BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Apple's computers/laptops are better than dell's computer/laptops.

I just want to start off saying Im looking forward to this debate. My First contention talks a little bit about viruses. The apple computer/laptops are better due to the fact that mac's can stand against viruses way better than dell. I have a dell and it is unusable after just a year because of all hose viruses. My second contention is that mac's simply look better. What I mean by that is that if you look at a dell compared to a mac you will notice the sleek and skinny characteristics of a mac. When you look at a dell you see a thick bulky computer.
Sex education in schools should be mandatory

It is a salient topic amongst the parents of many students like myself. In this debate, I shall be arguing that students should be required to have sex education whilst in school. Arguments1. How will children find out about it? I happen to have been misfortunate enough to not find out about how babies were made until I was in 6th grade, simply because my parents refused to teach me the concept. Because of this, I was simply kept in the dark. This put me at a disadvantage because I was the only one who had no idea what every individual was talking about. I am also aware that many people are in the same predicament. By not being taught about sex, how would one find out? Most of the time, they wouldn't. Instead, they would be without knowledge of the real world. I wish for my opponent to tell me why it would be good for a child to be without knowledge of the real world. 2. How would children understand the dangers? As I am sure my opponent is aware, sex has many dangers, including children, STDs, etc. What if a child was unaware of these dangers and decided to have sex, not knowing the consequences? There is a good change they would become a parent, obtain an STD, or both. To make a long story short, it would not end well. This scenario could have been avoided if the two individuals had been previously educated as to what dangers come with sexual activity. This is a good reason to make sex education mandatory, for children should be forced to be into awareness of this topic. Without this awareness, STDs will only spread faster and poverty of homeless mothers will only increase. I wish for my opponent to tell my why this is a good thing.3. There is no good reason to keep this from themWhat would be the reason to keep this information from children? I cannot find one. However, there are many reasons not to keep it from them. Here are some facts:1. More that 47% of students say they have had sex. 2. 15% have had sex with four or more partners3. 3 in 10 girls will be pregnant before they are 204. These teenage pregnancies have resulted in $9.4 billion annually for child careThough these people were aware of what sex is, they did not fully understand the consequences. The percentage would have been much lower if they had been more aware.3. Sex is not grossOne of the reasons parents keep this from their children is because they believe sex to be gross, inappropriate, and vulgar. This, however, is false and is simply a bad reason. First of all, sex is a very natural occurrence. Secondly, it is a bad reason to keep facts from people. Though they are young, children have the right to know what goes on in the world around them. I wish for my opponent to tell me why it is a good idea to keep facts from children. ConclusionI have given my arguments as to why sex education should be mandatory. It is now time for my opponent to give his arguments as to why it should not be mandatory. I wait patiently for his arguments. Works Cited"State Policies on Sex Education in Schools. " State Policies on Sex Education in Schools. N. p. , n. d. Web. 05 May 2014. .
Abortion is wrong

Okay I won't bring up any new argument topics, but I am definitely countering the stuff you just said. Of cause terminating a fetus is killing them and all I'm trying to point out that it is on legal grounds and isn't murder and the deaths of fetuses are justified. You're arguing that because illegal abortions take place, that all forms of abortion are wrong when this is specifically why we have legal methods in the first place. Years ago abortion had to be done through illegal methods only because laws in certain countries and even states like in the USA refuse access to legally abort. This brings the dilemma that yes what illegal abortions are doing is wrong but this is only due to the states not allowing abortion and if abortion was legal everywhere technically no one would have reason to get an illegal abortion. Not trying to make a counter argument against the statistics and I'm going to take these statistics into account but generally I don't think we can justify abortion being wrong for the sheer numbers as there are still tons of babies being born every minute and while there are a lot of deaths, I could turn to other parts of the world where babies are born and die on the same day due to poor conditioning in their country. And I also think about this number like this, if they are aborting that many fetuses what are unwanted, then clearly we would have a problem if they were allowed to live as most of them would be put into adoption centers which probably couldn't handle the excessive amount if it keeps on rising and rising each year. As to your third statement, I'm not disregarding the fetus because there isn't anything to disregard simply put. Like I stated earlier we don't know what a fetus could think even if we try and even yet how do we know the wishes of a developing fetus. They have no wishes because they aren't born into the world yet. Saying unless I can show proof of someone who wants to live in a womb for a month is asking a human themselves and of course they wouldn't want to logically but a fetus isn't born yet and probably isn't thinking anything inside the womb let alone that it wants to live. My opponent has brought some interesting points but it still remains that I think abortion is within reason and should be legal everywhere so we don't have people committing illegal abortions and have this ethical problem that it is murder.
Abortion is wrong

