BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Linux meets the needs of the average, adult computer user

My opponent is yet again taking this debate in a new direction. This is what we call 'misdirection'. The first one was by turning the debate into a philosophical one. It became philosophical when my opponent suggested that "immortality" is a human need, when we all know that immortality is impossible in the real sense of the word. My original argument, which is so clearly about computers and what people do with them (as evidenced by the statistics shown) combined with the fact that this debate is posted in the "technology" section was completely ignored while my opponent tried a different angle. I then suggested that perhaps what my opponent meant was a metaphysical definition of "immortality". Once again completely ignoring what I have laid out for him, he contends that: "This assumption is the fallacy of equivocation. I made it quite clear that immortality here was something that would change whether you live or die." So, in my eyes, we have yet a new direction: immortality in the real sense of the word. For debate purposes, I will ignore yet again how far we have deviated from the original debate plan as I have laid out in the first post and refute his points yet again. But first, I must correct my opponent on a definition. "This contradicts itself, since extinction would mean the immortality was not actual." Dictionary.com defines extinction as: "1.the act of extinguishing. 2.the fact or condition of being extinguished or extinct. 3.suppression; abolition; annihilation: the extinction of an army." If we think about human life in general and its corresponding evolution, we know that, in order to survive as a species we must create new life to thrive. To suddenly make everyone on the planet immortal would be in essence extinguishing the human race as we all know it save for the yet remaining immortal souls. So, immortality == extinction. Since I have already stated that immortality is as of yet impossible in the real sense of the word, I think we can agree that the closest that one can get to becoming immortal is by living longer. Studies have shown that happiness is equated to a longer life.(1) With this, I contend that Linux users are happier as evidenced by the article(2) (and its subsequent comments). If you browse through the comments you will find a vast majority switched to Linux from other OSs because of dissatisfaction and general unhappiness of their current OS. So one can easily conclude that Linux is making them happier than when working with other OSs. So, with this argument, I say that Linux users are happier thus live a longer life thus are the closest to becoming immortal as one can become. (1) http://health.usnews.com... (2)http://www.linuxjournal.com...
Linux meets the needs of the average, adult computer user

" For the sake of debate, I'll fore go my opponent's lack of supporting evidence on this one, completely disregarding the implications of actual immortality which can include some nasty side-effects such as a devolving of the human race to the point of extinction" This contradicts itself, since extinction would mean the immortality was not actual. And I already gave the evidence- if you will die without something, obviously, you need it. Just as if you will die without food, you need food. "I'll assume what he really means is immortality in the metaphysical sense." This assumption is the fallacy of equivocation. I made it quite clear that immortality here was something that would change whether you live or die. Your nonsense about "Creating a linux distro" does not affect whether you live or die, thus, is does not address my point. Further, I think the word you are looking for is "metaphorical." Metaphysics is the philosophical branch investigating general principles of reality, and by no general principle of reality can something die and yet be immortal.
Linux meets the needs of the average, adult computer user

My opponent makes a couple very outlandish claims. I'll go through them. "The average adult computer user needs immortality. " For the sake of debate, I'll fore go my opponent's lack of supporting evidence on this one, completely disregarding the implications of actual immortality which can include some nasty side-effects such as a devolving of the human race to the point of extinction and I'll assume what he really means is immortality in the metaphysical sense. In the metaphysical sense, then, when my opponent says. .. "Thus, there is a need of the average adult computer user that is not fulfilled by linux. " . .. I can whole-heartedly disagree and provide supporting evidence in my favor. It is quite easy to make your self immortal in Linux. I'll cite two examples: By creating your own Linux distribution(1) (or distro as we geeks call them) or by simply maintaining a solid and respected package for a well-known distro like Debian for instance. Either of these two routes will allow you to become "immortal" well after you're dead and buried. Whether your distro was really terrible and had relatively few users or became a huge success, your name would be recorded in the annals of Linux history and lore. As you can see my opponent is making wild claims, while citing no facts or examples to back up his claims and all while under the guise of "human needs for the average adult computer user". (1) . http://www.linuxformat.co.uk...
Linux meets the needs of the average, adult computer user

The average adult computer user needs immortality. Linux does not provide immortality. Without immortality, the average adult computer user will die (the greatest need is that which is needed to survive, all other needs are contingent on this). Thus, there is a need of the average adult computer user that is not fulfilled by linux. Thus, the statement "Linux meets the needs of the average, adult computer user," when given as an absolute, is false.
Linux meets the needs of the average, adult computer user

