azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Sony

First, just because you think Zelda, Mario, and DK are the 'best games of all time' doesn't make it true. Millions consider Halo 'the best game of all time', and others might consider Grand Theft Auto 'the best game of all time. Who is right, you or them?It is true that the games you mentioned were pioneers in the video gaming world, but they are by no means 'the best'. That's because everyone looks at other qualities like AI, story line, realism, physics, fun factor, and graphics to define the games they consider the 'best'.In fact, if you define the best game by which games make the most at launch, then Halo 3 and the recent GTA would be considered the best. Millions of consumers lined up and pre-ordered these games because they thought they would be the 'best'.Far more people bought these games than bought Wii fit, Smash Brothers Brawl, and other Wii games.Second, you can't compare one generation of gaming systems and somehow come up with a solution as to who the best gaming company is.Did you forget about the Playstation and Playstation 2? Nintendo barely survived that ten year time span.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

People who play Halo and believe it to be "the best game" ever made should give their head a shake. I got bored playing Halo in about five minutes, and at the end of the day it is just another FPS . . . oh sorry, there's vehicles . . . truly amazing.Of course we could go around in circles debating which game is the greatest of all time, it's pretty subjective and there are way too many metrics with which to try and measure it.One thing that is hard to deny is that Nintendo has frequently set the standard for which thousands of games after it are based. Super Mario Bros., Super Mario Bros. 3, Legend of Zelda, Super Mario 64, games like these defined, or redefined their genres. In the case of Mario 64 . . . Nintendo was redefining game play even while suffering lower sales.Also, Nintendo has always been a very wealthy company since the 80's, they did not "barely survive" while Sony took over the industry in the mid 90's. Nintendo was still doing very well because they had the only portable system on the market. Home console and games sales were down, for sure, but the company was just fine thank you.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Sony

First, let me agree by saying I hate Halo. And really, Grand Theft Auto isn't my thing. So I don't think it's the best either.Second, I agree that Nintendo is damn innovative. But just because they innovate well, doesn't make them the best overall. it just makes them the most innovative.Their graphics are horrid (not talking about the DS here). Their online gameplay is a joke (have you tried entering that long list of stupid numbers just to add a friend?). And they don't have good control over 3rd party publishers (did you recently see the Rock Band ripoff game with that horrible country type song in it? Man, that hurts Nintendo more than it helps).On just these three points - which many gamers and analysts consider very important (Michael Pachtel, just to name the big one) - Nintendo fails to be the best.If the question was who is the better handheld gaming company. Hands down, Nintendo. In the end, their games are fun, innovative, and cheap. But that doesn't make them the better gaming company.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

If their games are fun and innovative . . . screw it, lets just focus on the fun part. If they're fun to play, they certainly aren't out of the running as being the best, would you concede to that? That is, after all, what games are about.The graphics thing . . . come on, that's weak. For the engine they're running inside the Wii the games look fine. In fact, if you've played Mario Galaxy at all you might be eating your words, cause the game looks fantastic.Presentation counts, but it isn't everything.The online thing I'm afraid you're spot on about, though. Nintendo quite honestly shit the bed here and missed out on an element that is becoming a cornerstone in gaming. Having said that, Mario Kart Wii's online service is quite sleek for the most part, so they can make it work to a certain extent. Hopefully their next system is better.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Not necessarily,that just makes Halo and GTA more innovative,not better. There are many games they were highly innovative before they were released but when they came out they were a FAIL!!!!!!
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Nintendo all the way !!they supply my ultimate time killers. [;
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

I grew up with Nintendo and I still play Nintendo. The Wii is ridiculously fun. First I fell in love with Wii Sports, then Tiger Wood's Golf, then Super Mario Galaxy, then Guitar Hero 3, then Super Smash Bros and now Mario Kart Wii.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

More innovative, more creative, and less corporate.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Nintendo is the only one I would consider a gaming company. Would you call Pepsi Co. a bottle company just because they make them?
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Sony

Actually, Pepsi Co. would probably be the equivalent of Sony as it has different branches dedicated to different things. The bottling company would be Pepsi Bottling Group.Sony also has different branches for different things and SCEA (Sony Computer Entertainment America) happens to be the one that handles the Playstation/gaming. I guess the question could have been Nintendo vs. SCEA.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

More innovation and better games.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

