BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Allah is a red guy with horns and a pitchfork

Seriously, ok, the Islamic religion= bad, how, because, one thing you will notice is that in any country where the population is predominately Muslim there is no freedom of religion with the exception of turkey, which is responsible for the Armenian genocide, it doesn"t matter which one, every one of them is pure evil, they are oppressive to women, they are intolerant of other beliefs, and it is perfectly lawful to burn all your children alive, this is SATANISM. And low and behold all of these nations worship a being they call Allah, this being justifies hose acts, so it is a perfectly logical conclusion, that Allah is Satan, and pulling up the fact that the Qur"an mentions a being which it calls evil, which is hence translated to Satan, does not mean in any way that Allah is good because it calls some being evil, which was translated to Satan. The truth is that it is really very simple, you can tell a tree by its fruits, in this case Islam is the tree, what does it produce? I know that people can justify things by saying it was their religion even though it is forbidden by it, but in that case there would still be some good people pertaining to that religion, in Christianity we have TRUE humanitarians arising and doing good things in the name of Christianity, like Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Teresa of Avila, Mother Teresa, etc., why aren"t there any Muslims doing this? Because Islam is a bad tree and bad trees are incapable of bearing good fruit, instead they bear fruits of Satanism, hence its root, Allah, is Satan confirmed.
Macs are better than PCS

Unfortunately your argument kind of backfired on you. When we're going for the "most expensive" of something, we aren't necessarily going for "best dollar to performance ratio." If a multi-millionaire wants to show off his laptop, he can get a million-dollar Luvagilo to go with his mansion. A $30,000 Macbook is great and all, but when we're talking that kind of money, it isn't for performance, it's for looks or just overall value of whatever the item is. And if it was for performance... well, you'd be paying a tad too much. But here's a PC [1] that's faster with a much better screen resolution and overall look (in my opinion - solid gold is tacky) for significantly less. And I'm sure if I actually looked for longer than ten seconds, I'd find one for much cheaper than that too. So what have we found out? PCs are overall cheaper than Macs, better performance to dollar ratio PCs can run the same programs (and more) than Macs, and if you're too rich for your own good, you can brag with an over the top expensive PC, but can't with a Mac. So I don't think Macs have been shown to be better than PCs, and in fact it's really the other way around. Thanks for a good debate, Onewhomshallnotbenamed! [1] http://www.shop.ca...
Macs are better than PCS

So in this argument what do we define as a Mac and what do we define as a PC. If we define it by it's software platform that would be useless because we've already established that both can run OSC or Microsoft. So let's define mac and PC by they're hardware. So a mac is any personal computer that has apple Macintosh Hardware and a PC is any other personal computer that doesn't have Apple Macintosh Hardware. So according to http://www.therichest.com... the most expensive Macintosh laptop is $30,000 but that's cheap compared to the $1,000,000 Luvaglio that obviously isn't a mac.
Macs are better than PCS

Come on man you messaged me again explaining what the cost per year is, lol. But let's just use what you said in your message, "the unit rate of the average lifespan of a Mac to cost. " So this implies If you spend the same(? ) amount of money on a Mac as well as a PC, the Mac will outlast the PC by years (taking into account of your $175 to $45 figures). I haven't found anything that says exactly what the lifespan is of a Mac or PC, other than Macs last longer. But I got answers like ~5years for PC and ~10years for Mac, so let's use that. Unfortunately it didn't specify exactly what model of PC was being used, so why don't we use my PC to Mac comparison in my previous reply, but minus a few specs such as SSD and the better hardware so the price of the PC is $900 compared to the $2,200 Mac. Right off the bat, by doing simple math, 5years is half of 10years, so let's just say we buy two of the same PCs, the other five years after the first. That's still a $300 difference, and spending $900 on a PC in five years will get you even better hardware than the first one. So, using 10 years, you can either spend $2,200 and have the same Mac for that time, or $1,800 and have a PC for five years, and an even better PC for the next five years and save $300. I don't really have much more to say. Overall, PCs are cheaper than Macs.
Macs are better than PCS

I love debates like these, there really should be more. Same goes for xBox vs. PlayStation, iPhone vs. Samsung Galaxy, etc. Anyway, thanks for creating this debate! I'll let you go first to explain why Macs are better than PC's, but first let me remind you that computers built for Windows operating systems can also run Mac OSX, as well as dozens others, such as Linux, Steam, Android, and more [1]. Hackintosh is a name given to a PC that's been built to run Mac OSX, which can be considered arguably better than an actual Macbook or Mac computer or whatever. So yes, Macs can run Windows, however PC's can also run Mac OSX [2]. So there is no edge to the Mac here, and considering there are dozens of operating systems that can be run on a PC, I'd have to say you kind of dug your own grave there. So thanks for the debate, and fire away - let's see what makes a Mac superior to a PC. [1] http://www.howtogeek.com... [2] http://www.macbreaker.com...
Should convicted child abusers be sterilized by force.

