BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
PC gaming is, on balance, better than console gaming.

“If you could not play the games on a PC your pointwould be valid. However, just because the game was produced for N64 does notmatter if a PC can play that same game. It does not make the PC better, itmakes it equal. “ Of course it makes the console better. It shows us that the console as a whole hasbeen able to introduce to the world better titles then the PC. So even if youcan play the game on an emulator, the gamer always remembers the feeling theyget from playing it on that console for the first time, and it just isn’t the sameas on a PC. “You literally just have to plug it in to the PC andthen to the TV. .. ” If my opponent gave those instructions to the greater majority of the Americanpopulation, they would still be clueless. It is a fact that you will need somebackground knowledge in order for a PC to cooperate with you, and you don’tneed background knowledge to work the modern 7th gen. console. “You do the same on a PC. Just plug in a controller andyou're good to go. Even if you have to download a few drivers, this process isrelatively simple and straightforward. “ If you gave those instructions to any American, they would try to plug their Nintendo 64controller into a PC. Then, after an hour of trying, they would give up, andprobably cry themselves to sleep. “The $2000 dollar piece of kit. For one thing, it canoutput much better graphics and do things like support more objects on screenat a time. Also, a PC really isn't that hard to figure out. If you can't, asksomeone on a tech forum for help. " "As for the technical problems, if one part fails you can replace it withoutreplacing the whole rig. If it is a software problem, you can easily havesomeone who knows what they are doing help you fix it. “ In manysituations, it’s better to just by a new PC. If you send it in to get it fixedit could be weeks before you get it back, and when you get it back, it maystill not work. Now, this same situation has been known to happen to the X-Box,but the X-Box has a better history of returning working consoles. “I concede the overheating point. You have to know the limits of your PC and build it accordingly. You can'texpect an overclocked rig to be able to be cooled by one small fan. Most of thetime, problems like these are the fault of the consumers not knowing what theyare doing. “ Who wants to buy a new fan for their PC just to play agame? By that point, it’s too expensive and too complicated to keep going. ManyPC owners would just give up. Remember: Convenience, convenience, convenience! Americans want things now!
PC gaming is, on balance, better than console gaming.

I will refrain from rebutting my opponent"s arguments until the next round, and start by listing reasons as to why the console is superior to the PC. 1)Consoles have turned out better and more successful games than the PC. When one mentions the Ocarina of Time for the Nintendo 64, almost everyone knows what you"re talking about. Why? Because the Ocarina of Time was the best game ever made. It came on a console, not a PC. And even though a PC can play it today, it was ultimately the console that brought it forth in its E-Rated glory. Ocarina of Time has had the most sales in the Zelda genre at 7.6 million, and has received a 99/100 on Metacritic, and 10/10 on IGN. It has been named a masterpiece and the greatest game of all time. I have yet to hear that honor given to World of Warcraft. . http://www.zeldawiki.org... . http://www.ign.com... 2)Television Honestly, who wants to play on a little computer in a dimly lit room in an uncomfortable chair when you could be playing in front of a nice 60 inch plasma screen TV in a nice comfy chair? 3)Keyboards or Controllers? I"m going to leave this one up to the voters but personally I would rather be holding my nice fat X-Box controller than playing on a keyboard and a mouse. 4)The Console is Just Easier to Use Here are a few situations that make me hate the PC. When I first bought The Battle for Middle Earth2 back in 2008, I may have been the most excited person on the face of the earth. Turns out I needed to upgrade my graphics card, so I said "Fine. " Did that, started up the game played for like an hour and then my computer just straight up crashes. Did some research and found out my computer couldn"t stay cool enough to play while crashing. A year later I bought a $3,000 XPS laptop to try and play the game again. It worked for a month before freezing up. Here is an example of the same type of situation, except with an X-Box 360. Bought Halo 3, I was giddy as a school girl, and just enjoyed it. No crashes, no failures, just straight up fun. There is no getting around it, PCs aren"t better until you"ve paid $3,000 plus dollars for them, and then spend 5 hours on the Microsoft help page trying to figure out what the problem is, and there is always a problem. 5)The graphics are better on the PC, but wait until the PS4 and X-Box 720 come out. 6)Japan! Nintendo just destroys the PC on everything, and the great part is, the GRAPHICS DON"T MATTER! !! The Wii has the most sales of any console ever, and its graphics don"t even compare to the PC. This is because one, its family friendly, and two, the PC doesn"t have Wii bowling. . http://www.vgchartz.com... Thanks again to my opponent for making the debate, I anxiously await his response.
should we have school

Most kids don't realize the value of school until after they've already completed it, and a free education is one of the most valuable things in life. If you give a bunch of 5 year olds the choice between going to school and not going to school then of course they're all going to say no, but then when they're 18 and can't get a job because they can't read or speak coherently, they're all going to realize the value of education and wish that they had taken advantage of it.
Democracy is bad. In fact, It worse then dictatorship.