This one is easy. While Sony has made some very successful hardware since entering the industry in the mid-90's they are hardly an innovator when it comes to gaming. Nintendo has introduced countless titles that are absolutely legendary in both their gameplay and the appeal of their characters. If you're thinking that Crash Bandicoot is a great video game character check back with me in 20 years when no one remembers who he is.I find it curious that we're comparing these two behemoths as "gaming" companies when, off the top of my head, I can't think of many titles that Sony is directly responsible for. Perhaps someone can help me out. It probably doesn't matter since any Sony list will pale in comparison to the legendary games I can list:Super Mario Bros., Duck Hunt, Legend of Zelda, Excite Bike, Super Mario Bros. 3, Pikmin, Animal Crossing, Metroid, F-Zero, Star Fox, Pilot Wings, Super Mario 64 . . . Do I need to go on? Alright:Super Smash Bros., Mario Kart, Wave Race, Killer Instinct, Legend of Zelda: Ocrina of Time, Brain Age . . .Are we getting the picture yet?
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Sony isn't a game publisher. Nintendo, happens to publish games. And those games are the only real good ones on their system.The question is who's the better gaming company, not publisher.As far as publishing goes, Nintendo is pretty good at it. But there's very succesful game franchises out there like Halo, Gears of War (part two, coming soon!) Metal Gear Solid, Need for Speed, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, Doom, Duke Nukem, Half-Life, Grand Turismo, etc...Some of these games are awesome. But if you wan't to play it the way it was meant to be played (with nice graphics and feedback) you won't go to Nintendo for it. You'll go to Sony (even Microsoft)
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Sony

If we're establishing that Sony isn't a game publisher then my argument would be that Nintendo wins because they are a gaming company and Sony is not.I donno, if Nintendo only made hardware I don't think that I would consider them much a gaming company. I don't consider AMD or Intel or Asus a gaming company, do you? Obviously Sony is a bit more involved in the game industry than just making hardware.If it were true that the only good games on the Wii were made by Nintendo . . . well that isn't really Nintendo's fault. The fact that the PS3 has Halo on it doesn't make Sony a good gaming company.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Upon a little research, it turns out that Sony does publish games under SCEI. According to Wikipedia...SCEI handles the Research & Development, production, and sales of hardware and software for their high-selling PlayStation line of handheld and video game consoles. SCEI is also a developer and publisher of video games for their systems, and is comprised of several subsidiaries covering the company's biggest markets: America, Europe, Oceania and Asia. Sony is in fact owner of such franchises as Grand Turismo and God of War. But their reach goes beyond that.If it weren't for Sony, publishers like Take Two, Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, and a host of other publishers wouldn't be able to afford to put out cutting edge games. Up until recently, these company's made the bulk of their money from sales thanks to Sony and their consoles. Secondly, many people consider graphics to be very important. I don't care how nice Mario Galaxy looks, it can't hold a candle to a game like Gears of War. And no Nintendo Wii game ever could, because Nintendo was lazy about upgrading their hardware. Third, you can't minimize console hardware. Sure AMD, Nvidia and Intel certainly aren't gaming companies just because they reside inside a console. But do you see any of those companies creating video game consoles?Creating a console is huge. Not only is there design, but you have to talk to potential developers and make sure they understand how to code for the system. And even during the production phase of the games, developers must speak to console manufacturers to continue improving the game.you see, creating a console is far more intensive than you make it seem. And so any company that goes through the time to produce a great video game console is certainly a gaming company. After all, if it weren't for the console there would be no games.Nintendo has historically been behind the curve when it came to hardware (from the 64 on). And this is the first console generation where graphics didn't move the most consoles.Fourth, most people that buy their Wii's stop playing them after very little time. This is something game analyst Michael Pachter has pointed out. Not only that, but the number of games sold to Wii players is less than an Xbox 360 and PS3 player. It seems that most people who buy a Wii are getting caught up in the hype. After they play the system for a few weeks, they become bored and move onto the next big/hypy thing.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Right on. Nintendo isn't even that good at being a publisher either, they're a 3rd-rate publisher at best.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Nintendo has a much greater legacy in the gaming industry.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Nintendo, cuz Mario. So suck it. .
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Yeah Nintendo !I miss gameboy colour, pretty old but fun.Nintendo gave me some really pleasant memories :D
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Sony does have better games and graphics , but Nintendo WII revolutionized gaming because it actually makes the gaming experience physical.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

i think sonic is better than mario but i think nintendo is better ps12&3;because i love the wii and the ds
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Nintendo by far they have some of the best games around not to mention the PS3 has wifi can play blue ray dvds which are basically dvd's in hd and the psp which is one of the first hand-held game systems with Internet
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

