BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Plasma TV is better than LED

First of all allow me to restate my quote "The latest LED backlight technology allows the television to individually control backlight segments. This technology allows for contrast ratios similar to those produced by plasma television panels" my opponent states that this does not compare the two however it does by saying "This technology allows for contrast ratios similar to those produced by plasma television panels". my opponent is saying how this is not an argument on his infinite black technology, however it is because he is talking about blacker black makes all the other collars more visible, this is contrast he is talking about. the definition of contrast is: the ratio of the lightest to the darkest part of the television screen image. (definition from dicitonary. com) there for his only offensive argument for the plasma screen falls because in my quote said contrast ratios are the similar for both televisions. my opponent seems to think that I said his statements were a defense maneuver, I was not I said they were defensive arguments and to win a debate you need offensive arguments. let me tell you what I mean defensive argument: argument disproving a offensive point showing that your side is the same as the other side offensive argument: a argument proving that your side is better than the other side. these are needed to win. my opponent acknowledges my first point of energy efficiency, said it is great, and no longer mentions anything about it so it still stands. my opponent doubts the facts I bring up about lifespan of the two TVs, my source (www. pcworld. idg. com. au) is reliable therefore my second point on lifespan stands. You should vote for me in this debate because on my opponents only offensive argument I proved color contrast is equivalent in both TV's out of my two offensive arguments one stands untouched and the other was attacked only on a doubt of evidence witched I showed, was reliable. therefore, because I am the only one to prove a way that my side is better than the other side and not equal to it you should vote for me.
Plasma TV is better than LED

My opponent makes a great point about the fact the the LED has less energy use, but that is all I might add. My opponent seems to think that my statements were used as a defensive maneuver for the case of the Plasma TV, but let me say this as clearly as possible. The Plasma TV has far great colors than that of the LED BECAUSE of the amazing blacks that the TV can produce. And in accordance to your statement about the LED being able to activate individual segments of the back-lit LED screen; this is a plus for the LED TV alone, this does no good when comparing the two TVs to show which is better based off of features that both TVs have. I have stated all things that both TVs come equipped with, but that the Plasma TVs have the better equipment of the two. So in the case of the Plasma with the infinite black, that just means both TVs can produce great blacks, yet that of the Plasma's are better, more true blacks, therefore all the colors themselves will show up to be vivid, and true to life. And to your statement about the Plasma TV having only 60,000 hours compared to the LED having 100,000 hours; this is a false statement, because all the TVs whether it be Plasma or LED both have an estimated 100,000 hour lifespan. This is a fact tested by Panasonic and Samsung Plasma TV makers. And Samsung who makes both excellent Plasmas and LEDs have given the TVs EQUAL lifespans of 100,000 hours. As well as Panasonic who so happens to make the TOP Plasma on the market.
Plasma TV is better than LED

I apologize I am running short on time, so my argument will be brief first of all allow me to state that my opponents entire case was a defense of the plasma, showing how the problems with plasma are fixed and how they can be just as good as led TV's. in order two win he needs to post offensive argument because we are arguing weather plasma TVs are better not as good as Plasma screens. he had no offensive points other that the plasma screens have infinite black technology but PC world said "The latest LED backlight technology allows the television to individually control backlight segments. This technology allows for contrast ratios similar to those produced by plasma television panels" I understand this is a definitive argument but it proves the amount of black in the TV is similar. I offer only two points 1 the LED screens consume less power. PC world says "Energy-efficient backlighting allows LED televisions to have energy consumption of up to 40 percent less than LCD televisions and significantly less than a plasma screen." the article previously says "In a year of use this means the power bill for running a plasma will be 50 per cent higher than an equivalent LCD panel." using deductive reasoning the two quotes show that when you have a LED screen compared to a plasma screen you will be saving a extreme amount of electricity. 2. LED screens have a longer lifespan the backight bulb in a LED screen lasts around 100,000 hours as opposed two the plasma's 60,000 that is almost twice the amount of lifespan a plasma. also, plasma's break easily. by simply tipping a plasma TV on its side, it brakes, LED will not break over something so small.
Plasma TV is better than LED