Pro's proposition is extremely limiting. I think that I can easily win this debate with just a simple counter- proposition. Democracy is not necessarily bad. In fact it is probably better that Dictatorship. Nonetheless: Society without order is anarchy. Would Pro prefer to live in an ordered state or an anarchic state? Would Pro prefer to live in the U. S. A or in North Korea? No system of State control is perfect for all of the people for all of the time. Can Pro suggest how Dictatorship might be preferable to Democracy for more of the people for more of the time? I think that Pro's preferred State System is one in which individuals should be allowed to do exactly as they please, Just as long as they don't over do it. Does pro think that all individuals can be relied upon not to over do it all of the time?
Democracy is bad. In fact, It worse then dictatorship.

We have learned that democracy is good since childhood. We hear it from our parents, Teachers, We can read it in books etc. But my POV is this: Absolute democracy, Like the western countries have, Is extremely dangerous and in some aspects, It could even be worse than dictatorship. Let me elaborate. . . In a society with absolute democracy, People tend to vote for politicians who have the same (or partly the same) ideology as themselves. Hence. Laws are made entirely and solely on the how the society votes. This can be seen as something positive because get to vote, Right? People get to express their views and the view which has most supporters wins, Easy. But hang on a minute. . . . Who said that just because we vote and collectively make laws, Thats somehow by definition good? Why is it good to vote? Why is it good to express your view? We have human rights which protects every individuals right to express themselves, We have freedom of speech etc. But no one has ever explained why the ability of expressing everything you have to express is good. In some cases expressing your view could be completely wrong. For instance, If you hate someone, Should you hackle at this person everytime you see them? Obviously, You shouldnt. So who puts the limits on how much we should express ourselves? And why should we follow these limitations? If you understand where I'm coming you might understand what I mean when I say this; This entire construct has just been accepted by society. The system of being able to express everything you want to, As long as you dont go overboard. Meaning, You dont discriminate etc. But what gives another human being the right to put limits on yet another humans' basic human right?
Democracy is bad. In fact, It worse then dictatorship.

1) Who else other than humans are going to control human society? 2) What actually is an absolute democracy. ? Wouldn't an absolute democracy ultimately be a dictatorship? 3) I would suggest that Germany in the 1930's was lead by a weak democracy that quickly and easily became overtaken by a fascist dictatorship. I certainly wouldn't describe the German Nazi regime as an absolute democracy. (Not that I fully understand what Pro's notion of an absolute democracy is). 4) Pro's ideal Society: Quite simply what Pro is describing is a democracy. 5) What actually is a superior moral compass? Pro really needs to expand somewhat on their notion superior morality. All in all Pro's debate thus far has been very confusing. I would suggest that probably only Pro knows what Pro is trying to say. It really does seem that Pro is attempting to expound philosophical and intellectual ideas that are beyond their ability to do so. What I would say to Pro is: I live in the U. K. And I am glad that I live in the U. K. Rather than in Russia or North Korea. As difficult as it is to please all 65million of us all of the time, I would say that democracy as I know it, Is about a fair a system of collective social governance as it is possible to get.
Democracy is bad. In fact, It worse then dictatorship.

Well the thing is I neither believe in absolute democracy, Nor absokute dictatorship. The idea of living in a society where all the laws are made up by humans doesnt stand. Why you might ask? Because some laws has to do with morality and no one ca prove that their moral Compass is objectively true, They can believe it hence have good reason for it, But no one can as a fact say that my moral compass is superior to yours just because everyone agrees with me. Absolute dictatorship has the same problem, In a society where completely everything is monitored by one person, And every law & regulation is made up from this person, This person has to be prove that he is reliable. And as I just said, No one can prove that their moral compass is the best. The reason till why I believe that absolute democracy is in some aspects worse then absolute dictatorship is as following: In a society where the power can be easily gotten by the people, The power can easily fall in the hand of undemocratic movements who use fake news, Propaganda etc to undermine the democratic system and create their ideal society. In other words, A democratic country can, In theory, Give birth to the most horrendous society. An easy, Irrefutable proof is Germany before the second world war. It was democratic, But we know what happened there. Although this could be a possible outcome of a dictatorial society, It would be much harder for a similar movement to just get the power if the dictator is strong i. E. Has military power and goos monitoring of the population. My ideal society is this: A society where laws come from a moral compass which is undeniably the most superior and "correct" moral compass we can find. How do we find such a moral compass? With intellectual dialogues where people use reason instead of emotions to come to conclusions. I think that con, After reading this, Would agree with me to a certain degree.
Bestiality should be illegal

