BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Computers are Better than Consoles

So, there has been a debate going on for a very long time. It is Computers vs. Consoles. There has been a long dispute over which is better. When the first Xbox came out, i was awed by the technology. Being able to play games in 3-dimensions was awesome. But what i didn't know was that there was one so-called "console" beforehand. It was called the computer!If I took everything i know about both consoles (xbox 360 specifically) and computers, computers would totally dominate the consoles. Before, I was in favour of the 360. But when the PC came out, i realized i was living on a lie. There is a reasonable explanation and clear arguement why PCs are better than consoles. And that is what i will explain to you... First of all, most desktops (And even certain laptops) have more processing power. They can, very simply put, run better on games, rather than consoles. Most games, such as the COD franchise, have run smoothly on consoles and PCs at a decent FPS (60-120 on both). But consoles faced a bigger challenge when they got hand-to-hand on larger games, such as GTA 4, or Battlefield. They couldn't really run it with very high, and detailed graphics. So, they made something called optimization, which is considered as "putting a game's graphics down so it runs better and faster." But because of more advanced technology in computers, we don't need to optimize, but run on a decent FPS with VERY high graphics.My second and last reason for this round is that computers are more easier to play on. Some people are much more reliable on a controller, i get that... but some people aren't. They rather play on something that seems to be complex, but much simpler than a joystick... a KEYBOARD. Almost anyone can learn and play on a keyboard and mouse. It feels so much... smoother. Compare games like any first-person shooter. I don't understand how people can aim with a wiggly stick. And that comes from a person who has played those sort of games on a console. (yes, even i'm bad...) With a mouse, you are more accurate and more responsive with your movements. Clean-cut accuracy.So, that was my arguement. Disagree with me? Be a Con in this debate, and say why CONSOLES are superior. Thank you very much, and torrah!
Term limits should not exist.

The only reason we have term limits is to bring power away from the president. Without term limits, say someone like Obama would have won the third election (which he would have) and continued ObamaCare. Well, in the long term, ObamaCare actually hurts the people who need it the most. Each time you use insurance their is a certain cost you have to pay before your insurance covers it. Before ObamaCare, this was most of the time about 1,000 USD. After ObamaCare, it skyrocketed to 5,000 - 7,000 USD, with an average of a 650% increase of the down payment. This was a downright lie, which is why Trump is currently abolishing ObamaCare. This is only one possibility of the countless that could happen without term limits. The whole point of the American Experiment was to see how well a small federal government could do. Without term limits a president could be sneaky and use a loophole to make a powergrab and become a dictator, destroying the fragile government the US stands on.
Orchestra VS Band

I respect my opponent's arguments. However, band outweighs to orchestra. I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with being in an orchestra or enjoying listening to one, I am merely stating that band music encompasses those that can be played by orchestra, and more. As stated previously, band has different types. In regards to jazz, band can much better perform jazz than an orchestra naturally due to the sound of brass instruments. Bands' performance varies so vastly that it includes anything that orchestra can possibly perform. For example, can an orchestra march? Band can! They can excite and play loud tunes for the crowd during games. Can an orchestra play soft music beautifully? Sure! But can a symphonic band do that as well? Certainly! It comes down to really how much experience / practice the musical organization has, whether it is band or orchestra. The only reason band outweighs is because it offers a greater variety of options and choices for musicians.
Orchestra VS Band

Yes, but Orchestra can have many styles. Country fiddling to beautiful Orchestral music. From Bach to Motzart, Orchestra has many different styles in which they play in including the double bass jazz. Band however would only have marching, symphonic, jazz, etc. Orchestra involves the style of playing bluegrass. Our Orchestra brings back old and new, new styles, and very beautiful style of playing. We can even play two notes at the same time called double stops which gives it a very fiddle tune to our pieces. Our instruments can even shift and switch clefs. For example, a cello switching its clef from bass clef to treble.
Orchestra VS Band

First off, its possible for band to play soft music and play 'beautifully, soft, and delicate'. Bands include woodwind instruments that can play softly and delicately, and give bands a greater range of music that can be performed. Band can play just as delicately, softly, and beautifully as an orchestra if the music calls for it. Secondly, band has different varieties: it has symphonic bands and marching bands. Such variety gives musicians a greater range of options to choose from in band compared to orchestra, not to mention the dozens of more options available in band than in orchestra. Its up to the musician to decide for himself or herself if she would like to be performing in a marching band or a symphonic band.
The Montreal Canadiens are the best team (historically) in the NHL

