BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Handheld game devices like Nintendo DS are better than home console games like XBox and PS3

I know that they can meet and compete each other. For example Nintendo DS if you want to compete with other player, you have to meet and play together. I know this because I have a Nintendo DS. You said that you can download the games from the internet, but it is illegal to down load the games. You have to buy the game packs from the internet. For example if you buy the R4 chip, you can down load a lot of stuff in there, so I tried to buy that chip. When I went to buy the R4 chips, I went to the LOTTE Department store and it is a big place as you know. They said that they don't sell the R4 chips because it is illegal. If is illegal, why don't they sell in the big place instead of the internet. I think I made a mistake. I tink I said that we can't compete with the other players, but I ment that if you want to competet with the other player, you have to meet and play.
Handheld game devices like Nintendo DS are better than home console games like XBox and PS3

Handheld games can not play in online but they can be downloaded from the Internet. You said that the good thing of home console games is that people can meet all of the people in the world who had the same home sonsole games and for the handheld games people have to confront with the computer. This is not true. Handheld games can compete with other players such as Nintendo DS in the game devices. Also, you said that it does not mean that people can not play with the other players, but I think that you have to insist only that home console games are better than handheld games.
Handheld game devices like Nintendo DS are better than home console games like XBox and PS3

I can agree with that it is good to play with the hendheld games because we can play indoors and outdoors, but I didn't see that we can play the handheld games for online. We can't play the home console games in outdoors, but the good thng is that we can meet all of the people in the world who had the same home console games. Through the online games we can make a good friend from the another country. For the handheld games, we have to compete with the computer. It doesn't meen that you can not play with the other players. If you want to play with the other friends you have to meet and play together, but the home console games, it's different. If you log in with your ID you can play the game with your friend when they are online.
Handheld game devices like Nintendo DS are better than home console games like XBox and PS3

Handheld games are better than home console games because they can both be played at home or taken with you on the road, essentially you can travel and play with them whereas you cannot take the home-console games. Furthermore, the handheld devices are cheaper than the home consoles and games can be downloaded or shared from the Internet whereas the home consoles require a CD to play with at all times. You also have download capabilities which allow you to play games but also to download books and/or movies so your entertainment options are greater.
Liberals tournament R1: There Should Be a Death Penalty.

*The debate format has been broken and there are currently private discussions taking place to determine whether or not a violation of the debate rules has been made. To prevent further disruption to the debate, Con will continue with Round Four as defined in the guidelines.*I'm not going to hype this up with confusing words, 'fallacies', or any other stupid complications that distract from the debate. I simply wish to remind everyone that this is a human, this is a life; and no matter what they may have done, they should be punished and given a second chance. This cannot happen if we kill them. Yes, some of them have killed themselves but no, we should not follow this 'eye-for-an-eye' stupidity. Everyone deserves to live. Everyone has the right to life. And the US is violating human rights by denying its citizens those rights. Their actions tear families apart; their actions cause severe distress to family members and loved ones of the victims of execution. The United States is one of a group of horrible countries who also give the death penalty. In order to move forward from the mediaeval age, to move forward from dark times: we must, together, move forward, away from the death penalty. It is a wicked and cruel punishment even if it is for a wicked and cruel crime. More justice is served with prison sentences than the death penalty, as the perpetrator is not there to experience his/her punishment. You wish to kill people rather than lock them up simply because it is more cost-effective. The pain one would experience if one's loved one was killed by one's own government. The fact that lethal injections are largely unknown ground - and that the amount of anaesthetic used has caused physical suffering in the past. If you vote in favour of the death penalty, you vote in favour of murder, killing and abuse of human rights.If you vote in favour of the death penalty, what makes you any worse than a murderer?
Liberals tournament R1: There Should Be a Death Penalty.

I hope for a joyful experience. Justice In a society there needs to be justice. Just treatment and punishment. We shouldn’t do harm to people who are innocent. We shouldn’t cut off the hands of a child for stealing a candy bar. We should imprison a grand larcenist. Justice is a basis of a society. Consider, arguably the greatest crime, murder. Murder isn’t a finite injustice to a victim, the victim loses his life infinitely. This is unlike a stolen candy bar or credit card where the victim suffers a momentary finite loss. The victim suffers an infinite loss and the family of the victim suffers a severe finite loss. How would we respond to this maintaining justice? A finite loss in prison wouldn’t be maintaining justice. The only way to equate the infinite loss and finite pain, suffering, heartache the family suffers is by a death sentence. Deterrence Everyone has the will to survive. If death can be used as a punishment, this could potentially preemptively stop other murders. The CJIF has listed an exhausting number of studies demonstrating a deterrent effect on crime because of the death penalty [1]. They have studies published in credible peer reviewed journals and working papers. The effect and possible effect of deterrence would clearly prevent murders and thinking for the greater good of society, a death penalty should be in place. Thanks, now to Con. [1]. http://www.cjlf.org...
Does freewill exist? (Pro) Libertarian Freewill is true, (Con) Hard determinism is true