I understand that this can be a sensative issue, and I think we can all agree that child abuse is terrible. But as unfortunate as it is, sterilization is not the answer. It is obvious that someone like that cannot be trusted with children, but the solution would not be to to tamper with their reproduction process, it would be to isolate them from children.If we are talking about child abuse as a whole, then sterilization is even more irrelevant and unreasonable. This kind of abuse is the result of someone who cannot function in society, so the solution is to isolate them from it, not to tamper with their body. It just does not follow that forcing sterilization on a person is a reasonable solution to a mental problem.
Should convicted child abusers be sterilized by force.

I am assuming that by "Child abuse" you are talking about sexual abuse, so I will argue that sterilization should not be forced apon offenders. I will argue that this a cruel and unusual punishment, and would not aid in rehabilitation.First I want to point out that although the criminal justice system is intended to punish law breakers, it is always a goal to rehabilitate them when possible to avoid repeat offenses. Especially for those who cannot function in society, there is effort put forth to help them during their isolation from society. But the kind of punishment you are suggestion only would tamper with their ability to live a regular life in society if they ever achieve rehabilitation. This will bring me to my second point, which is that these kinds of offenses are a psychological problem.Secondly, it is important to note that these kinds of offenses are generally considered the result of mental disorder. The problem is psychological, and quite frankly, manipulating a persons reproductive process is not going to offer any help to their metal health. It is simply an arbitrary punishment.As a result, this punishment is essentially tampering with a person reproductive process to a psychological problem. The reason punishments like this were prohibited in the 8th amendment of the United States, is because they are quite simply cruel.Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that child sexual abuse is disgusting, but their are better ways to punish and to help, the people who unfortunately commit these revolting acts. This type of punishment is not the answer though.
The death permanently needs to be completely removed.

My opponent presented a few statistics on the murder rate in the US. However he has not linked these statistics too the death penalty. Until he can prove that these statistics are not linked to the death penalty these statistics must be overlooked. Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14). The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston. Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor. source: http://www.cbsnews.com... University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein told the associated that: "If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple, Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty." My opponent presented the example of a child who grows up and breaks into a home, gets arrested and does not learn from his mistake and is put in jail. He says that the person is taught nothing from being put to death, however I don't believe he is seeing the purpose of the death penalty. In this situation as he has presented, the person has lost any moral compass, he doesn't know right from wrong and thus is a danger to society. In this case there is no other option but the death penalty, nothing that we can do will teach him morals and thus he is a danger to society. Once again the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the needs of the few.
The death permanently needs to be completely removed.

Death penalty can be seen as a punishment. However, if the foreknowledge of any punishment is meant to dissuade the criminal from committing the crime, why do people still murder others? The US had a 2012 murder rate of 4.8 victims per 100,000"meaning that nearly 15,000 people were victims of homicide that year. Capital punishment does not appear to be doing its job; it doesn't seem to be changing every criminal"s mind about killing innocent people. If it does not dissuade, then it serves no purpose. The warning of life in prison without parole must equally dissuade criminals. This is a scenario that should be followed threw and often is; So when the child grows up, breaks into a home, and steals electronics, he gets caught and goes to prison. His time in prison is meant to deprive him of the freedom to go where he wants anywhere in the world, and to do what he wants when he wants. This is the punishment, and most people do learn from it. In general, no one wants to go back. But if that child grows up and murders someone for their wallet or just for fun, and they are in turn put to death, they are taught precisely nothing, because they are no longer alive to learn from it. We cannot rehabilitate a person by killing him or her. You have stated some very good and true points but real hardcore criminals should be put in maximum security prisons were their not allowed any outside communication.
The death permanently needs to be completely removed.