To your first case on how the Merriam Webster Dictionary proves that abortion is murder, may I guide your attention to both Collins English Dictionary [1] as well as the Oxford Dictionary [2] as they both state nothing about murder and simply because one dictionary says it is murder does not prove your point as looking at only one type of dictionary and drawing a conclusion from it is absurd. And as to your first source, I'm not even going to comment on how unreliable that source is at anyone can come up with those statistics if they are automatically against abortion and until I see proof of these statistics through a more reliable source I can't take that into consideration as there is no proof that this is documented fact. As to it being murder I completely disagree as the act of murder is an unlawful killing as seen in the Oxford Dictionary [3] and even the Merriam Webster Dictionary's full definition of it [4], as this proves that abortion isn't murder as it is within the law until the fetus is 24 weeks old in the United Kingdom [5] and whatever time limits are in place for the US system. First of all you've referenced the first source and I've already made my viewpoint of it clear so no need to clarify there. You use hypothetical questions like what if great figures were aborted, well let me flip this question around. What if Adolf Hitler was aborted, or Kaiser Wilhelm and so on. Our world would be a lot better if they weren't here similarly I think most people can agree. And to your statement about the child wanting to live doesn't matter, I feel this is inappropriate as a fetus is incapable of human emotions whilst developing inside someone's body and even if they do, the fact remains that we simply don't know what any of them are thinking so to make such a statement like that is trivial. A fetus is given a chance to live and that has been deemed by the time limit in which a person is allowed to get an abortion and saying they don't have a chance is just plain wrong as no one can get a day before abortion and other very late abortions. I think the fact that there are people who disregard the women who have been raped is pure idiocy as even if that percentage is at 1%, we shouldn't ignore the feelings of a human who was unwillingly forced to have a child and lets not forget that some pregnancies can end with a mothers death which I assume no one condones because in a sense the fetus killed the mother. Here are some of the links to the definitions I've listed as sources. [1] Collins English Dictionary, Abortion: http://www.collinsdictionary.com... [2] Oxford English Dictionary, Abortion: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] Oxford English Dictionary, Murder: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [4] Merriam Webster Dictionary, Murder: http://www.merriam-webster.com... [5] NHS Website, Abortion: http://www.nhs.uk...
The theory of evolution has critical flaws

Thanks, con. I did say that the first round was for acceptance and by briefly mentioning that the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution we could have put more focus on the "evolution" aspect of the debate. I was wrong in thinking that the Big Bang was a part of evolutionary theory. My main arguments are against evolution and I'll use the Merriam-Webster definition that you've provided: "the theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time.." My main arguments against evolution: 1. Mutations are over overwhelmingly harmful rather than beneficial to a species. I believe this is widely accepted among biologists but I will cite numerous source at my opponents request. Since evolution is a spontaneous enhancement of a species' complexity over time, it is not possible due to the improbability of mutations benefitting rather than harming a species. Evolutionists credit mutations for the enhancing complexity of species over time. 2. Second law of thermodynamic states that in a closed system, disorder can only increase. The earth is not technically a closed system because it receives matter (in the form of the rare meteorite entering earth's atmospher) and because the earth receives the sun's energy, but many scientists and textbooks consider earth a closed system due to its balanced processes and applicability of the second law. How could life forms have followed an increasing, upwardly complex energy gradient if life is following a down-hill energy gradient according to the second law? Plants are one of the most sensitive life forms to the sun's energy and can organize themselves into a more complex structure using the suns energy for a brief time but always succumb to the second law even given an adequate supply of light, water, and nutrients. How could literally billions of years worth of upward, complex organization have occurred only using the sun as energy to circumnavigate this second law which states that disorder can only increase? It's absurd. 3. Missing bone evidence of all missing links even though dinosaurs that have pre-existed missing links' bones have been found. This is huge. The only argument evolutionists can give are non-homogenous evidence of creatures that had deformities (ever hear of the elephant man?) If these creatures didn't have deformities, the bone evidence would be homogenous. 4. No explanation for "natural laws" such as gravity, physics, thermodynamics, etc. that are universal and unchanging laws of order. Evolution would have resulted spontaneously and spontaneity defies order. 5. Our conscience dictates our morals. At best, evolution describes morals as existing solely for the propagation of our species. If this were the case, rape resulting in pregnancy would be seen as good. There's also no explanation for the purpose of love if other species have reproduced for millions of years without this. Thank you and I look forward to your rebuttals.
logic has no flaws