The Stanley Cup is awarded to the winner of the Stanley Cup Playoffs, which consists of the best teams from the NHL regular season. This means that the winner of the Cup is therefore the best team in the league for that year, as they beat the best of the best. Therefore, it is probably a good measuring stick in deciding the best team in the NHL's history. The Montreal Canadiens have done so 24 times, therefore making them the best NHL team ever. However, it would be very typical and lazy to use that as the only argument. In addition to my previous points mentioned in Round 3, the Montreal Canadiens have the most ever points in one year, with 132 (1976-77). The Red Wings have the record for most wins (1995-96), but weren't able to win to win the Stanley Cup, while the Canadiens were. My professionalism, original and unused arguments, as opposed to my opponent's unprofessionalism, copy-paste argument, and lack of grammar therefor prove the thesis that the Montreal Canadiens are the best team historically in the National Hockey League.
The Montreal Canadiens are the best team (historically) in the NHL

First off you are arguing with the internet you are on the internet. danny123 is on the internet. having more cups doesn't mean nothing if they haven't done the best. look this is very boring the only reason why i accepted was because it was the only one available. so yeah i going to bump this. so Canadian what ever you call it sucks because i said so. so yeah i said it they suck.
The Montreal Canadiens are the best team (historically) in the NHL

Before I start, I would like to say two things. One, sorry for not posting my last argument. I was quite busy last week. I would also like ask that you don't copy info from a website. It feels like I'm debating the Internet, and not danny123. Since their inception in 1909, the Canadiens have been a winning franchise. In their history, they have won 24 Stanley Cups, more than any other franchise. In fact, a bit more than 25% of Stanley Cups awarded have been given to the "Habs." Their years:Stanley Cups ratio is better than any team, at 4.375:1. The two other most winningest NHL franchises, the Toronto Maple Leafs and Detroit Red Wings have ratios of 7.46:1 and 8:1, respectively. The Habs also have the two greatest dynasties in hockey history, winning 5 straight Stanley Cups TWICE. Montreal has been home to hockey legends, both on and off the ice. In fact, 4 current NHL trophies, the Maurice Richard Trophy, the Frank J. Selke Trophy, the Hart Memorial Trophy, and the Vezina Trophy have all been named after people associated with the Montreal Canadiens organization. The legendary Maurice Richard was also the first player to score 50 goals in one year, doing it an astounding fifty games in the 1944-45 season. The next time this was accomplished was in the 1960-61 season when Bernie Geoffrion, also a Canadien, did it in 64 games. It would take almost 30 years after Richard accomplished the feat for a Red Wing to do it.
The Montreal Canadiens are the best team (historically) in the NHL

Detroit red wings had the most win lol? With their 62 wins, the 1995"96 Detroit Red Wings eclipsed the all-time record of most regular-season wins, which had been set at 60 by the 1976-77 Montreal Canadiens. Their 131 points during the regular season were the most since the 1976-77 Montreal Canadiens accumulated 132 points (still an all-time record). They surpassed most of that year's NBA season records, including the Orlando Magic, who won 60 games that year (only NBA team records that the 1995-96 Red Wings did not surpass were the Seattle SuperSonics (64 wins) and the 72"10 Chicago Bulls). The Red Wings had two winning streaks of 9 games, and had a 13"game unbeaten streak from Sunday, March 3, 1996 to Sunday, March 31, 1996, going 12"0"1 during that stretch. Having the best record in the league, the Red Wings were awarded the President's Trophy. During the 1995"96 regular season, the Red Wings were the only team to score at least one goal in all 82 of its games.[1]
Anti-aging science will lead to unsustainable population growth.

In just recent years, anti-aging science has come a long way. There are anti-aging treatments that are going into, or are already in human trials. It honestly wouldn't be surprising if just within a decade the average life expectancy shot up from 80 to 150, and that's only with treatments that could be available, like I said, only a decade from now. Another decade or two after that, the life expectancy could be 200, 300, maybe even 500. This raises a question though. Can the world support a population that ages incredibly slowly, if at all? The main problem is food and power. Lab grown meat is going to be available for consumers very soon and genetic modification will more than likely become a bigger thing than it is now, producing plants that survive better, produce more, last longer, and have more nutrients. There's also fusion power being worked on, and if it's successful, it could provide TONS of clean power. But I don't know if all of those things will be able to support a population that could be well above 20 billion by 2050. A few things to consider: If people don't age, they don't become infertile or lose sex drive meaning 70 year old's could be having just as many kids as 25 year old's. The amount of people dying from infections and conditions would also decrease because, if people don't age, their immune systems don't become weaker, and people are less likely to have heart attacks, strokes, dementia and other conditions that are caused in part by age. Overall medical technology is increasing. Things that might be considered a death sentence today, for example, severe brain damage, severe cancer, many genetic illnesses, etc, might be treatable in the future. Obesity might be extremely rare in the future. There is a skinny pill already in the works. If you take it, you can eat much more without getting fat. Obesity kills, but if it doesn't exist, it won't be killing anyone.
People with low intelligence can't.....