First I would like to start by commenting on what you said about the resolution. You are correct about the screen resolution of a plasma screen TV. It has a standard of 600Hz verses the standard 120Hz of an LED screen. Secondly I would like to say that the Plasma screen, like many people say, has a bad reflection when watching it in a bright room. This was the case for the original model Plasma TVs. If one were to buy any recent/new model Plasma, say one from Panasonic or Samsung, these TVs come standard with the reduced screen glare panels that virtually eliminate the glare problem, which I might add is the most common complaint. Third we will talk about the "burn in" issue that many people like to bring up when trying to promote an LED TV over a Plasma. Again this was an enormous problem with the original Plasma TVs just as the glare factor was a problem. The newer Plasma TVs made by Panasonic for example, which I might add, makes the BEST Plasma on the market, are being made to control the heat issues, so this burn in issue is virtually impossible to occur. The older model Plasma TVs got extremely hot, very quickly, which was attributed to the burn in effect. Once the manufactures got the heat problem under control, the other issue followed suit. The only way to really get the burn in effect with a modern Plasma TV would to leave the same image on screen for around 48 hours. Now I dont know about you, but I for one would never leave my TV on, and paused on image for that matter, for that amount of time. And even if it does get a burned in image, the Plasma TVs come now with what is called a whitewash technology, and this gets rid of the burned image on the TV. Fourth and finally comes the colors of the TV. This is the most important factor of the two TVs. One would argue for the LED because of the bright and vivid colors that it can produce, and beautiful images seen on screen. But I will like to say that with the new Plasma TVs they also come with the new Infinite Black Technology, which gives the viewer the darkest blacks possible on a TV today. What this means is that if you can produce the most dynamic blacks in TV, then the rest of the colors of the spectrum will follow suit as well. If you look at the color spectrum, white and black make up all the other colors on earth. So if one can produce the most accurate blacks, and whites, then one gets the most accurate colors on earth. Therefore the new Plasma TVs have more real to life, and true colors than an LED TV can ever produce. But if one would like to see the too bright of colors that the LED TV produces, the Plasma TV also comes with a vivid color setting which will give one the big, bright color effects of an LED, but with the clarity, and the most true to life colors of the Plasma combined. So as one can see, the very few problems that the Plasma TV faces, come nowhere near the pluses that the TV come with. So as you can see, the Plasma TVs problems of the past are just that, problems of the past.
Plasma TV is better than LED

Thank you for posting this debate, I am horned to be a part of your first debate. I hope to have fun as well. I messed up with my last case, so I will redo it. for my qualifications: I have looked into both types of TVs for buying one. I had never bought a nice TV before so I was naive to purchase a Plasma screen. I realized after I purchased this TV that I wish I would not have purchased a plasma screen. the reason I purchased a plasma screen TV was because it cost less, because in the resolution "better" is defined as something of superior quality or excellence (dictionary.com) cost should not be used as a offensive argument in this debate because cost can not improve the quality of a object.
Plasma TV is better than LED

Hey mcgrif15, I did the setting wrong sorry, but lets try this debate again. You can just copy and past your argument again. I will be taking the position on the side of the overall quality of the Plasma TV versus that of the LED TV. I would like to just keep this a fun, not too serious debate, and I would also like my opponent to be well educated on the pros and cons of both televisions, and have somewhat of a background on the two types of televisions themselves. First round will be used to show ones qualifications and any other information that might be relevant to the debate. I worked at the electronic store, Circuit City for two years selling televisions before the company was closed down. I was then moved over to Best Buy where I have since been for about two years as well. All the while I have been selling televisions, and I know for the most part all the pros and cons for both types of TVs, and have seen many changes for both.
Eating animal products.

You are welcome.My ArgumentActually, studies have proved that a life with animal products is a healthier life. For example, milk gives you more calcium then anything that's vegetarian. Humans have lived longer with products such as what you stated. Most animals are put to peace before they are butchered, and not tortured.I understand your point, but I'd like to point out the food chain. Humans were made to eat animals, animals were meant to eat other animals, other animals to bugs, and so on. Some people have become arrogant and over-hunting animals, but most federal government is trying to put a stop to it. As I stated above, most local farms don't torture their animals before they butcher them, that is why my family only buys local agriculture and meat. Although I have heard of companies who torture their animals before they butcher them, which is animal cruelty, which brings us to another topic.
Eating animal products.

I apologize for not being more concise on what we were arguing over. We will be arguing over the morality of eating animal products.Thank you, Pro, for accepting my challenge.My ArguementAnimal products, including milk, eggs, cheese, meat, and seafood, are not necessary to sustain a healthy body. Therefore, a living creature that has feelings and can feel pain and can suffer must endure a life of torture then be slaughtered for the sake of taste, not health.Humans have become arrogant because we are more advanced than any other species on planet Earth. This causes humans to believe other creatures, through evolutionary processes (if atheist) or Creation (if Christain), have been placed here so humans may use them as they please.So, I ask you, should an animal endure pain and die so that humans may take part in enjoying them only for pleasure, not survival?
Eating animal products.

