BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
P.C.'s Are Better Than Macs

To start Macs do not allow for easy hard ware customization Macs do not accept most forms of hardware components from other computer brands such as Toshibas, Dells, H. P. s, and I. B. M. s as well as when you install software from other corporations expect to pay around $50 and up for conversion software whereas P. C. s are easier in the aspect that they allow the use of hardware and software from any corporation without conversion software or incompatibility problems (the exception being trying to put a modern software or hardware system on something like the Altair 8800) Macs use graphics systems which are generally outdated in comparison to those used in P. C. s but I should have been a little more specific. Macs have only recently introduced systems which P. C. has used for ages such as S. D. card slots and Macs also were behind on RAM and many other computer aspects that P. C. has been using for some time now. Macs are overpriced as you can see in my previous arguments due to the lag in technological innovations that P. C. has had for years as wells their lack of software and hardware compatibility. In reality you are only paying for the Apple name. Macs break easily due to their lack of durability and ability to take damage. I have owned Macs if you drop them just one centimeter they are broken completely. I work on computers and I know experts that work on computers we all agree that Macs are designed so that you have to pay their mainstream corporation for computer repairs because if you move one screw the entire machine breaks and make it a necessity to get a warranty and repair service on the machine you buy. Ant to argue against your first three points beauty is in the eye of the beholder therefore design depends on a persons personal preference (one may think a I Pad is of a great design and another may think a I. B. M. Think Pad is of a greater design) as well as one idea of comfort (one person likes hard mattresses another person may like hard mattresses). And the intuitiveness and how easy something is t use depends on the individual (like how I prefer the Windows XP format to Linux Unbuntu). And to go against your virus argument is that exposure to viruses depends on how you use the computer and whether on not you have antivirus ware or not as well as the fact that viruses are designed by people to do what they do (crash computers and annoy the hell [pardon my language] out of their users) and since the majority of people in the world use P. C. s due to their affordability and efficiency (and its only natural that a virus designer would want it to irritate the most people) most viruses are designed for P. C. s. And my final argument is that Macs are only designed for aesthetic appeal and not a high degree of functionality which is what our modern world needs more of (functionality not aesthetic appeal). . http://www.mac-sucks.com... . http://video.google.com... # . http://www.microsoft.com... . http://www.pcauthority.com.au... . http://ezinearticles.com...
P.C.'s Are Better Than Macs

Thank you for continuing on this debate. Since my opponent has failed to rebut or argue against any of my own contentions, I would like to extend all three, and in this round, all four are accepted to be veritable. To reinforce and reiterate them once more: • Macs are superior in design and user-comfort. • The OS ran by Mac computers is much more intuitive and easy-to-use when compared to PCs. • Macs are less prone to be infected with viruses. Now, my rebuttal: • [O-C1] Macs do not support customization. My adversary fails to elucidate or elaborate upon this point. I shall respond: This is a fallacy. Macs have hundreds of options for customization, starting from desktop organization (users can tweak settings for dashboards, background wallpaper, brightness, folder option, etc.) to hardware configuration. In fact, Macs take pride in flexibility. • [O-C2] Macs are behind in graphics. I would like to quote directly: "Generally, "Macs" are mentioned in the same sentence as "graphic design," and rightfully so for their excellent graphics and font capabilities..." • [O-C3] Macs are overpriced. Going back to my contentions: I have already clearly articulated that Macs are superior to PCs in multifarious ways. Therefore, calling a Mac "overpriced" because it is higher in price than PCs is illogical. Inferior products will, of course, be less expensive than superior products! To add on: as I said in my third contention, PCs are much more prone to viruses compared to a Mac. One can save hundreds of dollars from taking their PCs to computer technicians. Hence, one can safely deduce that, in the long run, Macs will be more affordable than PCs. • [O-C4] Macs break easily. He provides no source of this, so we have no reason to concede it as true. I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you. http://www.allgraphicdesign.com...
P.C.'s Are Better Than Macs