NINTENDO 4EVER!!!!!!!!!!! I CANNOT STRESS I ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Unless Sony can come up with a gaming franchise as iconic and legendary as Mario.......
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Graphics and computing power do not make for great games- you need only look at the historially popular games to realise that good gameplay is the key. This is why Nintendo score higher- the Super Mario games,, the Zelda games, the Metroid games, the Pokemon games- they have created and maintained so many series of games that have consistently been highly rated- the Wii was innovative when it first came out and you can see how effective it was at gaining market share for Nintendo- and another measure of it's effectiveness is how Sony followed suit with a similar remote. The DS has been a consistent performer too- I don't see how anyone can argue that.Finally, given the serious security problems with Sony, who would you rather trust with your information?
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Nintendo rocks as they created Pokemon and it rocks and its is constantly making games..
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

This basically the foundation for gamers lol.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Sony

If your product is being bought for nursery homes (the Wii), then I don't think you can consider yourself a gaming company. If you look at the gimmicks that Nintendo products are based on, they really are personal arcade terminals and nothing more. Franchises like Zelda, Mario, and Pokemon have not innovated their presentation, but have relied on models that are already at least a decade old. On the other hand, Sony has tried to produce a product that is truly next generation. While Nintendo might decide to merely convert all of its old paradigms into remote form for the Wii, Sony has had to tap not only state-of-the-art graphics but develop new styles of gameplay in order to stay viable. Take, for instance, the PSP. Originally scoffed at, it has gained new fame as the fashionable Nintendo DS has dissolved out of the limelight. Why? because the PSP was inherently a better, more fully intuitive product while the DS was just a gameboy with a touchscreen. The same thing is seen with the Wii. The PS3 is so obviously the more powerful gaming product, but the Wii is more shiny because it has a few gimmicks that make it more attractive to the non-gaming customers. We have, here, a piece of technology that will revolutionize the gaming industry, while on the other hand we have a gamecube with an infrared terminal.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Define what a better company means. You can argue about the artistic merit of the games or the technological achievement of both companies, but the fact remains: Sony loses money with every console sold, Nintendo earns profit with every console sold, therefore, in terms of the business of being a company, Nintendo is the better gaming company.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

I'd argue that sheer technological improvement isn't the sole predictor of innovation. By changing the interface mechanism Nintendo has broadened the appeal of gaming, so much so that video game companies are realizing new markets thought to be previously unprofitable. The affect may have far reaching implications into the entire video game industry. Just because people are old - doesn't mean they're not gamers and it's backwards thinking to suppose that a gaming platform is any less so because more people enjoy it.There needs to be an end to the elitism that the PS3 panders to. And as games and the video game culture spread throughout diverse demographics we'll see true innovation in the genre of games available and not just the next first person shooter.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

This argument is ridiculous. You can say Sony has "innovated" until you're blue in the face, but you've cited no examples as to what is innovative about either the PS3 or the PSP. Not saying they that are completely devoid of innovation, but certainly not to the extent that the Wii and the DS have changed the industry.I have to wonder, if the Wii is so gimicky, why did Sony slap a tilt sensor (an evidently useless one at that) into it's controller? Perhaps someone can correct me on this, but as I understand it that was done quite hastily before launch. We also have rumors of an Xbox controller with Wii style sensors. If it's so gimicky, why does it look to be becoming the standard?Hardcore gamers should be embracing this technology, especially those of you who love FPS's. The Wiimote offers, through the infrared, mouse-like control over your first-person perspective.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Sony

Well, frankly, gaming companies are supposed to supply something new in terms of their games every once in a while. Nintendo has merely repackaged its various franchises with new interfaces, whereas Sony has had to actually innovate new play styles. Yes, Nintendo might revolutionize the interface, but we are talking about the actual games that are produced for each company's platforms. So far, Nintendo has done really nothing to produce effective games that break the mold, they've only created new arcade terminals.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Yup, Nintendo really does need to learn not to rely so much on their signature franchises so much. However, it's worth noting that while Nintendo has been whoring out their popular characters they have been placing them all in some amazing games. My roommate and I had furious Mario Tennis battles, I've had large groups of friends over for full evenings of Mario Party, and of course we've spent countess hours beating the tar out of each other in Super Smash Bros.I agree the characters are getting old but the gameplay is still second to none.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Sony

Nintards got it name for a reason. :\Nintendo has nothing new, nothing innovative (the Wiimote has been done before, thank Pelican you idiots), and is not a current-gen system. Furthermore, Nintendo has ALWAYS been limiting the 3rd-party companies with their products' limited specs. While it actually takes some brains for 3rd-party companies to program the Sony's Playstation console system brands in their own time, they were far less limited.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Sony