As I said in the other one, rainbows are not reflections. Instead, they are a phenomena that arises out of the principles of the refraction and convergence of light through the rain droplets that remain in the sky after a storm, not unlike how a prism separates sunlight into the colors of the rainbow. Seeing as reflection has nothing to do with rainbows, I propose that people with low intelligence should get their facts straight before insulting those with apparently lower brain powers.
Waffles are better than pancakes

1. Pancakes can and should be stacked for maximum enjoyment. Who stacks waffles?2.It’s encouraged to eat tons of pancakes at the same time. Not as socially acceptable to eat three or more waffles. 3. With pancakes you get that special syrup drip alllll the way down the sides, but with waffles, it just kind of pools there.4. Pancakes are FAR superior for add-ins. Chocolate chips, bananas, pecans, etc. Waffles don’t play that game nearly as well.
Evolution is a scientific fact that every decent thinker should accept

Evolution is the scientific theory of changing of species from a common ancestor through random mutations in the genetic code and not random natural selection. "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." An repeatedly tested and through observation and experimentation confirmed explanation is like a fact, don't you agree? For there is evidence to support the scientific theory of evolution, be it through genetics or observation or the huge fossil record. For example nobody questions gravity, which is also a theory.
Evolution is a scientific fact that every decent thinker should accept

Thank you for this debate. It was very engaging. I would like to take this moment to make note that my opponent corrected what he deemed false/misinterpreted statements, but does not make an effort to rebut my arguments against his assertions. He concedes that creationists do exist, and some are in the scientific community qualifying them as decent thinkers, I would submit. My opponent does not make an effort to explain why a creationist - A person who believes the world was created by God and is only several thousand years old - Should 1.) Deem his argument logical 2.) Accept it I would like to remind everyone that this debate is about why every decent thinker should accept evolution as fact. Continuously stating a preponderance of evidence in favor of evolution is not an argument for why every decent thinkers including those who don't believe in evolution should accept it as fact. My opponent in attempting to defend the theory of evolution only addressed and defended "Scientific Theory," But neglected to mention what aspect of the world this theory explained. It is essentially paradigm shifting, a new world view. My opponent does not explain why every decent thinker should accept this new world view as fact. I would like to note that my opponent did not answer "Why it's important for us to know where we come from." His answer could potentially be: "You may make the wrong decisions on where we as a species want to go." We should discount this assertion as their is no backing/basis for it. We as a species have never decided which direction we want to go. And for the record it was reductio ad absurdum "lead to the annihilation of our species". Conclusion: My opponent has ultimately been stating there are many facts supporting a theory, but does not answer why the properties of the evidence should be given to the theory.
Evolution is a scientific fact that every decent thinker should accept

Thank you too for your response. There are several things that you said, that I think are to be corrected. First of all, you said "My opponent says a bad action(s) will eventually lead to your death. We must beg the question will a good action(s) lead to transcendence?" I did not say that bad actions will definitely lead to your death. I said they could lead to that. They don't necessarily have to. There can be other negative effects of bad actions than death. "There are many scientists who are creationists, and probably some who are scientologists." There are some scientists who are creationists. I agree with your there, but still "mong members of the National Academy of Sciences, only 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer." (- wikipedia) This shows, that it is totally irrelevant, if scientists believe in a god or not. Besides, we're debating if evolution should be accepted as a fact or not. You said that "we cannot test assumptions made on observations i.e. the slow change of species over time. Furthermore his argument is unsubstantiated and we have no reason to take it as truth." We can test the slow change of species over time. There have been tests of the changing of species within bacteria over time. The results show that, bacteria can get immune to anti-biotics, which is a change of species over time. "My opponent then engages in reductio ad absurdum i.e. if we don't know where we come from all of us will die." That is just not true. What I said is, that "if you don't know where our species comes from, you may make the wrong decisions on where we as a species want to go to." I did not say that we are all going to die, which we technically will, because immortality does not exist among humans, yet. What I meant was, that we could make the wrong decisions. "My opponent has not given a reason why decent thinkers *should* accept evolution as fact." Yes I did. It is a proved, well observed, well tested scientific theory, which is, why one should accept it as a fact. If it helps us with decision making or not is not the important thing, on which one decides, whether or not it is a fact. It is the huge amount of evidence, that lets us accept it as a fact.
Evolution is a scientific fact that every decent thinker should accept