Many people have complained about the restrictive nature of my previous arguments for the proper legality of bestiality. Said restrictions were necessary to make a positive case since in reality the default is that something should be legal and acceptable until proven otherwise. This debate is a chance for those who think they can make the case from scratch. No moral or legal standard is given, pro will have to present their own and support it. BoP is on Pro to show that bestiality should be illegal, this will certainly include giving the general reasons anything should be illegal, and supporting that rule/principle against all challenges I make. No need for other debates, no room to complain about unfair preconditions. First round is for Pros first argument, Pro types only "end" in his/her last round. I lied, I will include one set of restrictions, the definitions section: (D) Definitions (D.1) Bestiality " the practice of interspecies sex specifically involving humans as one of the species. (D.2) Zoophilia " the sexual orientation which describes a permanent sexual attraction towards animals by humans. (D.3) Rape " the forcing of sexual intercourse onto an organism capable of intelligent self-determination without their consent. NOTE consent as defined below. (D.4) Pain " the discomfort of an organism, established by some objective observation of behavior or biology. (D.5) Biological Damage " the objectively observable harm that that impairs the value, usefulness, or normal function of some organ or tissue in an organism. (D.6) Consent" and this is important, is defined as "permission for something to happen or agreement to do something" http://oxforddictionaries.com......... .
An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States

On "Let me stop the instigator right there"- His later arguments concede my argument that we should look at the perfect implementation of NCLB, this would mean that the citizens of the country are no longer resistant to NCLB. The word ideal in the resolution means that we have to imagine that NCLB was implemented perfectly and we have to look to the effects of NCLB on America in a world post implementation. The debate comes down to whether or not the fundamentals of NCLB are good. The arguments he makes with his case are the only valid arguments he made in the last round. I'f we were to have the debate any other way the affirmative would have no chance at all. We see that NCLB is failing now, the only way the affirmative can make an argument is by assuming the conditions for the perfect NCLB are ideal. On his case- "Contention 1" 1- We can assume this will not happen because the conditions for its implementation are perfect, thus this will not happen. 2- Even if an individual state has a lower standard than another individual state it doesnt change the fact that the well performing schools of the state will be rewarded when the bad performing schools will not. Creating the competition within states motivates teachers to teach the standards better. - These standards are key to ensuring each and every student learns what is essential for success later on. "Contention 2" 1. The only reason teaching to the test doesnt work is because the kids are resistant to it. By using the standards as a guideline, what kids need to learn will be learned. The only way to ensure the whole nations kids are learning the same things is by making national standards that all kids have to learn. 2. The only alternative is the let teachers have free reign. This means that nationally we will have no uniformity and what the kids on the west coast learn can be completely different than that of the east coast. As a nation we need to know certain things, and standards make this happen. It's clear that NCLB would be beneficial in a perfect world. If kids werent allowed to move schools if their school sucked they would be stuck in the bad school. NCLB is the only thing that does that. Standards are also key to national uniformity on what our youth knows, directed learning can happen in college. Adios
An ideal form of No Child Left Behind would be beneficial to the welfare of the United States

The fundamentals of No Child Left Behind stand strong. The problem is the individual resisting the effective program that is No Child Left behind. In an ideal world that the individual gave in to how No Child Left behind taught that masses, everyone would benefit. Pushing individual schools to meet a requirement on certain standardized tests ensures the individual is learning what needs to be learned to be an active member in society. Those that choose what should be learned hold a strong understanding of how people learn, and what they should learn. By rewarding schools for meeting test requirements we push the things they should really learn onto them. The basics of No Child Left Behind are strong, and in an ideal world (which the resolution calls for) would see a benefit.
The death penalty is morally reprehensible and irrational in several ways.