One of the main things that people overlook when it comes to the death penalty is the issue of fear. The fact that the death penalty exists is fear, when a person is considering a crime they worry about being put on death row. Thus the death penalty is in all reality saving lives because it stops people from committing these crimes. If we where to simply remove the death penalty the crime rates would go up because criminals would not be afraid of the death penalty. Although I agree with my opponent that taking a life is wrong, it is a necessity because if a criminal is not executed it could result in the deaths of many more. I understand that taking a life is wrong, but when that person has taken the lives of others he has given up his right to life because as a society we can not allow these criminals the ability to get back on the street. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. My opponent stated that the death penalty will not make the offender learn anything, however the point of the death penalty is not for him to learn, it is to keep the masses safe. Often many mob bosses and gang leaders have networks within prison that allows them to communicate with the mob and carry out crime. Because of this even behind bars these people are a threat to society, when a prison can't keep the criminal from carrying out crime then there is no other option. The point of the death penalty is not to teach them a lesson, the point is to teach future criminals a lesson. When a person wants to kill someone they will think twice when they think about the death penalty. Thus executing someone on death row is doing two things at once, stopping the person from continuing crime and stopping future criminals from partaking in it. It is not an easy decision, but it is a necessary decision.
The death permanently needs to be completely removed.

Death Penalty: Capital punishment or the death penalty is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime The existence of the death penalty in any society raises one underlying question: have we established our justice systems out of a desire for rehabilitation, or out of a desire for retribution? People think the death penalty is acceptable maybe because one has taken a life or done terrible crime. It is strange that a nation would denounce the practice of murder by committing the very same act. By doing so, we"re essentially championing the right to life by taking it from others. I strongly disagree the death penalty should not be approved of anywhere in the world, taking a life is wrong and the offender will not learn anything for it, how will justice be made if the offender is not alive to understand the full consequences of there actions? Maybe even torture is probably a better method to make an offender understand right from wrong in extreme cases? I'm interested in others opinions!
Animals feel emotion in a less complex way than humans

Apologies. Also I told con that arguments are on the next round. We both have tied our conduct points then. Take a look at this a video of a cat crying in front of an onion. Search it. It got me thinking. I had no idea animals could even cry. I was just not bothered to understand that they had tear glands. This wowed me. They evolved not to give a crap what others of their own species were going through. If bobby the cat was sad, Stacey could not care less. OR, They do care, But much less than humans. Cats and animals evolve not to have a way to show their emotions other than being super angry and aggressive. We are the only animal that cries when sad. Which means we feel sadness at a greater level than do humans. "No. They know companionship, Friendship, And compassion, All human characteristics. You can search Youtube to see proof. They also know Numbers Have An End, Because they can only count up to a certain number, So they know the scientific truth. "Doesn't mean they feel it at the same level as humans. I agree that stress can be felt in animals as much as humans. But they lack a whole host of other more complex emotion. "The emotional systems serving as drivers for behavior are located in the subcortex""Primates have a larger and more complex cortex than a dog or a pig"And humans have the most complex cortex of them all. I rest my case. Look up the sources. I can't find put it in DDO.
Animals feel emotion in a less complex way than humans

No. They know companionship, Friendship, And compassion, All human characteristics. You can search Youtube to see proof. They also know Numbers Have An End, Because they can only count up to a certain number, So they know the scientific truth. "For example self directed behaviours, Such as scratch -grooming, Obviously have a hygiene function, But they also reflect motivational ambivalence or frustration. "Recent research has shown that there is an increase in such behaviour in situations of uncertainty, Social tension, Or impending danger. The same can be shown in humans who may bite their nails or pull at their hair in times of anxiety. " They have the same reactions to the same things. So I would say yes.
MANBEARPIG is a greater threat than Hillary Clinton, just barely

It was just something I wanted to do while sitting bored in my computer class. I want you to see now, my mind is so scared of Manbearpig that I can't even concentrate in class. Moving on, to avoid the whole "scenario" debate, I'll narrow it down for you. .. Manbearpig isn't real. But I want to direct your attention back to my first speech, I mentioned that if Hillary Clinton is to become President, that is when she'll become a threat, destroying the lives of many. Now here is where we will be looking at. Just as Manbearpig, Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming President are also fictitious. Thus, if both means of people's lives being ruined are fictional, we must look to the fictional scenario. Thus, in the fictional world, if Hillary Clinton is to become President, she would only begin to ruin the lives of people; on the contrary, if you recall from the Imagination Land episodes, Manbearpig had pretty much taken out an entire branch of an agency single-handedly. If we don't keep him locked up in our imaginations, that half man, half bear and half pig would destroy any and everything in it's path. It is an unbeatable creature that may take over the entire world that even most modern weapons would fail against, unless you are willing to nuke a city with innocent lives at risk. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, would only require a vote by Congress to impeach her and try her for her method of madness. In the fictional world, Al Gore does advocate Manbearpig, Hillary Clinton does become President, and Manbearpig does exist. Just because he's locked up in our imagination doesn't mean that he isn't a threat; he's still a threat, a threat that we need to watch 24 hours a day, or else! I'm super cereal! PS - I'm now in my debate class, once again focused on the threat that is Manbearpig. The harm he may cause is great! It's already affecting the students! And I can tell you one thing, I've never woken up in the middle of the night screaming, "Agh! Hillary Clinton's coming! ", because I know that to be a lie, but Manbearpig is different. I'm scared that someday I'll turn around and see it! *I hope that anyone viewing this debate doesn't vote on my stance on Hillary Clinton; rather, I hope that you see the true threat that is in front of our faces, MANBEARPIG! !! !! ! !
MANBEARPIG is a greater threat than Hillary Clinton, just barely

