BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Android Is Better Than iOS.

While Android is very clearly the more modifiable os, and is typically easier to be modified to begin with, the majority of users won't be modifying the software to begin with. If this feature is a reason for android to be considered better than iOS, you have to consider the opposite end of the spectrum. iOS software is much less prone to the malware in part because of it being less open. Rather than being able to download and use an apk file, all apps must be downloaded from the highly supervised app store. This is, of course, without the device being jail-broken. With this said, Android's pro of being modifiable can be a major con for casual users. Its greater number of options such as downloading software outside of google play lends it to being attacked by a greater number of virus's. Anyone who has no desire to further configure their phone would have no reason to put it in greater risk.
Death shouldn't be taken as hard as it is in our society.

I agree that it is unhealthy to worry about such things, but like death, worrying is a party of life. It is not a waste of time though. Most people don't dwell on the topic until someone else dies or they have a life changing experience. Assisted suicide still isn't right. Doctors are supposed to help people, not kill them. Being born with a defect is hard. But does that mean you have to die? IS THAT YOUR ONLY OPTION? There are many experimental treatments out there that the doctor has surly mentioned. Now if the person is on constant life support and the FAMILY decides to pull the plug to end their suffering, I can see that as okay. But if the family is not involved in the decision, it's not alright. Would you want a family member to pull the plug on himself without notifying the family? How would you deal with that? By letting the family decide when to pull the plug, it gives them time to realize that their family member is better off. It gives them time to grieve. You keep saying that dwelling on things isn't good for you. So, dwelling on which college to go to, or dwelling on what medications to take, or dwelling on deciding a prom dress isn't good for you either? For close family, it takes longer for people to realize that the relative is better off. They thought that they were best here on earth, with family and friends. They had a close relationship with them, and it's hard to see them leave. Eventually, yes the deceased would want you to move on, but don't you think they'd also want you to grieve them a little? To miss them some? If not, does that mean that they had nothing in life? That their relationship was meaningless?
Death shouldn't be taken as hard as it is in our society.

Of course many people don't wanna die, i'm not asking them too. But I feel it's unhealthy to worry about such a thing. It's just a waste of time and it should be something you deal with when you actually die. People shouldn't dwell on something that's inevitable. Alright and for assisted suicide... When I was talking about it I didn't mean people that had a chance to recover, I meant people that were in pain and were gonna die anyways. Or maybe they were born defective and all they feel or ever will feel is pain and confusion. I don't think people should have to go through the closest thing to hell on earth and I feel like the only kind thing to do at that point is let them go. And finally for close ones (and I mean like really close ones) I do understand why someone would be upset over it, I completely do. But once again its just not good for you. I feel like you need to accept that they're gone now and realize that what they would want for you is to move on and go about your life. I wouldn't want my family and friends to be upset if they found out I was dead so I will do the same for them.
Death shouldn't be taken as hard as it is in our society.

At first, I agreed with you. Yes, dying is a part of human life and it happens. The fact is, that it's still scary. People like living! That is why they worked so hard to stay alive to they old age they are. They had fun in their lives, they had love, they had pain, they traveled or stayed home. They had beautiful lives, and they don't want to die. Do you? Now for the assisted suicide matter. This is wrong. Yes, I agree life is hard and it involves pain and suffering, but is suicide the answer? There are many ways to avoid this predicament, yet people ignore the options. Revelation 9:6 says this, "And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them." God understands that the life we have is going to involve suffering, and we will want to end it. Death in a way also understands this, it wants us to go with him when we are ready, not when we feel down and depressed. You say you've lost many family members; I would like to say that I am truly sorry for you're family's losses. I have also lost many of family members, some more important than the rest. I'm also an emotional person. When someone I love dies, I become a mess. Tears everywhere and makeup cascading down my face. I cry for a solid 3 days at the most, but then I'm done. Then I just become sullen. But that is how my whole family is. We are all deeply saddened by the death of a loved one. We mope around for a few weeks after the funeral and slowly get back to our lives. And this is just for a random family member. What if someone had lost a parent? Or a sibling? Or a child? I'd say that that is a pretty big loss and it'd be okay to mope around for more than a few weeks. Or months even. That person could have been the love of their life. Their first child. Their favorite sibling, that they actually got along with. Would you say that they should just be upset and then move on with their life? Your turn.
Death shouldn't be taken as hard as it is in our society.