Firstly, I'd like to present some ground work: -This debate is solely on the subject of "Linux meets the needs of the average computer user." Therefore, the refute can only be contained within the scope of "Linux does NOT meet the needs of the average computer user." This is not a debate of the merits of different operating systems (ie, Windows vs. Linux, Mac vs. Linux, etc) or why someone should or should not switch. -For simplicity, I'd like to limit the discussion to an opening statement, 3 points and a small closing statement. *** Begin argument *** Linux, has for some time now, met the needs of the average computer user. I hope we can agree that a "computer user" can, in the simplest possible definition, be defined thusly: A person who uses a computer. For the "average" part we need to use some statistics(1), a sampling of which is shown below. Here are the top 3 reasons for using a computer for the average adult, broken down between both work and home: Home: Internet and Email - 89% Word Processing - 55.8% Games - 49.9% Work: Internet and Email - 75.4% Word Processing - 67.8% Spreadsheets - 64.4% With this information, we can conclude that the average computer user, utilizes his or her computer to surf the web, email, type documents, game and manipulate spreadsheets. 1) Linux can handle all of these tasks with ease. An office suite, created by Sun Microsystems, OpenOffice, includes much of the same functionality of the most widely used office suite, Microsoft Office including word processing and spreadsheets. It even retains compatibility of document types of different office suites to include MS Office. 2) Internet and Email can be handled in a variety of ways. One can either use online email (using Firefox for example) or use a dedicated application installed on the machine for the task (Mozilla's Thunderbird for example). Many browsers exist for surfing to include Firefox and Internet Explorer (IE4Linux). 3) Gaming is possible with the vast availability of free, open-source games built for Linux or by using games made for Windows by utilizing Wine or by using virtualization technology to run Windows from within Linux. As you can see, Linux can handle the average computer user's needs (and more) with ease. Linux is readily available to the average computer user and will run on his or her machine, regardless of the architecture. I would like to note that many flavors of Linux exist that cater to the "average user", Ubuntu to name one, which is very easy to use and install. (1) http://www.census.gov...
Alcohol advertisement should be banned due to insufficient information

The insufficient belief been the information provided in the advertisement and the effect of these advertisement towards the society. i do agree that we can extend the debate to talk of how the advertisement boost alcohol consumption. I thank my opponent once again for accepting my debate. Case: In life one is always prompted to make the right decisions; however There is always a factor that guides or misguides ones decision, this factor been the media. In advertising alcohol, we are not only increasing the publics awareness of this substance, but we are creating a situation in which our young ones are led to think that Alcohol is a good thing. My first argument would focus mainly on public awareness. Public awareness can come from many different ways; however, a recent study by frontierlifeline states that "electronic media is a powerful means of information and communication to the public, regardless of whichever strata of society they belong to. Media communication is indeed a great leveler and undoubtedly the best means of educating the public" With this been said, We must look at the fact that advertising alcohol does increase its publicity as well as an increase in its usage. By banning the advertisement of alcohol, we are decreasing the Usage of alcohol in our youth as well. Secondly we must direct our attention to the means of advertisement and the information advertised. Alcohol producers advertise substances that seems appealing to the human senses without telling the viewers the risk associated with this substance. We are not banning alcohol usage as a whole, but banning the advertisement to limit the amount of people who are entices by these beverages. Our young ones would no longer crave the drink that when advertise seems to cure all problems. Our young ones are naive and easily influenced by the media. the fact that alcohol advertisement are available to these children makes it even more dangerous to continue this practice. Allowing the advertisement of alcohol not only increase there craving for the substance but leads to an early drinking age thus leading to drunk driving and drunken accidents. Many studies show that teens who are advertised to alcohol are more likely to drink. In conclusion, alcohol advertisement must be banned for the same reason as cigarettes as it entices the senses of both adults and young children thus leading to the lose of control and judgment. Thank you. . http://www2.potsdam.edu... . http://www.livescience.com... . http://mc2.vicnet.net.au... . http://www.consumeraffairs.com...
Alcohol advertisement should be banned due to insufficient information

