BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Can The Apple Company Survive Without Steve Jobs

Steve Jobs has resigned as Apple CEO and been replaced by the company's chief operating officer Tim Cook. In a resignation letter, Jobs, who has been on a medical leave of absence since January this year, said he could no longer carry out his duties. The 56-year-old founded Apple in 1976 and is widely seen as the company's creative dynamo. He will remain at Cupertino as non-executive chairman. In his resignation letter, Jobs said: "I believe Apple's brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role." The last time Jobs left Apple - under acrimonious circumstances in 1985 - the company went to the brink of bankruptcy. Jobs's return in 1997 heralded the era of iPod, iPhone and iPad products that have helped Apple to become the biggest company in the US. Commentators wonder whether Apple can continue its huge success without Jobs. "Forceful bosses whose personalities shape everything about their businesses are going out of fashion these days, for good reason many would say," writes the BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones. "But Steve Jobs is a rare example of a chief executive who is synonymous with his company, a perfectionist who obsesses over every detail and has been the public face of just about every major product launch in the past decade." As an example of Jobs's style, Steve Lohr, in the New York Times, remembers when a journalist asked the Apple boss what market research went in to the iPad. Jobs replied: "None. It's not the consumers' job to know what they want." So what does the future hold for an Apple without such a forceful personality at the helm? "The good news for Apple is that the product road map in this industry is pretty much in place two and three years out," David B. Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School, tells Lohr. "So 80 to 90 per cent of what would happen in that time would be the same, even without Steve." The real question, he says, is what happens after that road map runs out. Chris O'Brien in the San Jose Mercury outlines two possible futures: "One view holds that Jobs has built a deep bench of executive talent that will keep a steady hand on the rudder. "The counter view is that following its decade-long reinvention, Apple is so optimised to serve Jobs that it is doomed to falter under anyone else's leadership."
God is real

Sorry for missing last post, I was without a computer for a time beig. Even now, I am rushed. 1. God couldn't have based morals off of what we are doing if he has created us. God would have to create he idea of right and wrong before we could have a concept o it. So, Go had to have come before us if morals came from him. 2. Now, I'm not saying everything is good, as I probably implied before, but the bible says tht everything works toward good. If a man dies, yes people will be sad, but the man gets a new life and the family gains wisdom from it. Also, free will doesn't have to be the reason of death. You seem to say tht death is this horrible, awful thing, but its just a new life if you believe in God. I have had people died and I have been okay because of religion. 3. Society only works on the mass morality, which doesn't always work. Gemany once had the mass idea to commit genocide. Does this make it moral if the society agrees on it? Plus, you always have the gray areas that law doesn't effect. Like age of sexual acceptance. I don't think kids the age I fourteen should be havin sex, but some do. How so these gray areas work?
God is real

I'm sorry, but I don't have time for a very long argument. I am only going to make a few points, and here they are. If god is omniscient, and thus knows what actions are and aren't moral, the he is acting on things that can be logically deduced. So god is not making up morality, he is telling us what is there, so he is not needed. Please don't say the child sobbing over their dead father could be a good thing. Killing, stealing, it could be okay, but the bible says it isn't, which, as you have said, is the ultimate morality. People die for reasons not connected to free will such as natural disasters, and if god was all good and all powerful, these would not exist and all violations of the bible would be from agents with free will. No, atheists draw morals that society agrees on, morals that reduce suffering and protect unalienable human rights, that you are granted not from god but by the sheer virtue of being born a human. And morals that allow society to function better, helping everyone in society to survive and pass on their genes, like a well calibrated machine. God is not objective morality. Just because he can see everything, how does he know what to weight as "bad", and what to weight as "good"? He has no way to decide. Ultimately, he picks a line to draw and draws one too. And why is there only one god? Why can't there be many? Why is your concept of god correct, and not the one of the 5 year old child, taken to church who pictures god as an elderly man. Even philosophers and theologians disagree on what god is. Again, sorry, I was rushed for time.
God is real