Thank you for your timely response. I will start off first defending my position: Seeing both sides of the same coin. My opponent says a bad action(s) will eventually lead to your death. We must beg the question will a good action(s) lead to transcendence? He outlined a progressively grim scenario that implies alternative self improvement will lead to a good life. My opponent assumes the only actions relevant to your life are your own, so seeking the good everything will be better and better. It is a trap easy to fall into. A "dualistic" way of thinking i.e. their are only two options in life. My opponent ascribed consequences of doing drugs, but we must note a drug has no ulterior motive; the ascribed actions show how my opponent feels about drug use. That it is bad, and illustrates why so. An addict would most likely feel that it is good, and I'm sure they could detail just how good it is. They are both making an error in thought; however one is seeking pleasure, and that is fine. My point being: What will be should be. Moving to his argument: We are not talking about "A" decent thinker. We are discussing every decent thinker. Although we have not defined "decent thinker," I am assuming it's self explanatory. There are many scientists who are creationists, and probably some who are scientologists. Whatever their profession there are many decent thinkers who do not accept evolution as fact. My opponent proposes that 1) Decent thinkers find his argument logical and 2) they accept it. Why? For what purpose *should* they accept it. Pertaining to his example given: The example is fallacious because 1 we can test the plant a living thing. 2 We cannot test assumptions made on observations i.e. the slow change of species over time. Furthermore his argument is unsubstantiated and we have no reason to take it as truth. Moving to his assertion: "It simply shows us where we come from". I now pose a question: why is it an important thing for us to know? My opponent then engages in reductio ad absurdum i.e. if we don't know where we come from all of us will die. Conclusion: My opponent has not given a reason why decent thinkers *should* accept evolution as fact. My position remains if doing drugs makes someone happy that is fine. If they end up robbing someone that too is fine. If they end up dying that is also fine. Saying they imposed on someone or aggressed against them is correct, but ultimately irrelevant. You are imagining their actions in a place where the addict and the robbed are not eachothers entire reality (for a short time), and that the action is a bad one. If the man or woman find affirmation or avoid pain in defending themselves that is also fine.
Evolution is a scientific fact that every decent thinker should accept

I accept my opponents definition of evolution that it is a scientific theory, and further accept his defense of that definition. My opponent poses a question: "An repeatedly tested and through observation and experimentation confirmed explanation is like a fact". I do not agree, but it is important to note that my colleague offers no reason to accept this assertion; instead poses a question asking your opinion. I ask my opponent that they profer a reason for us to accept their assertion. I further inquire as to the resolution: Why do decent thinkers need to/should accept it (evolution) as fact. I will be putting forth a simple argument. If we are all going to die eventually, then it would be reasonable to seek pleasure in the form of: Affirmation, physical, emotional, or avoid pain be it physical or emotional. So if a drug addict finds pleasure in numbing himself out that is fine. It is also fine if those around the addict want to make the drug addict stop using drugs. Simply because they are imposing on the addict it does not violate or negate my argument. They seek out pleasure in the form of making the addict conform to their view of society. I am essentially saying no action is good or evil. Which brings me to my conclusion: My opponent has not provided any compelling reason that: Decent thinkers should/need to take evolution as fact. I have zero interest in making this debate about religion vs evolution or one about definition. They are essentially saying it is of moral consequence or imperative that decent thinkers accept evolution as fact. The underlying implication being for the betterment of society or advancement of science or something, but why is it necessary?
columbus day

Ok great.Without christopher there would be no USA :lSo...... you want to change history? So....... you hate all of your heritage?So......... you hate every immigrant that ever came to this land?So....... who else would have claimed the land?There were way more acts of genocide in that time.Look who is talking. The colonists killed way more indians yet we still have thanksgiving. U is da pheggitPlus Christopher Columbus didn't know that someone else had already discovered it ;)
My jokes are funnier than yours.

Adam was walking around the Garden of Eden feeling very lonely, so God asked Adam, "What's wrong with you?" Adam said he didn't have anyone to talk to. God said he was going to give him a companion and it would be a woman. He said, "This person will cook for you and wash your clothes. She will always agree with every decision you make. She will bear you children and never ask you to get up in the night to take care of them. She will not nag, and will be the first to admit she was wrong when you've had a disagreement. She will never have a headache, and will freely give you love and compassion whenever needed." Adam asked God, "What will a woman like this cost?" God said, "An arm and a leg." Adam said, "What can I get for just a rib?" The rest is history.