I'm a little unclear if this is meant to be a 2 round format without an initial round, or not, so I'll keep this round brief and wait for weirdman's affirmative case. I will however want some specific related to the topic. What information is insufficient exactly? I assume that means the health effects of alcohol in which case I can't see how the information can possibly be seen as insufficient. Alcohol and its influence on health are frankly one of the most studied phenomena we know of. The national institute of health maintains an entire institute National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism with information on the effects of alcohol (. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov...) I can see how one can make the case the alcohol advertising boosts consumption and alcohol consumption is negative. I can not not see how one can make the case that we as a society have a particularly high level of ignorance about the effects of alcohol. So my only request would be to focus on where we lack information, in keeping with the topic statement, rather than a case which amounts to "alcohol is bad". I look forward to hearing the case.
There is no benevolent God.

If your God is of the Bible, then it would be so much easier for me to explain how He is malevolent. He personally killed and ordered the deaths of millions of people. First of all, the source provided has removed snippets from the bible and put them together in a way that sounds like a coherent quote as you can see from the “. .. ”, secondly, God did not kill people simply because it was fun and he desired too, the definition of malevolence. We see that all of those events occurred because they had to. My opponent has not refuted the point being that God is omniscient, and thus he knows what will happen, which is why he didn’t intervene or do what he did. Let’s look at my example from the last round: if I kill someone who is going to cause WW3, am I malevolent? My opponent has not answered this question. God killed these people because he had to as to benefit us in the future, not because he was malevolent, but because he was kind. Con first argues that God letting us be is an act of benevolence. Then he argues that we have received God’s help through Jesus and the Bible, which Con clearly thinks is an act of benevolence. You’ve cherry-picked two contradictory arguments. If God can intervene for ancient civilizations, why can’t He intervene now? First of all, ancient times are exactly that: ancient times. When we first began, God needed to tell us that we should find the path of righteousness and good. Everything in motion has a mover, God gave us the first nudge (as I have already stated), and the rest is up to us. He helped us in the beginning, now we need to help ourselves. You’re saying that letting a plane crash and kill people is benevolent. That is exactly what I’m saying. My opponent is caught up in the present and he is not looking to the future. God is. What if someone on that plane the very next day was planning on shooting people? What if the murdered person was going to create new bombs more powerful than the A-bomb? Furthermore, this point has already been refuted by Platinga’s argument, that argument being that we have free will. God will not stop evil as that will crush our free will, he will allow us to CHOOSE goodness. CONCLUSION It’s surprising how many points and arguments my opponent has COMPLETLEY dropped e. g. my question that if I killed someone who was going to kill many people in the future, am I malevolent? My opponent has not refuted anything I have brought forth and has instead reverted back to comments that I have already refuted and claims to have found “contradictions. ” I have brought forth Platinga’s argument, refuting moral evil which my opponent has not responded to. I have brought forth God’s plan, refuting natural evil, which my opponent has also not responded to. It is clear that the resolution is negated.
There is no benevolent God.

"But we have already received guidance from him through the preaching"s of prophets such as Jesus and the Bible." If your God is of the Bible, then it would be so much easier for me to explain how He is malevolent. He personally killed and ordered the deaths of millions of people. [http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com...] That's all I need. You can't explain this away by saying that God is above morality, and can kill as many people as he wants without being malevolent. Con contradicted himself. "God letting us fend for ourselves IS an act of benevolence as I have shown before." Con first argues that God letting us be is an act of benevolence. Then he argues that we have received God's help through Jesus and the Bible, which Con clearly thinks is an act of benevolence. You've cherry-picked two contradictory arguments. If God can intervene for ancient civilizations, why can't He intervene now? There's a reason people lose faith when terrible things happen - God has abandoned them. As a benevolent parent doesn't abandon his children, a benevolent God wouldn't abandon his creation. Ergo: God is not benevolent. God has absolutely no reason whatsoever to not make himself known in the world, and you have provided none. You're saying that letting a plane crash and kill people is benevolent. You're saying that allowing a mindless genocide to persist is benevolent. In fact, you're saying that allowing absolutely all evil in the world is somehow benevolent. Just because.. well, God. So far, I have shown how God could qualify as benevolent at the very least, and God simply doesn't. I feel the rest of my argument in the previous rounds still stands, and I believe this is my closer. Good luck, Con.
There is no benevolent God.