I will be playing the Devil's Advocate in the round. I look forward to a good argument; the best of luck to both of us! Definitions: I accept both of the definitions which Pro has offered. I would just like to add one other definition that is critical to the round: better (adj): More useful, suitable, or desirable; more advantageous or favorable The burden in the round for both of us are simple: I - the Con - must show that Macs are more useful, desirable, advantageous and favorable than PCs, and the Pro must do vice versa. Contention I - Macs are far superior in design and user-comfort. It is undeniable that PCs fall far behind to Macs when it comes to design. It is highly attractive and pleasing to the eye, as well as your hands. Cosmetically, its simple, yet elegant and eye-catching design, is extolled by many, even PC owners. Mac's OS also features a beautiful design, with a cute, ergonomic dashboard at the bottom. Furthermore, Macs have a better "touch" to it. Let's take the Macbook Air for example. It is lightweight, thin and attractive without compromising quality or performance (a must for long trips, where you need to put your notebook on your laps). A PC laptop, when compared, feels clunky. Comfort is a key factor; and Macs obviously win in this aspect. Contention II - The Mac's OS is much more intuitive and easy-to-use compared to PC computers. Macs have better programs that PCs dream of having. For instance, GarageBand is a music-creator software that is unparalleled in functionality, as well as ease of use for novices. Logic Studio, a series of music-writing programs, is extremely intuitive and user-friendly. Macs also designed their computers so that processes are done faster (i. e. faster boot-ups/shutdowns, quick process-killing. ) No more do you have to be frustrated over frequent errors of "This program has stopped responding --> Would you like to send a report to Microsoft (yet they never respond! )" Contention III - Macs are less prone to be infected with viruses (malware, Trojan, rootkits, etc. ) and harried by errors. Since PCs are more common than Macs (since they were more widely advertised in the last decade or so), PCs are more likely to get viruses. Most of the viruses are "compatible" with PC computers only; there are few viruses floating around the Internet that are capable of attacking Macs. More immunity towards virus means less trips to a computer technician, which means $$$ saved. Macs also get errors. The thousands of vexing problems PCs face (the Blue Screen of Death comes to mind - it destructed my computer, and cost me $250 total to fix) destroy the user-friendliness which Macs proudly offer. For these three reasons, I urge a ballot on the negation of the resolved. I shall eagerly anticipate my adversary's response/rebuttal. Thank you! Sources: . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... . http://apcmag.com... . http://www.helium.com... . http://lowendmac.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Feminism is for equality

So, are you agreeing that feminism isn't promoting equality? Cause that is my (con) stand. Feminism as such has become the belief that women should be made superior to men. This is against gender equality. In some places men have fewer rights, while in other places women have rights but they don't know about it/ don't exercise it. But feminism or menism isn't the solution. We must make a stand for equality, liberty and freedom, and judge each other on our capabilities rather than our gender, race, religion or any other nonessential detail.
Feminism is for equality

Hi. I will be arguing that feminism is way past the point of equality. Now don't get me wrong. I believe both men and women deserve equal rights and oppertunities in this world, but I think feminism has gone a little bit too far nowadays. I think the some extreme radical femisists are no longer aiming for equality. They are aiming to eradicate all forms of male power and put women on top which is total hypocrisy. If you're fighting for equality, you would fight to say that men are permitted to keep their power in government and in the workforce as well as women. But on the other hand, I cannot deny that there are feminists who actually do fight for equality. I am not attacking all feminists because I know there are some well meaning ones out there and I appreciate that they are trying to battle the inequalities women AND men nowadays. But I just don't think there is any need for feminism anymore. It started back when women had very little working rights and were only seen as housewives and mothers and obviously they wanted more than just that. But nowadays, women have the choice to stay at home or work. What need is there for feminism?The point is that feminism has gone past the point of acheiving equal rights for men and women. It is now about obtaining female supremacy over men which is totally wrong just as male supremacy over women is totally wrong. We need an egalitarian society- not a matriarchal nor partriarchal!
Feminism is for equality

Feminism basically looks to give women more rights. At first it was raising the bar just for bringing women par with men, but nowadays feminists are trying to give women more rights than they should get and making them legally superior to men, such as extra property rights and alimony. This goes against the gender equality movement, and I hope they realize that. Just look at the word "feminism". Does it seem to stand for equality? No it doesn't.
Christianity is not real.

I am going to argue that there is evidence to support an historical Jesus and also offer some arguments based on logical connections to show that Jesus was a living person that inspired a religion. Currently the other part of the resolution "Christianity is not real" is a very vague statement, because even if the core idea of the Religion wasn't real, it's an existing religion with followers that exist. Or in other words: May Christianity even be wrong, it's still real. I'll offer Con to keep it or scratch that from the resolution, but not to rephrase.
United Nations