I would like to begin by redefining my terms. I accept my opponent's definition of free will, "which is that "people can choose to have moral responsibility". My opponent said that "determinists claim that we can know the exact position of every particle". However, that is not what determinism is. The Oxford dictionary defines determinism as "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will." Therefore, it is not necessary for us to be able to determine the position of every particle. I stand in the firm negation of free will. Free will does not exist and determinism is the truth. My arguments: 1. Everything in the world follows the laws of nature. Every particle in the world follows the law of gravity, the law of conservation of mass, every law of physics. No amount of hypothetical situations will ever change this. Because everything is made of wave-particles with position and velocity, free will is an illusion. Every decision that animals (including humans) make is caused by a series of electrical impulses that caused the brain to arrive at a certain conclusion, followed by a series of electrical impulses to carry out an action based on the decision. The universe exists the way it does because the events at the beginning of the universe and the laws of physics came together to produce the existence that we know. Every thought that we have is a result of the motion of wave-particles. 2. Randomness or probability does not prove free will. In quantum physics there is the concept of probability, which is that sometimes particle behavior can be random with different probabilities for different results. However, if "free will" is true because sometimes things happen randomly, then free will isn't "free" at all, it's just determined in a less predictable way. Again, determinism means that all events are determined by CAUSES EXTERNAL OF THE WILL; this does not mean that everything is PREdetermined, but rather that free will takes no part in the process. 3. Free will is logically impossible. For the sake of argument, let's say that the human will is a supernatural entity that can choose to take moral responsibility and doesn't choose based entirely on external factors. If the free will doesn't choose on external factors, how does it choose? If it chooses based on external factors, then it isn't free will. If it chooses based on some moral code, then how does it decide whether to follow it? If the will chooses independent of external factors, then the only other option is that it chooses completely randomly, which as I discussed earlier isn't free at all. There is no way around the fact that decisions are based on external influences, and the human has no real control. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... http://engineering.mit.edu...
Does freewill exist? (Pro) Libertarian Freewill is true, (Con) Hard determinism is true

Now before i give the case for free will i want to define what it means. Free will is defined in the basic understanding that people can chose to have moral responsibility it doesn't mean that you can chose your past, gene's, character or place of birth. Another misconception of free will is that it means that nothing is determined by prior causes, this is false what free will is about is this concept of agent causation that the agent can start a new chain of events that are not predetermined before the agent's choice. The agent chooses self-deterministically what the outcome will be so then he is determining himself to make a choice. Self determinism has the same meaning as freewill. So now that ive defined what im speaking about i will begin my case for freewill Argument 1: To deny freewill requires freewill In order to make a truth claim you will need freewill in order to think critically and rationally otherwise any argument you make for determinism would be determined and you have no way to verify or falsify if your argument is actually a truth claim or not. when someone says they are completely determined they are making a truth claim and the moment you make a truth claim you are violating determinism. Someone that denies freewill is insuring that they were forced to do it and that you cannot make choices or actions based on logic and reason. when someone says they have made up there mind because of the evidence they are presupposing freewill because one can only make up there mind on evidence if they have freewill. Logic depends on making reason judgements and if everything is caused then you cant know if your judgement is logical or not. So the conclusion is that denying free will requires freewill Evidence: Quantum mechanics John H. Conway and Simon Kochen have developed what's known as the free will theorem in quantum physics. Which states that we can only have free will in an idealist, indeterministic universe. At the quantum level particles behave probabilistically this is shown through the uncertainty principle. What this evidence concludes is that actions of the observer cannot be determined by prior causes as determinism states. Remember determinist claim that we can know the exact position of every particle based on how the laws of nature work. But the evidence shows that we cannot predict the future using these laws. So since the universe is not deterministic and since the conscious agent can callapse wave-function particles to make changes in the wave-function then this would prove that we have freewill since the action was not determined by prior causes (1) . http://www.ams.org... (2) . https://plato.stanford.edu... (3) . http://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de...
Does freewill exist? (Pro) Libertarian Freewill is true, (Con) Hard determinism is true

