment is drastically different, and participants are in situations they normally wouldn't be. Even so, such experiments don't establish this "link" between violent video games and aggression. [1] People know what they are playing, and what context it is. It's for fun, and they are conscious of what goals they are playing it for: entertainment. Studies in apes show a distinction between play fighting and ripping each others gut out in real combat. It shows that apes do make distinctions between the two, so why can't humans? [1] Yeah, individuals get a physiological response to violent video games, as do people who watch porn. In the same way, the movie industry has been here long before video games came along, and the violence in many movies such as Saw (yummy) is no secret. Roughly 79 percent of America's youth play video games, many of them for at least eight hours a week. [2] Holy camels there must be shootings and beatings and rapes all over the street! But wait a minute, then explain to me why the crime rate in America is going down. [3] Surely, it should be spiking up with the video game industry exploding in its few decades of existence, but the evidence speaks otherwise. ---References--- 1. http://www.pbs.org... 2. http://culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu... 3. http://www.livescience.com...
Consenting adults have the right to get married.

Couple things I should point out: Homosexuality, incest, or bisexual traits do not-in anyway disgust or offend me. Please do not be offended by this debate, I hardly care about who you are. Don't take this personallyPrevious citations:Richardson, Valerie. "Same-sex Marriages Give Polygamy a Legal Boost."Washington Times.” 07 May 2015.U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011Sandfort TG1, de Graaf R, Bijl RV, Schnabel P.National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, Web. 08 May 2015David Badash, "Greg Abbott: Banning Gay Marriage Reduces Out-Of-Wedlock Births." The New Civil Rights Movement. Wed. 08 May 2015. (All Quotes from Greg Abbott)Stanley Kurtz, "Going Dutch?" Lessons of the same-sex marriage debate in the Netherlands. Web. 08 May 2015.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Harms of Incest: "The psychodynamics of all three parties to father-daughter incest seem to indicate that people who become involved in incestuous behaviour are often psychologically damaged before the fact, so that if they show subsequent evidence of psychological impairment the incestuous behaviour can be as plausibly viewed as a dysfunctional attempt at solving problems as it can a cause of subsequent psychopathology"-PubMed Research (1) The U.S government has literally no reason to legalize incest, which would create a lot of social, psycological, and biological impacts. This would also create a lack in genetic diversity which is bad for the country. My opponent may argue from a morality standpoint on how this is "stripping" away from their rights, however mariage is controlled by the state and belongs to the state. Similary, 2 gay men could stay together and have sex however the simply cannot marry due to the consequences listed above. Incest is a bit different...Unlike gay marriage, incest causes as much harm to society wheather the couple is married or not. My opponent must give an objective, legitimate reason to legalize gay marriage (or any other forms of currently illegal marriage), besides a more subjective, moral reason derived from personal exeperince. Gay Marriage and other marriages I already listed of how gay marriage can bring a lot of negative impacts. You see, the state has no reason to legalize gay marriage because it does not fall within the states reasonable intrests. Using 16kadam's example, if a mother loves her daughter, the "connection" comes from biology and the state's intrest to create a suitable and healthy atmosphere. Gay marriage however, does not create a stable envirment since an offspring needs emotional support for both parents. Incest-Well, there are literally no reasons to legalize that. 1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Consenting adults have the right to get married.

Stop right there. There is nothing wrong with two men or two women getting married. There is no harm in that. I am a Side A bisexual. If I fall in love with a woman, you would try to stop us from getting married? What gives you the right to tell people what to do? It is okay to disagree with same sex marriage, but it is not okay to force said disagreement on other people. Liberty of belief goes both ways (pun intended). You have every single righ to personally oppose same sex marriage, but you do not have the right to force that other people. The antigayposition is a religious idea not supported by the Constitution that should not dictate the law.
Consenting adults have the right to get married.

Thank you for accepting. Reasons why I say this: People have the right to be happy. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of anyone's business. It is fine to disagree with same sex marriage, but it is wrong to force a religious idea on other people. The antigay concept is a religious idea that should not dictate the law. Gays also have the right to liberty of belief. We hold these truths to be self eident that all are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.