My pro position will be in opposition to the death penalty. Con would naturally be in favor of the death penalty. I will argue that there is no rational reason in a civilized society that there should be state sanctioned revenge. I will list my specific arguments in a later round. Definitions: Death penalty: putting a condemned person to death(In this debate I will only refer to government sponsoring of the death penalty. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... penalty reprehensible: bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure http://www.thefreedictionary.com... morally: Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character http://www.thefreedictionary.com... According to the resolution, pro can win by showing irrationality or morally questionable aspects of the death penalty. Con can win by refuting pro's claims and/or showing moral rightousness in the nature and practicality of the death penalty.
The death penalty is morally reprehensible and irrational in several ways.

(a) "Due to technological advances in criminal forensics, it is possible to have 99% accurate DNA testing." According to you, for every 99 people the govt. kills, one innocent man is murdered, usually for he crime o murder. 99% is not enough when talking about a punishment from which you cannot go back on. Who would want to tell the wrongly convicted inmate's family that a wrongful murder is actually right because they do get it right most of the time, (b) "As such, the only way to balance the rights violations of the victim with the rights-denier (the murderer) is the death penalty because all other punishments will give the murderer rights preferences." Is mercy a preference? Why is punishment about balancing rights violations? Would not a better way to spend tax payer money to try to rehabilitate criminals? And what does this murder accomplish? Nothing that life imprisonment could not also accomplish. Actually, life imprisonment is much worse. The death penalty is quick and easy but the life imprisonment keeps a person away until they die. This can be a very long time. (c) "His argument lacks offense" You have not refuted my argument so it may be taken to be true. You cannot simply say "you're wrong". You must bring logic and rationality to your argument. You cannot be correct just because you say you are. (d) (1)" lawful, because it has been legislated as such and (2) is done against a criminal and not an innocent." (1)Something being lawful is not equal to being morally correct. (2) Does this mean that if a man kills another man's wife, the wife's husband has the right to take the life of the offender? And since killing an innocent is murder according to you will you admit that innocent people who have gotten the death penalty have been murdered by the govt. that is supposedly trying to prevent innocent murder? Contention 1 If the principle of the law is punishment(vengeance) then if a man is pushed into desperation to steal in order to provide for his family then what is the punishment? Is it just to make him even more poor? This is why it is more pragmatic to use punishment as a way to rehabilitate criminals in an effort to reduce crime. Just saying that killing is bad and to show the offender and society that it is wrong, one kills another, this is irrational. It is vengeance in that it does not seek to prevent crime but only to punish for it Punishment: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution http://www.merriam-webster.com... Vengeance: punishment inflicted in return for an injury or an offense; retribution http://www.dictionary.net...
The death penalty is morally reprehensible and irrational in several ways.

I thank you for the opportunity to debate on such a hot button topic. I will present four main points at this time. To murder a person is always terrible. And in an effort to fix this problem the government continues to murder it's own citizens. (a)no backsies Once a person is dead he or she is dead. There is nothing left. And when dozens of cases were overturned proving an individuals innocence only after they were murdered by the government that was supposed to protect them. At least with a prison term someone may be released after they are proven innocent. But with the death penalty, once it's done it is done for good. Once a person is found to have been innocent after they were murdered by their government, the govt. cannot simply release the person from jail, no they have to apologize for destroying the name of an innocent man right before they murdered him. I hope this can show that such an extreme option has left many innocent dead. (b)eye for an eye What the death penalty tells society is that vengeance is the best policy. Person a killed person b. proponents of the death penalty are not interested in trying to get to the root of the problem, they just want to wipe an individual off the face of the earth because THEY have given up on that individual. for proponents of the death penalty, because society is not able to help an individual, that gives society the right to take that person's life. (c)heat of the moment Proponents of the death penalty will say that it decreases murders because people dont want to be killed for a crime. However, if we compare the crime rates of countries with the death penalty versus those without it, the numbers are very interesting. In almost all countries in europe, canada, and australia the death penalty has been abolished. The united states and India have the death penalty. So if the death penalty is effective then the crime rates in the us and india should be lower than the ones in most european countries, australia, and canada. However, this is the opposite of what we see(http://www.nationmaster.com...) the crime rates in the us and india are significantly higher than those of canada, australia, and most western european countries. So I guess the death penalty doesn't do much to prevent crime. (d)The idea of capital punishment is itself irrational. The pseudo-rational goes like murder is wrong. He killed Him. To show the murderer that he was wrong in doing so, we should kill him. The government becomes no better then the original murderer.