Thank you for your post. If I'm correct, I'm taking you side as the following: 1. If God does exist, what would make him an absolute authority in morals. 2. How can you know the bible is correct. 3. Why is there evil. I will now have my statements on these topics. 1. What makes God a moral figure- this is an interesting statement to contemplate. If we are considering a god that is all-powerful, as many religious people do, we can start from their. If God is all-powerful, he would know everything you have ever had to go through. He would know what everyone had to go through. So, in knowing this and all interactions in between each of these people, God could know which actions caused harm. However, if you claim morals are more than just preventing harm, I will give you this. God made all of us, making him above us all. As a being who is above all creation, shouldn't he be able to decide right and wrong. In other words, if God exists and he made morals, how can you claim he is immoral if the only concept of moral that exists comes from him. 2. Bible- when you say that the Bible can be taken many different ways, I agree. However, this does not take away from its overall authority if it is God's word. The reason is this. If a law is made saying you cannot kill, as you have said, that can be taken in many different ways. What about self defense, or capitol punishment? However, the law still makes a line that in what's right and wrong. How this line is observed is irrelevant as long as the line is still there. The Bible even says to work out your own salvation through fear and trembling. The main points are there in the Bible, which are the most important parts. 3. Why is there evil- this has many different points to it. It can be many things. You could have brought it upon yourself through your own bad deeds. Perhaps what we call "evil" may not be true evil if there is a God. It could be just something we don't understand. Like thinking death is bad. Death just means entering a new life, making it not bad at all. So something we consider bad, could be truly good. I'm sorry I don't have more on this topic as of now, but I'm rushing. 4. How do Atheists make their morals- as I have seen, many atheists claim that each individual makes his/her own morals. However, this would make morals pointless since you are walking a line drawn by you for you. Society as a whole has also been believed to make morals. However, society is constantly changing and some laws are ignored almost completely. So how do you claim to make your morals? 5. Final statement- one of the biggest things atheists point out is usually something along the lines of " I'm an atheist, and I know rape is wrong without a god telling me". However, this thought is wrong because you can know something is wrong independent of a religion, but your atheist views does not go with objective morality such as rape is wrong.
God is real

You are saying that god exists because morality must come from somewhere. First, why is what god says automatically moral? Because he is omnipotent? I could imagine an effectively omnipotent dictator, who could kill anyone with thought, but he would not dictate the absolute laws of morality. What makes god the ultimate moral figure? If god had allowed murder, would that be okay? Your version of right and wrong almost certainly is different than mine. And why is the bible necessarily the word of god? People interpret the bible differently. Some think the book of genesis should be taken literally, that the world was created in 7 days, while others think it is a metaphor. Some believe "thou shall not kill" is absolute and unconditional, whereas others believe in certain circumstances it is justified, such as self-defense. Who is right? Another piece of evidence? Why is there evil in this world? If god was all powerful and benevolent, why would he allow evil? There are probably problems in my argument, I was up late writing it. Round 3 will be much better.
God is real

Okay, I accept. I am arguing that god is probably not real, whereas you are arguing god probably is real. I am not going to argue god is impossible, because it is impossible to completely disprove anything. You can't prove that elephants don't hide in cherry trees, but you can prove that they probably don't. So you are trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that god exists. For this reason, I think it make more sense for you to go first, to show me evidence that god is real, and then I will have to refute it.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

Health insurance should cover people with genetic disorders because medical bills and other costs would be classified under health insurance. This would be the right thing to do. Health insurance should be able to cover these costs because what is the difference between a person getting cancer or an STD/STI and a genetic disorder? There really isn"t much difference but the fact that STD/STI's and cancer are covered by health insurance. Why can someone who is given a disease be covered but not someone who is BORN with it?
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

Majority of insurance companies do not cover people with genetic disorders because there are other ways those people can be covered. If those individuals qualify, they can receive coverage from COBRA or HIPPA; state programs. There are also employer programs that give coverage. Another way to be covered is individually purchased insurance that sometimes comes with an extra premium. Another resource could be to join the army, which covers all medical costs. Finally, there are government programs like medicare or medicade that would cover these people.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

Children with genetic disorders can actually live a long time. There is clearly a genetic part in autism and children with that disability can live as long as any other person. The money would not be a waste because they are human beings. They have the same right as any other person does. In an article by a professor of Psychological Sciences, T. M McDevitt, she states many genetic disorders and majority of them end up having a normal life, besides the fact that they need many treatments. People with genetic disorders are still human and they have feelings. Medical coverage is needed for people with genetic disorders.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