If God created us knowing full well what each and every one of us would become, how do we really have free will? The fact that God knows what will happen doesn’t disprove free will, we still choose what to do, God just knows what our choice will be. We are still making that choice, that choice isn’t “predetermined” for us, though knowledge of the choice is. the argument of free will does not negate the resolution. If God desired us to have free will, fine. But this does not explain why he allows evil to exist; if he were truly benevolent and all powerful, he would intervene against the evil acts of man. If God was to intervene in the evil acts of man, we wouldn’t have free will. Free will completely negates the resolution because it shows how God wants us to choose to be good by our own will and allow us to make our own moral decisions. If God was to intervene, then he would be putting us on the path of righteousness and not let us find it ourselves. God could fully well eliminate evil, but he chooses not to as to give us free will. He could descend from the heavens and explain to us all how to live in peace and prosperity together. Once again, what is better? Having man learn himself how to live in peace and prosperity? Or creating man and teaching him what exactly peace and prosperity is? Clearly option A is the better way of learning, which is why God doesn’t do this. It is for the benefit of mankind. This does not even touch upon the evil that cannot be traced to free will. Why does an all-powerful benevolent God allow disasters, deadly accidents, famine and disease to ravage his supposedly beloved creation? Because God is omniscient, and since none of us are, we will not know what will happen. God does though. Everything that does occur naturally is part of a larger plan. I’ll make it clear right now though that this “larger plan” does not refute free will as I am talking about natural disasters and events. For example, had WW2 never occurred, we might not have penicillin and far more people would’ve had died than how many died in WW2. This is a clear example of how we don’t know what the outcomes will be, but God does. He knows what will happen, and he allows them to happen as to give us free will, to test us, AND because he knows that in the end, something good will occur from a potential tragedy.
There is no benevolent God.

Whether God gives us free will is debateable. If God created us knowing full well what each and every one of us would become, how do we really have free will? Even if we could have free will with an all-powerful God, the argument of free will does not negate the resolution. If God desired us to have free will, fine. But this does not explain why he allows evil to exist; if he were truly benevolent and all powerful, he would intervene against the evil acts of man. He would make his will clearly understood by all. He would descend from the heavens and explain to us all how to live in peace and prosperity together. He does none of these things. This does not even touch upon the evil that cannot be traced to free will. Why does an all-powerful benevolent God allow natural disasters, deadly accidents, famine and disease to ravage his supposedly beloved creation? If he does not want to prevent such things, he is either malevolent or ambivalent, but certainly not benevolent. If he is unable to prevent such things, than he is clearly not all-powerful.
There is no benevolent God.

We will be assuming that God exists as stated in the resolution, so debating on whether or not he exists is off topic and wasteful. All I need show is how the PE (Problem of Evil) is insufficient refutation to the existence of a benevolent god as god is described as all powerful and morally perfect, thus PRO has the BOP and needs to show why he isn’t while I merely have the BOD. REFUTATIONS: Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. This is the logical fallacy. We see that there are many arguments against the PE, the most notable being Platinga’s Defence. Platinga’s defence essentially states that God does not eradicate evil because he desires to give us free will. If he was to create us all knowing and always doing what is “morally right,” then we would clearly not have free will, something God doesn’t desire. People choosing the right moral path on their own is infinitely more valuable than someone who is created on that path. God created people with the ability to choose evil or good and some people unfortunately chose evil. These people are exercising the freedom God gave them. [1] If God was to take this freedom away, we would lose free will. This clearly demonstrates how God can be all powerful, all knowing, and morally perfect while still giving us free will and allowing evil to occur. The resolution is negated, VOTE CON. SOURCES: . http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_free_will_defense
There is no benevolent God.

My resolution is simple enough: if God exists, He isn't benevolent. God will be defined as the all-powerful creator of the universe. The problem of evil will be central to my argument. Epicurious' Riddle: " Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " The argument is simple and compelling. Since evil exists and God is benevolent, He must not be all-powerful, and therefore is not God.
Black women in America don't try to look white. American white women try to look black.

Con has to prove that black women cosmetically do try to look white women. Con also has to prove that white women cosmetically DON'T try to look like black women. Cosmetically meaning physically. This isn't a debate on how anyone acts, only on how they look. Both Pro and Con are not implying that all black women or all white women act the same way. This should be an interesting and possibly humorous debate. Good luck to the Con.