I think Sony is better because they have more experience in technology and the graphics of Sony's products are better. Although I do really like Nintendo, I like games that are supposed look more real than cartoony. Sony's games look more real while Nintendo's are supposed to look cartoony. Plus, Sony's PS3 is a Blu-Ray player as well as a game system. The PS3 will also turn on your television if your television is a Sony television. PS3 also has one of my favorite games: LittleBigPlanet. I think Sony's a bit better at making games than Nintendo.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Sony

Yes, I think Sony is better too because they have much experience than Nintendo.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Sony

sony is eons ahead of nintendo in technology, im sorry, i cannot vote for a company that has yet to show the public a system with an hdmi output. sorry nintendo fans, but since the move came out for the ps3 sony officially dominates in all areas of the gaming field. i personally find that games on blue-ray disks are much better developed, due to the complete revocation of any limits on space. it amazes me that this debate is not slanted the other way by a margin twice what this is. agaiin, no offense nintendo gamers, youve had a great track record, but i cant argue with sony's dominance in all aspects of what i think of in gaming.
Debate: Which is a better gaming company?
Side: Nintendo

Technology isn't really the relevant point though- gameplay is. I can very happily play Zelda: A Link to the Past over and over again. Same goes for Twilight Princess. Same goes for nearly every version of Mario Kart. I can't say that for any PS game.
Debate: Is Basic Income a Human Right??
Side: Yes!

in our global world where the people are no longer ruled by an " authority" such as a gouverment but ruled by the waves of financial and economic markets, it seems to me very dangerous not to protect the weakest people in our society to acheive a social peace.the implemention of a universal unconditional basic income will protect us against the financial fluctuations.Mesures against poverty like there are now consist in a complex of administrative measures which are revisted among by the goverments depending the economic markets.there's also an economic pro argument for an unconditional universal basic income: the labor cost for businesses and employers will be lower because everyone gets his basic income.The arguments that nobody would no longer work while getting a basic income doesn't make any sense: everyone who's that rich and don't have to worry about his/ her daily financials is working more than ever! so why should people stay at home??( if they stay at home it's maybe because ther's a serious problem with the mood at the workfloor!!!)
Debate: Is Basic Income a Human Right??
Side: Yes!

There is a moral argument for UBI that unemployment will always be with us. Whether you argue that automation will take jobs or not.The fact is that policy makers have a measure called the NAIRU Natural Accelerated Inflation Rate of Unemployment. If Unemployment drops below this level then they will take steps to slow down the economy because full employment will cause inflation.So for this reason alone, we should not punish the unemployed for something that is not voluntary.The government raises revenue from giving private enterprise our natural resources in exchange for taxation. Do we trust the government to spend that money wisely? Why not pay some of it back directly to the people? This works for the Alaska permanent fund.Most people will still work when their basic needs are met. Pilot studies have proved it as has everyone who works for more than minimum wage. We already pay welfare but because of the way it is withdrawn when people start working, it traps them in poverty. A basic income has no such poverty traps. On basic income, work really pays.
Debate: Is Basic Income a Human Right??
Side: Yes!

I agree that the motivation to work is a non issue. When people choose to not work under the Basic Income, it drives wages higher, since those people not working, are still creating consumer demand by spending their Basic Income. Wages will rise, until they get so high people can't say no to that $20 an hour part time work at McDonald's. Wages will stabilize at whatever level is needed to motivate enough people to work. It's self regulating.
Debate: Is Basic Income a Human Right??
Side: Yes!

Freedom is development, and to develop more (allow more freedoms such as economic ones) people need to be guaranteed a basic wage. Of course, they should work if they can though.
Debate: Is Basic Income a Human Right??
Side: No...

So would the government force people to work?.
Debate: Is Basic Income a Human Right??
Side: Yes!

Absolutely not. From each according to contribution. I somehow feel you are a libertarian from you talk.
Debate: Is Basic Income a Human Right??
Side: Yes!

If the government provides everyone with a wage, and provides nothing to enforce people to work to earn it, where would the motivation to work come from.Also, i am not sure if i am a libertarian because i do not know much about the term or other similar political classifications. I always assumed i was more of a moderate.
Debate: Is Basic Income a Human Right??
Side: Yes!

Watch the video link that I have provided. You will find it enlightening as it provides conclusive scientific evidence as to what motivates people. P.S. Don't be a libertarian because it assumes people are rational beings and they are not, so it can't work ;)
Debate: Is Basic Income a Human Right??
Side: Yes!

Life is human right. In the "world of money" you need income for life. If it is impossible get a job with income, you have two ways: Suicide or basic income.