(Note: I cancelled the last debate because I had virus issues with the website so I had to reset my computer) This debate will be about philosophy on weather or not libertarian free will exist. Rules: No personal attacks, this is only about philosophy so don't bring God or religion into this debate, use evidence to back up arguments. Round 1: Will be accepting terms, rules and conditions. Round 2: Will be each side giving its case for and against free will. (Pro) will give its case for free will, (Con) will give its case for hard determinism (the opposite of free will) Round 3: Will be each side presenting its rebuttle to the opponents case Round 4: Will be each side giving a counter-rebuttle (Response to rebuttle) Round 5: Will be final arguments and a closing statement
Professor X is the most powerful mutant from the x-men series.

This means that I will almost certainly make mistakes in my lingo, conduct, and argument as a whole among many other things; any comments on this will be very much appreciated. Thank you, and I look forward to a fun debate. Professor X (Charles Xavier) is the highest level of telopath. This gives him several outstanding abilities which put him above the ability of every other character in the marvel series. These ability's include; mind reading which incorporates the ability to change peoples views (changing a decision or belief of a person) and even creating or deleting memory's; the ability to enter the astral plane and effect members on this plane; the ability to create emotions in his victims (including positive i. e. joy, and negative i. e misery) as well as using this power to create incredible pain in his enemy; and finally the mental capacity to kill if necessary. All these powers work on an international scale (they are not effected by distance) at any time and can be used against several different beings at the same time. These powers can then be enhanced by plugging himself into Cerebro; allowing him to use his powers on a lager number of beings (the world's population if necessarily) This results in a character which is incredibly hard to kill or harm in any way and can remove any enemy's very easily. To conclude we end up with a character who is more powerful than any other mutant in the x men series. Actually I would go as far as to call him first class ;)
Professor X is the most powerful mutant from the x-men series.

I have enjoyed this debate, thus far, and hope it continues to be as enjoyable. Thank you PRO. My opponent fails to touch my analysis of how even without the Phoenix Force; Jean-Grey's powers of telepathy and telekinesis surpass those of Charles Xavier making her the most powerful telepath. Since my opponent has dropped this argument, the only way to vote is CON. The rest of my opponent's attack centers around the Phoenix Force. Attack 1. Phoenix Force =/= Jean Grey Jean Grey acts as "a Phoenix Force avatar" (1). An avatar (according to Hinduism) is a real life representation of a deity to the earth. The Phoenix force is a deity and Jean Grey acts as its avatar. In other words, Jean Grey is both woman and "godly." This duel personality disorder (if you can call it that) is inherently seen when Jean Grey has a mental battle between herself as her own psyche and…herself, as the Phoenix Force. (1) They are two personalities in the same mind, two entities in the same body. Thus, they are two beings in one body, or just, one being with two separate minds. Whether or not Jean Grey is just a vessel is irrelevant, the Phoenix Force is still contained within her mind and body thus, she can utilize any "powers" given to her. Attack 2. Does not fit definition of mutant According to Marvel, "a mutant"…"is a living organism which has a genetic trait called an x-gene." So how is Jean not an organism exactly? She may be inherently part deity, but, she is still also part human. She is inherently an organism with the "x-gene." Later, she is an organism with the "x-gene" and the Phoenix Force. Attack 3. Weapon Charles Xavier is defined by his abilities. Jean Grey is defined by her abilities. Jean Grey is defined by the fact she "has" the Phoenix Force. The Phoenix Force is not a weapon. It is an inherent part of her. To sum up, my opponent has failed to touch my analysis of Jean Grey's telepathy and telekinesis. My opponent has failed to adequately attack the rest of my case, concerning the Phoenix Force, This leads to a CON win in this debate. Source: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Eating meat is bad for you.

I would like to assert that while processed meat is bad for you, there is little to no correlation for these same three points for unprocessed red meat. "It Signifigantly Increases Your Risk Of Cancer. " "While it is true that processed meat strongly correlates with increased cancer risk, the same is not true for unprocessed red meat. In so-called meta-analyses, which are studies that analyze the data from many studies at the same time, the link between red meat and cancer is found to be very weak. " "These studies only find a very small increase in risk for men, and no increase for women. " . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... "It Increases Your Risk Of Heart Disease And Diabetes" "In a massive study from Harvard that looked at data from 20 studies with a total of 1,218,380 individuals, they found no association between unprocessed red meat, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. " Processed meat is proven to increase the risk of heart disease and diabetes, however, recent studies have proven that there is no link between those two factors and red meat. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... "Most Meat Has Hormones In It" This is true, yet there is not enough data to support whether this is bad for you as so little research has been done on the subject. ". .. it's not clear if such hormones truly are bad for our health. Surprisingly little research has been done on the health effects of these hormones in humans, in part because it's difficult to separate the effects of added hormones from the mixture of natural hormones, proteins, and other components found in milk and meat. " . http://www.health.com... . https://authoritynutrition.com...
Eating meat is bad for you.