Although the world economy still hasn"t hit its peak yet, the United Nations is constantly funding programs to encourage third world countries to become self "reliant. African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is a panel formed by the UN that has built a more in depth democratic political system in Africa. Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon and the African Union implemented this panel to discuss higher-level political issues within democracy and governance. In a recent gathering, the African Unity Organization celebrated their 50th anniversary and the 10th anniversary of APRM. Mr. Ban stated that the APRM is effective because "It showed the need to better manage natural resources, stop corruption, end xenophobia, address youth unemployment and take action against organized crime and terrorism. Above all the APRM points to the critical need to halt unconstitutional changes in Government " and when they happen to respond robustly in defense of principle." (General Ban Ki-moon, United Nations News Center) United Nations Chief stated that the APRM allows Africa to advance towards democracy and help the people of Africa. A representative from the African Union stated during a radio interview that the APRM in collation with NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa"s Development) "furthered the overall effort to promote pan-Africanism and to strengthen partnerships that addressed the priorities identified by Africans themselves." (Representative from African Union, United Nations News Center) With the United Nations support, over 17 countries in Africa have been able to advance by completing assessments under the APRM. The United Nations has been proven effective throughout the past few decades, and continues to help establish stable governments in third world countries that will lead to advancement in their economy and political structures. "Ban Pledges UN Support for Africa"s Development Partnership, Peer Review Process." UN News Center. UN, 21 Oct. 2013. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.
United Nations

Even though the UN passed this New Economic Order in April of 1974, it did in fact improve quantities of participating third world countries within the global economy. Studies showed that the world economy increased during the second half of 2003. The world economy showed an increase of 2.75 per cent by the end of 2003 (Normans Media Ltd). However, developing third world countries are still struggling with falling financial values as well as decreased business spending that are confining a greater economic recovery in these developing countries. This time period of financial depression of all of these developing countries could send the world economy into an enormous decease if more immediate action is not taken sooner than later. Once again, the United States is getting involved with other countries issues rather than first dealing and stabilizing its own conflicts. "The United States will continue to lead the global recovery, but without significant momentum," the UN states (Normans Media Ltd). Normans Media Ltd. "United Nations issues: "world economic situation and prospects 2003". PressWire. (2003): 1. ProQuest. Web. 21 October 2013.
United Nations

Madison Loomis Mr. Joubert Civics 21 October 2013 During the 1970"s and 1980"s, the United Nations also played a major role in aiding rising third world countries. Upon entering the 1970"s, new nation-states throughout Africa and Asia were emerging and revamping the balance in the United Nations to be more in favor of the third world. Due to new interest and interaction with third world countries, the United Nations passed a New Economic Order in April 1974, which improved quantities of participating third world countries in the global economy. "By the 1980"s, The UN had focused on the debt crisis and subsequent spread of neo-liberal economic policies and practices." (Gale Group) With support of the Britain government and US administration under Ronald Reagan, the World Bank and IMF promoted third world governments to liberalize trade, deregulate their economies and privatize their public sectors. After the Cold War, essentially all branches of the United Nations were encouraging economic liberalism, later known as globalization. Throughout history, the United Nations proved to be efficient and constructive in aiding several countries by promoting the economic advancement. This displays the United States virtuosity and involvement within the United Nations to globally reform instead of solely focus domestically. Mark T. Berger, Ed. Stanley U. Kutler. Vol.8.3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner"s Sons, 2003. p268-272. COPYRIGHT 2003 Charles Scribner"s Sons, COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale, Cengage Learning.
United Nations

Madison Loomis Mr. Joubert Civics 17 October 2013 The United Nations may not have been adept to completely halting brutal strikes against Syrian governments but they have administered a hefty amount of help in educating the world, and taking measures to eliminate non-domestic issues throughout Syria and bordering countries. The United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria began in April 2012 where representatives from The United States traveled to Syria to try and confiscate violent weapons and diminish death and violence rates. They were stationed in Damascus and visited towns of Aleppo, Deir-ez-Zor, Deraa, Hama, Homs, Idlib, Rif Damascus and Tartus, where they monitored a cessation of armed violence. Although the UN could not disentangle every affair in Syria, the UN council is regularly brainstorming new ideas to help Syrian refugees who have fled to bordering countries such as Lebanon and Jordan. The electronic Voucher program proposed by UN council members, has allowed refugees to pay for food under the WFP, (World Foods Program) which will avail an estimated 30,000 refugees. In one year, the WFP program has injected roughly $192 million dollars into regional economies that are occupied by large amounts of Syrian refugees. This allows local merchants to flourish while encouraging a focus on helping localized small businesses, which will benefit the economy and hopefully lead to resolutions throughout Syria. As a world power, the United States should be cognizant of international issues and help get countries "back on their feet". Ignoring international issues by avowing violence against virtuous civilians is against the nation"s better judgment and inexcusably egocentric. Pelton, Erin. "The White House Blog." United Nations Releases Report on the Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria. White House Government, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2013. "Some 800,000 Syrian Refugees to Benefit from New UN Electronic Voucher Programme."UN News Center. UN, 11 Oct. 2013. Web. 17 Oct. 2013.
United Nations