I am of the belief that death is just simply a part of human existence. I don't understand why people take large amounts of time mourning the loss of a loved one or fearing about their own death especially when its them dying when they've lived a long life. I also don't understand why people get so worked up about assisted suicide, It ends the pain and suffering they may be going through. And lastly to the people who will say that "I don't know what its like" and stuff well I've had many many family members die and I've always felt that way. I was upset of course but I never let it loom over me. I dunno what do you think?
The Keystone XL Pipeline Project Should Be Approved

I have challenged CarefulNow to this debate because I know how adament he is about his opinion here. Full Resolution The Keystone XL Pipeline project should be approved for the US. DefinitionsKeystone XL Pipeline: "...the 1,897-km (1,179-mile) Keystone XL Pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska."[1] Should: "Must; ought"[2] Approved: "To confirm or sanction formally; to ratify."[3] Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside this debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources [1]: http://www.transcanada.com... [2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
It's time to establish a karma police force to patrol public transport.

To start, I'd like to say that I don't disagree that these people who wont shut up are a problem, and that there needs to be something to deal with them. I also empathize with anyone who has to deal with a neo-fascist on the way to work. In 1984, Boy George informed us that, "Karma Chameleon...you come and go. Loving would be easy if your colors were like my dreams, red gold and green, red gold and green." http://www.youtube.com... This is obviously an analogy to the way the world's subway/tube/underground train based transit system users should act and/or be required to act. What I'm speaking of is a partition of the vehicle, by cars, or in the case of buses, by physical seat location, into three separate areas, red, gold, and green. (Although in terms of which train cars go first, it would be green, gold, and then red.) I believe that upstanding citizens of the world are inherently the karmic police, and that there is no need for specialized units to patrol our public transport to ensure compliance to social norms. This is the basis of my partitioning system. Everyone starts out in the gold section, which would be the section that has more train cars, or more bus seats. Basically it would be a system of demerits, meaning that if no one says anything about you, then you're doing great. If you ride five times within a certain period of time, say a month, (really any number can be used, I'll leave it to various nations to pick what would be best for them) without any complaints from fellow passengers of you not respecting rider ettiqute, then you are permitted to sit in the green area, where other folks who love reading the Daily Telegraph/ New York Times on their way to work without so much as a word spoken to other commuters. For those who are cited as regularly violating the unwritten rules of public transportation, to the red section you go, where other people who are glued to their cell phones can jabber away while hundreds of babies cry simultaneously. If you start acting up in the green zone, you go back to the gold zone. Its an amazing plan if I do say so myself, and while would need to be adjusted slightly for each countries' needs, would lead to a more harmonious commute for everyone. Loving [other people and your commute] would be easy, if your [seating] colors were like your dreams [of speaking to other people.] To refute my opponent, people are inherently jerks, so no one is going to pipe down when asked to, so pretty much everyone who speaks at the wrong time will end up tazered on the tounge, which would most certainly hurt like a mother. This would lead obviously to some negative reactions on the part of those tazed, some of which may result in violence. If there are multiple tazings occurring in a train car in a relatively short amount of time, followed by violent responses, a riot could come about, which would certainly make everyone's day significantly less bright, and replace a minor annoyance with a melee, which would lead to severe injuries and potentially even death. For these reasons, one must reject my opponent's plan, and accept mine.
It's time to establish a karma police force to patrol public transport.

In 1997, Radiohead demanded: "Karma police, arrest this man, he talks in maths. He buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio." http://www.youtube.com... However, little did they know that their request would fall on deaf ears, as there were no karma police then and, indeed, over ten years later, there is still no such law enforcement agency. But we need one. On my way to work this morning, neo-fascist, self-opinionated Daily Mail columnist, Richard Littlejohn (1) got on the same tube as me and proceeded to verbally spew his right-wing vitriol right around the carriage, ostensibly "talking" to his female companion, but secretly trying to impress the other passengers with his vile and offensive rhetoric. If you have ever been on a tube during the morning rush hour, you will know that although the trains are packed to the rafters, there is almost no talking as everybody is trying to read their newspapers and most passengers respect other people's right to do so in peace and quiet. But every now and again, you get some ignorant, loud-mouthed gobshites on who think everybody around them would really, really love to listen to their inane, banal conversations. These are the same type of people you get on trams, buses and overland trains and who talk loudly on their mobile phones about Suzie's new boyfriend or what Katie's ballet instructor said about her pirouettes, or whatever. Who cares? Why don't they keep their private conversations private? Why don't they either keep their voices down or, better still, make the call elsewhere? The thing is, if you are sitting opposite a big fat ugly person you can always close your eyes, but if you're sitting opposite some noisy half-wit, you can't close your ears – you just have to sit there and listen to them drivel on. No, it's got to stop. It's time to introduce a karma police force on public transport to literally keep the peace. Like air marshals on ‘planes, they should be plain-clothed and pose as ordinary passengers. However, as soon as some ignorant wanker starts mouthing off they should identify themselves and tell the offending passenger to shut the hell up or else. (2) Clearly, there will be some properly gobby passengers who will answer back and say something like "don't tell me to shut up, Hitler" and carry on jabbering away. These offenders must be dealt with severely and summarily. Yes, the karma police should be tooled up with Tasers so that they can tame any uncooperative commuters' tongues with a few thousand volts and I hereby commend this reasonable and measured proposal to the House. Thank you. (1)http://www.richardlittlejohn.com... (2)Acknoledgment to theLwerd for inspiring this line!
It's time to establish a karma police force to patrol public transport.