Although this arguement is not over the health benefits (or lack thereof) of adopting a vegan diet, I would like to address that that it is much more healthy to eat on a plant-based diet. It has been proven many times that you are much more likely to have cancer, diabetes, high cholestrol, and heart disease when eating animal products. The food chain is not how you state it is. If humans can easily survive without the use of animal products, unlike other carnivores that could not live without them, then obviously it is not part of our natural food chain. Statistically, the majority of farms in the U. S. are industrial farms. And the phrase "Family Farm" has tricked people into believing that the animals are killed humanly when this is almost never true. Most are still packed together and never see the sun. Plus, an animal still must die in order for you to enjoy the taste of your meal. Not only are animals not dying when you adopt a plant-based diet, but it is also enviromentally friendly. Factory farms are one of the leading polluters.
A just society should ensure all workers receive a minimum living wage.

Unfortunately, due to incumbent, pressing real life work, I’m going to have to drop out of the Adopt-A-Noob tournament. Although I have time to finish this round, I’m not going to have much with A Levels now, to finish the rest of the debate. I thought I’d have enough time when I signed up, or that it might end right as school started. I’d have really liked to finish this, but alas! School takes preference. I’d love to debate this with you again lannan and I’m sorry for any inconvenience caused. Good luck to you for the rest of the tourney! You'll do great!
A just society should ensure all workers receive a minimum living wage.

PrefaceThis debate is for the Adopt-A-Noob Tournament [http://www.debate.org...]. I wish my opponent, lannan13, congratulations on winning his debate, the best of luck, lots of fun, and that we both learn from this debate!TopicA just society should ensure all workers receive a minimum living wage. (Esocial - Pro; Lannan - Con). RulesBurden of Proof is shared.Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debateWikipedia will not be accepted as a valid source.No new arguments in the final round.Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss. StructureR1: Con starts off with his definitions and constructives.R2: Pro's Constructives and Con begins rebuttals.R3: Pro's rebuttals and Con's final statements.R4: Pro's final statements and Con posts, 'No round as agreed upon.' Definitions Just- acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good [1] Society- people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values, or the people of a particular country, area, time, etc., thought of especially as an organized community [2] All- the whole, entire, total amount, quantity, or extent of [3] Worker- a person who does a particular job to earn money [4]Wage and salary workers- These are workers age 16 and older who receive wages, salaries, commissions, tips, payments in kind, or piece rates on their sole or principal job. This group includes employees in both the private and public sectors. All self-employed workers are excluded whether or not their businesses are incorporated. [5] Minimum wage- the lowest wage paid or permitted to be paid; specifically : a wage fixed by legal authority or by contract as the least that may be paid either to employed persons generally or to a particular category of employed persons. [6] Sources [1]- http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]- http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]- http://www.merriam-webster.com... [4]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5]- http://www.bls.gov... [6]- http://www.merriam-webster.com... Thanks and good luck again to lannan13 for what I am sure will be a great debate!
Teens should not have curfew laws

1. Sure studies show that curfew does not prevent crime, much less reduce it and make the community safer, yet if curfew was to be ridden of, there would be in increase in crime due to my previous evidence. There would be more teens, more people, and in essence, more victims. If curfews don't reduce or prevent crime, how will abolishing them increase crime? 2. Your analogy is flawed, in one essence you are forcing the parent to discipline their children for personal reasons, in the comfort of one's home, with the inability to really put a reason to what talking back and being disrespectful really is. The curfew law is vast different from your analogy. In this instance, we are not allowing the child or teen outside past midnight in most cases, you are not forcing the parent to do anything to the child. Many curfew laws contain a provision that says a parent can be fined if their child is breaking the curfew, if the parent "knowingly,or through insufficient control, permitted the minor to violate the curfew". "Insufficient control" basically forces a parent to adopt certain parenting styles, violating their right to privacy in parenting. If a parent is OK with their teenager outside at midnight, by themselves, then there is no reason for the government to interfere with their right of allowing their teenager outside at midnight. 3. The reasoning behind this is because there are no real reasons a teenager or child should be outside after midnight, especially on school nights. There is no real reason why I should eat 1 bag of potato chips each day and only drink coca cola. That doesn't mean it should be illegal. Now give me a reason why I should just devour 2 bags of chips a day. Give me a reason why I should not prep for the SAT. There are no reasons, it doesn't mean those things should be illegal
Teens should not have curfew laws