As MANBEARPIG is a fictional character, we must call its actual existence into question. So, either one of two scenarios exist when dealing with the topic. FIRST, MANBEARPIG is not real. This is the most likely of scenarios because MBP is a fictional character. There exists no record or claim, other than the one I anticipate from PRO, that MBP is real. Even the lone advocate for MBP awareness in the fictional scenario, Al Gore, does not advocate the characters existence in real life. Furthermore, even in the fictional scenario, South Park, the character is fake. In the two part episode regarding the land of make believe, MBP exists in a world where only fictional characters live, proving, even in the fictitious sense, MBP is not real. Additionally, you agree Hillary Clinton will cause damage and harm in the future, making her a threat. So, since MBP is fictitious and Hillary is an agreed threat, she is a bigger threat than MBP, because MBP isn't one. SECOND, MANBEARPIG is real. Even if you win that MBP is real, it poses less of a threat than Hillary Clinton. MBP kills individuals on a small magnitude while Hillary's policy would effect, not only the entirity of a country, but the entire world. Saying MBP is a bigger threat than Hillary is like saying Big Foot is a bigger threat than GW Bush. Thanks.
MANBEARPIG is a greater threat than Hillary Clinton, just barely

"They're already dead, didn't you listen to me? They got attacked by Manbearpig and Manbearpig leaves no one alive, I'm super cereal! And nobody'll listen to me. I'm cereal!" ~The character portraying Al Gore in South Park I can't believe that even I'm going to say this, but Hillary Clinton isn't a threat; at least not in comparison to ManBearPig. Hillary will only begin to destroy lives of many Americans if she is to become President, but Manbearpig will completely abolish mankind to the firey inferno that is death. We need to take the advice of the brillant minds of Matt Stone and Trey Parker, aka the creators of South Park, and fill the cave that is Manbearpig's home with hot, molten lead. Come on you guys, I'm super cereal!!!
MANBEARPIG is a greater threat than Hillary Clinton, just barely

I don't know what you want me to do. You made a claim and I'm refuting it... "Manbearpig isn't real" So, we are agreeing on the first scenario. The only contention left is that the consequences of Hillary Clinton are also fictitious. However, this is NOT true. First, you claim her chances of becoming president are fictitious. But, Hillary leads polls in Penn. by double digits and is gaining nationally after the Wright scandal. Also, the super delegates ultimately decide the election and Hillary holds both the lead and the washington connections to make a victory of that nature happen. I'm not saying she is the favorite to win, or even that it is likely at all that she will win, just possible. Second, even if she doesn't become president her platform is being preached across the nation. As time goes on, more and more people are recruited to her cause, even if it is a losing one. This means Hillary stands as a greater threat whether she wins the presidency or not. If it is merely possible, in the real world, for Hillary to win, we have to consider her consequences in the real world. Even if she doesn't win, she still bodes negatively for the future. While we both agree Manbearpig is fictitious, his consequences can only be considered in the most imaginary sense. This means Hillary is more of a threat, because there is at least a chance that her effects are real world, no matter to what degree.
There is Substantial Fossil Evidence for Evolution

To begin the debate, I shall first define key terms: [Word - Substantial] [Source - . http://dictionary.reference.com...] Of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc. [Word - Fossil] [Source - . http://dictionary.reference.com...] Any remains, impression, or trace of a living thing of a former geologic age, as a skeleton, footprint, etc. [Word - Evidence] [Source - . http://dictionary.reference.com...] That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. [Word - Evolution] [Source - . http://dictionary.reference.com...] Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. ==================== Conclusion ==================== With only these simple definitions put in place, I will allow my opponent to have the first say.