Obviously the way in which people would identify those who do not follow the unwritten laws of public transport would be discrete, otherwise all hell would break loose on a regular basis. You describe how Jean-Claude van Damme and Mike Tyson both on the same train being A-holes could be solved with a taser. I think this actually proves my point that a taser would be a terrible idea, because as soon as the initial sting wears off, you're going to have a dead karma-policeman on your hands/ major riot. We don't need this happening in our subways and buses. 30,000, 50,000; it doesn't really matter, either way it hurts a whole heckuva lot. Putting muzzles on people also won't solve the problem, it'll simply make people angrier and more likely to retaliate upon a karma police officer with extreme force. As I said before, taser guns will only add to the problem, not reduce it. The vast majority of people in the world prefer peace, and so a red, gold, and green based transit system would be best off. For the sake of a civilised and riot-free journey to work, I urge a Con vote. Gracias.
It's time to establish a karma police force to patrol public transport.

Yes, I see the merit in using an ID card to identify an offender, but they are hardly likely to volunteer that to a fellow passenger who wanted it in order to get them in trouble with the transport authorities. A karma policeman would have to be summoned to remove it from them, if necessary, by force. But what if the shouty passengers concerned happened to be Jean-Claude van Damme and Mike Tyson boasting about how hard they are? If they refused to hand over their IDs, the karma policeman would need to be one tough cookie to take them both on at the same time without a Taser. Perhaps my opponent is right, though, when he says 50,000 volts is excessive. Perhaps the devices should be governed to a maximum of 30,000 volts but a Taser is the device of choice in a modern world. In the olden days, law enforcement officers used a brank, which was sometimes known as a "scold's bridle", to suppress the over exuberant gabblers. This was an iron muzzle that fitted over the mouth to prevent people from talking. In his book Three Men in a Boat, published in the 1880's, Jerome K. Jerome referred to them thus: "There is an iron "scold's bridle" in Walton Church. They used these things in ancient days for curbing women's tongues. They have given up the attempt now. I suppose iron was getting scarce, and nothing else would be strong enough." Perhaps similar devices could now be made out of a modern material such as carbon fibre or Kevlar, which persistent offenders could be made to wear on trains? However, due to the violent nature of today's society, the law will still need to be enforced with the occasional use of Taser guns. So, for the sake of a civilised and stress-free journey to work I urge you to vote Pro. Thank you.
It's time to establish a karma police force to patrol public transport.

While certainly no plan is perfect, I still hold to my belief that violence can be averted to ensure public transport tranquility. My good opponent reminds us that passengers would need to be identified in order for the plan to work, and that is true, maybe a credit card or ID card could be required. One would notice that I believe that each nation that wishes for this plan to be implemented can make minor adjustments in certain areas, such as how commuters will be properly identified. To my opponent's next point, which is that if one were to intrude upon a zone of which they have not received clearance, trouble would ensue, can be avoided again with an ID system that would make it a gross violation of commuting regulations to be in a restricted zone. (Jumping over barriers, breaking ID systems) I honestly believe that there is a significantly smaller amount of people that are not only annoying, but are aware of their annoyance to others, and not only that, but use their annoyance as a weapon to the point of breaking other laws. The average person who'd be zapped under my opponent's plan wouldn't need anywhere as much malice to learn what 50,000 volts on the tounge is like. This does lead me to my point about my opponent's plan, which I believe still should stand. That is, that people will be unhappy with being zapped in the tounge, and if enough of them are in one carriage, there will be trouble. The cost of this trouble far outweighs the cost of annoying commute. Because my plan has much less possibility of failure, and my opponent's plan resorts to violence and has a good chance of leading to a major disruption (small scale riot), one must support mine. Thank you.
Social networking sites are good for our society!