1. Sure studies show that curfew does not prevent crime, much less reduce it and make the community safer, yet if curfew was to be ridden of, there would be in increase in crime due to my previous evidence. There would be more teens, more people, and in essence, more victims. 2. Your analogy is flawed, in one essence you are forcing the parent to discipline their children for personal reasons, in the comfort of one's home, with the inability to really put a reason to what talking back and being disrespectful really is. The curfew law is vast different from your analogy. In this instance, we are not allowing the child or teen outside past midnight in most cases, you are not forcing the parent to do anything to the child. Curfew laws vary from city to city, there is no federal mandate. The reasoning behind this is because there are no real reasons a teenager or child should be outside after midnight, especially on school nights. Give me a reason as to why they would need to be out besides no reason. There are curfew laws because there is no reason for having children out late.
Teens should not have curfew laws

1. I will object to this, where is your proof? Sure Chicago has a curfew law for under 17 and crime rates are still high but if you let go of curfew, more kids will be out on the streets, more people to do mischievous activities, more people to harm.Most mischievous activities happen during the day. And again, studies show curfews do not reduce or prevent crime or victimization, or make the community safer.2. Not necessarily. Many parents would not like their children roaming way after dark outside, and where does having your kid outside past curfew fit in the upbringing of a child? They may stay up all they want as long as it is in the security of their own property. Many parents would also like to discipline their child for talking back and being disrespectful, should we require parents to discipline their children for those things because many parents would already do that and not doing that is not "upbringing" a child. A parent is allowing their teen to go across the street and buy something to eat, and are allowing their teen to go by themselves, the government should not interfere. If a parent is allowing their teen to take midnight walks by themselves, the government should not interfere.
Teens should not have curfew laws

I am for curfew laws. And I will state several reasons as a rebuttal to your reason: "Curfews do not reduce or prevent crime, or make the community safer." I will object to this, where is your proof? Sure Chicago has a curfew law for under 17 and crime rates are still high but if you let go of curfew, more kids will be out on the streets, more people to do mischievous activities, more people to harm. "Curfew also violates the rights of parents who dictate the upbringing of their child how they see fit." Not necessarily. Many parents would not like their children roaming way after dark outside, and where does having your kid outside past curfew fit in the upbringing of a child? They may stay up all they want as long as it is in the security of their own property. And lastly I have some thoughts of my own. What good does having children out past midnight on the streets? You may say that there is not but that does not mean you may limit them, I say you may. They are not yet adults. When you see kids out late at night it is usually associated with mischievous activity. Why? Because what else would children and teens do outside, especially in the crime ridden streets of Chicago.
Teens should not have curfew laws

Studies show curfews do not reduce or prevent crime, or make the community safer. Curfews also violate the rights of parents do dictate the upbringing of their child how they see fit. Chicago has a curfew for under 17 and still has a problem with shootings. Given these facts, So why do people continue to support curfews? In addition, teens are traumatized by the arrests, for normal human behavior that harms no one.
Abortion

Around 56 millions abortions are performed each year with 45% of it were done unsafely. What we regret the most is this 45% people, I believe the datas that you already provide more likely happen to this person. We cannot say that after we want to legalize abortion there'll be no consequences, Even in worst scene there'll be another death body that come from suicide, The pain that cannot stand by the mom and so on. Both the woman and man will get the burden physically and morally. They have decide to undergo abortion means they ready to lost something, To get the consequences. That's the consequences of the free sex they did (that most of case of abortion are performed because free sex). At the end of the day, We may say we shouldn't punish the baby, But at end the actors will get the punishment or pressure they might get. It's about who can or cannot stand it. Maybe the person that have do abortion several times like prostitute worker maybe get used to the burden she get. And for a normal civillians, Like I say, It's the consequences, That's why in my first argument I think it better to consider law, Religion, And culture. So, At the end of the day there'll be no regret to undergo abortion or not undergo abortion. In my last argument, I want to say, Abortion is a hardest action to do by a human being. You might determined as a murderer the same as the murderer that being jailed in the prison. A strong law about abortion have to be learned by the authority. What's wrong in our society is the do something without thinking about it properly, The young age are free to do everything and get less attention from their parents. We have to prevent free sex (which is contribute so much in abortion cases) or abortion is the last choice you may take to be keep being looked normal in society, To be not kicked in school, To be not become a thing that your family have to be shame about. Sorry for the language errors, I'm not from English country plus this is my debut in debate haha.