1- It Signifigantly Increases Your Risk Of Cancer. A vast array of studies from top universities and independent researchers has found that eating chickens, cows, and other animals promotes cancer in many forms. Large studies in England and Germany showed that vegetarians were about 40 percent less likely to develop cancer compared to meat-eaters. 2-It Increases Your Risk Of Heart Disease And Diabetes- This is the reason Bill Clinton went vegan. Meat, dairy products, and eggs all contain cholesterol and saturated fat and contribute to America's top killers: heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, and various types of cancer. Decades of scientific study have linked dietary cholesterol to cardiovascular disease " our country"s number-one cause of death, killing nearly 2,200 Americans daily. 3-Most Meat Has Hormones In It- To make cows grow at an unnaturally fast rate, the cattle industry feeds them pellets full of hormones. While low levels of naturally-occurring hormones are found in various foods, many scientists are concerned that the artificial hormones injected into cows especially cause health problems in people who eat them. You can get all the essential proteins from food like baens nuts quinoa lens and many more.I dont see a point in eating meat.
All schools should be gun free zones.

Opening Statement "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." Gandhi says my position better then any individual could hope. In round one I will address the result of regulator laws and their relation to gun violence. Round two I will go further and explain why this relationship exists and how it works and why. In the final round I will address the opponents arguments pointing out the flaws and proving why any adult should be allowed to concealed carry while in a school. To open, guns should be allowed in school for one simple reason: If all schools were gun free zone would essentially make them a target for lunatics that only seek to kill the most people the quickest. According to Utilitarianism, the idea of the great happiness for the greatest amount of people would be in support of guns in schools. Both Bentham and John Stuart Mills, the founders of the philosophy would agree that have guns in school would not only be the safest option but also give the most happiness to the most amount of people.
All schools should be gun free zones.

School shootings have happened many times in recent history. One devastating example of a school shooting is the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where twenty children and six teachers were killed. Another example is the Virginia Tech shooting where thirty two people were killed and seventeen people were wounded. These shootings have had devastating effects on the families of the children killed, and have caused many people to question going to these schools. These shootings have left a painful mark in the minds of many. So, if all schools were gun free zones, these horrible events would have never took place. Kycam1, I need to ask you a sincere question: What is your purpose of supporting guns in schools? Guns have no purposeful uses in schools, and should not be allowed in any schools. Guns are useful in the sense that they can be used to hunt and may be considered stylish by some. However, neither of these uses can be applied in school at all. Why would there be game for a school child to hunt in the middle of a school? Schools are intended to be a place of learning, not hunting grounds. Also, animals would not call a school their natural habitat because schools are constructed by hand, not by Mother Nature. As for the latter, why should guns be accepted as a form of style in schools? Pocket knifes, which used to be considered a form of fashion in schools, are now banned from schools and students can get in serious trouble for taking a pocket knife to school. If pocket knifes, which can be used as blades, aren't allowed, then why would a machine intended to kill a living thing by shooting a projectile from high ranges at high speeds be allowed in schools? Guns should not be considered a form of style in any part of society, schools included. There are a lot of things that you are probably going to tell me that are not valid arguments. First, you are probably going to tell me that the second amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms to United States citizens. However, you are not going to consider the fact that the second amendment was not written with today's semi-auto machine guns in mind. When the second amendment was written, the writers knew arms as single shot muskets that were difficult to reload. Since then, gun technology has been updated and no longer applies to the Constitution. Next, you are probably going to tell me that guns don't kill people and that people kill people. If people did kill people, what if they didn't have the guns to do it? This could make schools even more safe than they already are. In conclusion, there is absolutely no place for guns in school. History has repeatedly shown us that guns at school lead to violence. Guns can not be used for hunting at school. Guns should not be allowed to be stylish at schools if pocket knives aren't allowed. There is no sense behind the use of guns at school, and all schools should be gun-free zones.