vi-spex states ' a bear is a bear'Here you loose the debate, Pro.You are a believer in human logic as a person would be a believer in religion. I am not.In this instant, you use language to state nothing, or to reveal nothing. You reveal the obvious and your logic is as illuminating as a pointed finger. You identify something that need not require words. Look at the article on Wik on 'analytic Logic'. https://en.wikipedia.org... Philosopher Leonard Peikoff, in his essay "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy," expands upon Rand's analysis. He posits that: The theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy presents men with the following choice: If your statement is proved, it says nothing about that which exists; if it is about existents, it cannot be proved. If it is demonstrated by logical argument, it represents a subjective convention; if it asserts a fact, logic cannot establish it. If you validate it by an appeal to the meanings of your concepts, then it is cut off from reality; if you validate it by an appeal to your percepts, then you cannot be certain of it. You could make your bear observation with a pointed finger, with a children's fairy tale or with a box of crayons. There is as the quote suggests, subjective nuance and appeal lodged within its walls. How many flaws does logic need to have, vi-spex, for you to concede your point?
logic has no flaws

Kant: analytic proposition: a proposition whose predicate concept is contained in its subject concept ie bear skin = dead bear----------------------------------------------What if we are able to grow bear skin artificially in the future. What then? Is there a best before on your 'bear' logic?Lab-Grown Synthetic Skins Could Replace Animals in Cosmetics Testing by Kestrel Jenkinshttp://www.ecouterre.com...;Is a skinless bear an actual bear, Is my severed toe-nail me? Who am I? What are you saying about the bear? What are you saying about logic. Is the following logical'logic has no flaws'Are all bachelors unhappy? Logic is fallacious beyond comprehension. Do you agree, vi-spex?
logic has no flaws

logic reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity Con states .......'if you have a bear skin, you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, i know it comes from a bear.. cause and effect'I believe that the 'building block' approach of human logic is basically an irrelevancy. The world refuses to comply with its restraints and its limitations. If you have a bear skin the bear no longer exists as an entity. Logically my toe would be me if that were true. We talk £$%&* when we attempt to hear ourselves speak. It is a monologue. A hunch has as much validity if it is based on clear sensory input. I believe in cause and effect but what that has to do with logic is there for you to illustrate. Give us an example of useful logic.I eat chicken and I know what a chicken is. What is your point? What is the cause and what is the effect? What about all the worms the chicken ate? Logic has one obvious flaw, and that is that it is as useful as a pointy stick in a desert. What do you do with it?Hi vi-spex!
Independance vs Dependance

A brief definition of philosophy is: A set of views and theories of a particular philosopher concerning such study or an aspect of it. therefore theories can be used to prove your point. I scanned through the topic and didn't read into it very much. And I don't study nature's. sorry if this debate was a waste of you time. Just made the debate team at my school and a friend recommended this page. And I was just looking for a quick debate.
Independance vs Dependance

Yeah we may aswell forfeit as it is not really a debate topic, i'm from NZ and have little knowledge on debate rules. This is more a "theory" then a debate. It invloves relating animals to people and describing the rule of dependance e.g.. -A kitten is dependant on it's mother for three months and then can stray quite easily. -The more intelligent a animal is the more dependant it seems to be for a longer period of time. -Humans do not have a set time of staying dependant.. whereas animals are periodical except for a "duck" whom seems to have one soulmate. I am trying to link this theory to evolution. Again I am sorry for posting a debate on such topic, I will properly research the "rules"
Independance vs Dependance

Everyone depends on something, I can define dependence in many ways. Such as help, aid, support etc. Most common things Americans depend on is jobs, welfare to feed their children, a car to get around, and so on.......Going all the way back to revolutionary war(independence). The war was fought because everyone wanted freedom, personal rights and much more, the people where tired of British which was about 3500 miles away giving them orders or laws on what to do and what not. sure they won, but still today don't we still have laws? Everyone depends on something and always will.
People shouldn't use troll debates to get to their quota sooner

Pro has expressed disgust with trolling debates. A trolling debate topic is a 1 round, 500 character debate with a short voting period. By Pro's definition, this is a troll debate. The resolution is that people shouldn’t engage in such debates, that includes him. To vote Pro is to legitimize his behavior and undermine the resolution. Pro is responsible for creating a ‘fun’ atmosphere and not a ‘disgusting’ one (1). Vote CON. http://www.debate.org..., point 9.
State Rights

My opinion is that the US, which stands for United States, should balance between unity and independence. All states should be subject to the same economic laws so that there isn't any over-the-top state competition. Plus, the federal government would then be useless, and states would lose valuable benefits like FBI and a monetary system that everyone state uses. My opponent argues that states should only be bound by military, but that will not work because so much conflict between them will arise that militias will be fighting each other. I do not want another civil war either. States rights should definitely exist and there should arguable be more, but we have seen in the past that the United States does not work well under a Confederacy. We adopted the Constitution because the U.S. was falling apart under the Articles of Confederation.
Mothers may have many careers, but their first duty is to be the homemakers.