Even though the United Nations allows countries to maintain peace and security and also cooperate in international relations, in some cases the UN does not successfully resolve conflicts for the benefit of those countries within the organization and within the world. For instance, the security council in the UN has a, "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security" (UN Involvement). However, in the current Israel-Palestine conflict, the council has not taken affirmative action in order to solve the territorial issue between Syria and Egypt that has been on going in 1967. Because of the United States primary role within the UN, the United States General Assembly has been taking charge in order to call upon these countries to resolve this issue before it could possibly end up in beginning a war. Even though the United States has an important role within the UN's international issues, the United States should not involve its self within more international conflict, but instead focus a little more its issues domestically. UN Involvement. Global Policy Forum. January 2, 2011. Web. 10/17/2013
United Nations

At the end of World War II (1945), the United States played a major role in establishing the United Nations and promoting peace in war-torn nations. Within one year, fifty governments had signed the UN Charter with hope that its effective role in encouraging nations to work as one would improve various economical standpoints. "President Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw the UN as a way to channel support in stimulating international orders where investors and manufacturers in the U.S would be able to help our economy flourish post WWII." Roosevelt stated that the United Nations could be used as a vehicle with the Soviet Union towards a less confrontational international order. In doing so, the United States would be able to maintain and augment alliances between triumphant powers in WWII. The UN allowed a higher configuration of the League of Nations that had fostered an inadequate reputation. Under this advanced system, countries could advocate practices of international relations that had surfaced preceding the 1940's, but in a more agreeable fashion. Although a more conservative approach would argue that the United States should be the global force in promoting prosperity or advocating tolerance through peace; supporting the UN helped improve domestic economic situations and embellish international relations in a propitious manner after WWII. Berger T. Mark, Ed. Stanley I. Kutler. Vol. 8.3rd ed. New York: Charles Scribner"s Sons, 2003.p268-272. COPYRIGHT 2003 Charles Scribner"s Sons, COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale, Cengage Learning.
Pascal's Wager is not a convincing reason to believe in the Judeo-Christian God.

Con has lost this round in a spectacular fashion. There are several reasons, prima facie, that this is the case. 1) He has not offered a single argument (read: NOT ONE) as to why Pascal's Wager is convincing. In fact, he claims that something else does the convincing, which is quite amusing and self-defeating. 2) He has simply ignored my arguments 2, 4, and 5, all of which must flow through out of necessity, especially since Con can present no new arguments in his Round 4. This means I win. 3) I get the strong feeling that Con just does not understand either Pascal's Wager, or my arguments. He repeatedly just says things that have no real weight in the round, and ignores the substance of my arguments. Rebuttals:" Pascal's Wager is focused on the event that you should believe in God vs. disbelief, not whether he exists."Several responses:1) This sentence does not even make the slightest bit of grammatical or syntactical sense. 2) Pascal's Wager is supposed to convince me that I should believe that God exists. Con must show that it is, in fact, convincing. 3) What I demonstrated by showing that God probably does not exist. This means that one half of Pascal's Wager is probabilistically untenable, meaning that Pascal's Wager is not convincing because one of the two alternatives is ludicrous. If I said, "You should believe in unicorns because, if you don't, you will be mauled by their horn, and if you do, you will ride in ethereal happiness on one forever," you would find the option of belief ridiculous, making my logic irrelevant and unconvincing. This is the case with Pascal's Wager, as I have demonstrated, and Con cannot now refute. "Pascal's Wager focuses on faith in God, not his characteristics."What I have shown is that, based on what the Bible tells us about God, disbelief in him will not, in and of itself, condemn you to Hell. This means that Pascal's Wager is faulty, and, therefore, not convincing. This really is not that hard. "That's why you can't make a valid decision, God must choose you."I'll take that as a concession, as Con literally tells us that Pascal's Wager is not convincing, but, rather, that supposed personal intervention from God is convincing. ConclusionI have demonstrated that Pascal's Wager is not convincing through five different arguments, none of which were rebutted effectively (if at all) by Con. In addition, Con has presented literally no arguments supporting the Wager. By default, and by the strength of my arguments, this must be a Pro ballot. I would like to remind Con that no new arguments may be presented in the last round, and that the only new material can be rebuttals to material in this speech. This means that Con cannot rebut any of my five constructive points, as they came from my first speech, nor can he make any new constructive arguments.