I will just post something to get a win since he forfeited so yeah due to forfeit I at least win 100% on conduct My argument will be simple I am not gonna waste 115-30 minutes researching and preparing a difficult speech if I have no opponent this will be just a regular speech because that is all I need to win. cont 1: threats from social networking sites A survey on mic.com shows that at least 50% of rapes happen from info posted on social media about where they live. Yes it can be avoided if they hide this info but many teenagers are not considering this, or kind of like your house catching on fire, don't believe it will happen to them. cont 2: Some teenagers make social media their life On fox news they interview some people who stay on as long as 16 hours a day because they feel like social media is their life. Their are even some who get the 2 worlds mixed up and have to go get therapy. Ok that's all I am posting if opponent returns I will add more stuff but its not worth wasting time if no opponent just a argument at all is what I need to win so that's all ima do a simple argument.
Should child labour continue

children are at work in China and India and their economies have soared in the last few decades, coming to match most Western powers. Obviously the countries would rather have workers and besides, they can go to school in the morning or evening, before or after work. another point, they can help earn money to support their families. these places where thay get paid below minimum wage the food probaly wont be expensive so that people can afford to feed large familes on two or three incomes.
Should child labour continue

Child labor should continue because 1) The money they make can help sustain their family. $1 a day is alot in most of the world and can pay for rice or beans to feed a family. 2) They are rarley killed. plus are adults not also killed while working? and finally 3) Many thousands if not millions of children are starving in Africa and Asia because their parents are either dead or disabled and work anyway. How else will their 5 brothers and sisters get enough food and ecspcially water to survive?
Poem contest

I guess I will post my poem in the hope that my opponent posts his soon. Carousel: Carousel, Carousel We go round and round Round and round Round and round again In our endless macabre dance Your brightly painted horses smile at me Distorted and sinister they mock me I ride them to the edge and back round again Oh won't you tell them to halt? You've made me so dizzy and sick Shall I ride til my death? Or will the ride itself cause it When I crumple in exhaustion And can no longer mount the horse again Do your malicious dance, Carousel I will dance til I die
Napoleon Bonaparte would defeat George Washington in a war.

Thank you for accepting.Contentions 1. TacticsMost historians agree that Napoleon was an expert at tactics. This is undeniable. For example, at the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon used his many tactics to win the battle. When he faked a retreat and his enemy chased him, he cleverly used his cavalry to charge. He then surrounded his enemy and won.2. Battles.Lets look at some of the most important battles Napoleon Bonaparte and George Washington fought.Napoleon BonaparteAusterlitz - Victory and also was outnumberedJena - VictoryWaterloo - Defeat, but would have won if his officers cooperatedLogan - Victory and outnumberedPyramids - Victory and was outnumberedWag ram - VictoryGeorge WashingtonFort Washington - DefeatBrandying - Outnumbered the British, made poor decisions and lostGermantown - Outnumbered the British but lostMonmouth - DrawYorktown - Victory, but only because the French cameAs you see, Napoleon is a much better general than George Washington.3. TroopsNapoleon's men were highly trained, compared to George Washington's inexperienced men.4. NavyNapoleon had a large navy. All Washington had were a few frigates and many privateers. ConclusionAs you see, Napoleon Bonaparte would clearly win if he and Washington fought a war. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...; 2. http://www.onepowerfulword.com...;3. http://www.historyofwar.org... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org...; 5. http://sc94.ameslab.gov... 6. http://www.whitehouse.gov... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org...;8. http://en.wikipedia.org... 9. http://www.pbs.org...;
CCTV Cameras Should Be Operating In All Public Locations

I do not believe people should be entitled to privacy in public locations. A camera is essentially a silent police officer: would you walk up to a police officer and ask him to stop watching you walking down the street? It would be very suspicious to make that request. Freedom: "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants" [1] Being watched does not harm your freedom. You can still act how you want to act. The only place where cameras will not be is in private property, but the beauty of having cameras everywhere else is that you can see who is going in and out of a house. If someone was murdered inside a house, you can watch who leaves the house and then follow their movements to find out where they go. Most crimes will be solved by observing their travels. If the power goes out, we are back where we started: no CCTV. This isn't a problem because it is no different from the situation we have right now. [1] - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...