My argument will be evolving around the idea of (women staying at home will lead to better child upbringing.). 1. Amount of Work done- I traditionally believe that in order to have a stable family; there must be roles for each individual. The Male should be able to go out and work to meet the needs of the family. The Female should have the job of the nurturer of the future generations. According to pew research polls, time, single moms get more work done in the house. Stay at home Moms- Housework is 23% of their time, Childcare is 18% of their time, Sleep is 63% of their time Working Moms- Housework is 14%, Childcare is 11%, Sleep is 58% As you can see from this data here, Stay at Home moms usually do more of everything. Upbringing is a big value. If the future generation gets 8 hours more of good upbringing, than it will produce a better society. 2. Grades- Stay at home Moms not only add to childcare but they also add to how the child is educated. Norway launched a project that allowed payment for moms that wanted to stay at home. The effects were stunning. The researchers analyzed the school performance of some 68,000 children with younger siblings who had been born shortly before or after the Cash for Care program began.The researchers found that only about 5% of parents actually changed their work choices in response to the new payments. Parents in higher-income families, who could more easily afford to give up one parent"s salary, were the most likely to leave the work force. Lower-income parents, by contrast, tended to keep working even if they collected the cash payments. Many relied on informal child care from relatives or friends. Nevertheless, the older children in families that did qualify for the payments tended to do better in school. On average, the older siblings in those families increased their grade-point averages in 10th grade by .02 points on Norway"s grading scale of 1 to 6 points. The increases seemed strongest among children around the age of 6 and 7 at their sibling"s birth.
Mothers may have many careers, but their first duty is to be the homemakers.

Well I do agree with my opponent on the grounds that a mother should primarily focus on the well being of their child they should not just use that as an excuse not to have job. The mother should have at least a part-time job and be able to work their schedule so they can work while the other parent watches the child. Being able to have steady income will benefit them while raising the child. Also what if the mother is a single parent as their are a lot of times where this is the case. The mother should have a job so she can pay for the essentials required to raise a child and the mother can find a day care to leave their child while working. I can't wait to see what my opponent has to say.
Mothers may have many careers, but their first duty is to be the homemakers.

As bad as it seems in the politically correct world we live in, I will be trying to prove why when females have children, it will be better for the child to be a stay at home mom. The resolution does not imply forcing mothers into things, but just as a overall better transformation in our society.(I am okay with females pursuing careers when not having children). Good Luck to my Opponent!
Should Pokemon be on Consoles and/or PC instead of being just on Nintendo Devices

As much as the idea of new pokemon games on the consoles might thrill you, remember that pokemon is and always will be a turn based game. Apart from the occasional gem such as X-Com, such a genre is unheard of on consoles. It would only be the same game with slightly better graphics, nothing more. Since it would still be developed for nintendo consoles first and ported to others, it would always begin at wii quality anyway. And you'd be taking the negatives of the consoles too. people thought it was bad when pokemon bank shut down for a while? That glitch in X/Y where you could lose your progress? Just wait until Sony gets their patchy hands on it. Or Microsoft, who would have the event pokemon as dlc and have live as a requirement to play online. For PC, why pokemon? I mentioned X-Com, Divinity Original Sin is pretty good, and hell, the emulators are free, just play any previous game; hell, there are fan made ones too. Ports like these end up being sloppy and dissapointing, and Nintendo hardly wants to follow in the once proud steps of Sega. This goes along with the "Valve should make Half Life 2: Episode 3" issue; it'll never live up to our expectations, and only serve to damage our opinion of Nintendo. See you next round, Duncan.
Should Pokemon be on Consoles and/or PC instead of being just on Nintendo Devices

I think that Pokemon should also be on other devices E.G. Xbox or playstation because; i love the pokemon series and find it really fun, but i dont like using a DS or other nintendo devices, because i find them annoying to use and low quality... well low quality everything really compared to Consoles or PC. And as a second point Pokemon would sell even more copies if it was on other platforms and devices, also it may not be the same games, there could be exclusives to Nintendo devices, to encourage people to buy a DS or whatever. So in conclusion i think that Pokemon should also be on PC, Xbox and playstation, but with exclusive things like special starter pokemon to Nintendo devices.