Health insurance will not pay for the medical costs of people with genetic disorders because it is expensive. To begin, it would be wasted money. Most people with genetic disorders do not live long. Also, a person living with a genetic disorder need a large amount of money for their life. For example, the lifetime cost for a person living with Cystic Fibrosis is $1,000,000; or a person with Down syndrome is $500,000. Often, the people living with these conditions have to take several medicines and visit a lot of different doctors. These trips can be very costly. A child with Down syndrome is normally treated by at least five different doctors. Here is a list of doctors and their price per visit Physicians: $43.50 Speech Therapists: $60.00 Occupational Therapists: $85.00 Physical Therapists: $50.00 Special Educators: $30,000 per year per student
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

Health insurance should cover people with genetic disorders because it is just the right thing to do. Many families are not asking for the insurance to cover all the bills and costs from caring for a disabled child. A little help goes a long way. According to MediLexicon International Ltd" Health insurance is a type of insurance coverage that covers some of the cost of an insured individual's medical and surgical expenses. "Of course insurance is not going to cover everything. That is usually how health insurance works. People who have genetic disabilities or are raising a child with one should receive some support from health insurance.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

It is agreed that those children nor their parents are at fault for having a genetic disorder, but neither are the insurance companies. The purpose of health insurance is to "provide families some measure of economic security," with "adequate financing mechanisms" (council for responsible genetics). Health insurance is not there to pay all of your needs. The definition of health insurance is, "pays medical and surgical expenses that are incurred. To reimburse or pay for an injury." Therefore, it is not the job of the health insurance to pay for the genetic disorder"s medical costs.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

Insurance companies should cover people with genetic disabilities. Genetic disabilities are not the person or the parents' fault. Many people do not know that their child will have a genetic disability and even with testing, they cannot do anything to stop the genetic disorder besides abort the child which would be another issue. The only thing they can do is save money to support the child. Taking care of a child with disabilities is complicated and help from insurance would be greatly appreciated by anyone who has a child with any disorder. According to Sophia Hauser, someone who has a genetic disability, "People with physical disabilities go on to lead successful and happy lives." Why discriminate someone if they are disabled? It is NOT their fault.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

Insurance companies should not have to cover the medical costs of people with genetic disorders. For starters, the person or their parents should have done a genetic test. That is when the couple would have found out they needed to start saving money for future problems. Not to mention, it would help the Human Genome Project which is funded by the federal government. As an adult, taking the test, depending on how many tests, can be under $100. Although, according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, it is recommended to take the test as a newborn when most states cover part of the cost or only charge a $15-$60 fee. Also, taking the test as a newborn would allow more than enough time to begin saving money for that child's medical costs.
Resolved: The G-Spot is a Myth

Evidentally, my opponent doesn't believe in space pirates either. I thought it was common knowledge, so posting conclusive photographic evidence shouldn't be a violation of the rules, as the argument was made last round: . https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...With that out of the way, I shall conclude this long and tumultous debate that will forever be a cornerstone of American political history. I have truly demonstrated my cliteracy throughout the course of this debate. That small penis known as the clitoris has become the mighty penis of truth and justice. As the old saying goes, a penis in the hand is worth two in the bush, so I hope that everyone has been sufficiently repulsed by the facts that I have brought to life to turn to their own devices. Big Pharma has attempted to bring us down, but the facts do not lie. There are no women in this world, and anyone who says otherwise is just attempting to control your life, steal your wife, and fill your days with strife, yo. Take care, and beware, it's a perfect time to be scared. Oh boy, there's no joy, the man is using you as a toy. Big Pharma lies; they won't say why, but they're trying to make you die. I have fulfilled my BoP more than adequately with specific information and citations, as well as logical analysis. Big Pharma has only thrown empty assertions.
Resolved: The G-Spot is a Myth

Against your rules? Fact is all that matters. You can shove your personal rules where the sun don't shine. You are scientifically proven wrong years before you ever started this debate. Don't throw a childish tantrum about rules. You are scientifically proven wrong. You lose. Period. Your only source is the internet? Troll. "The always-fair-and-balanced Huffington Post" what a joke. Another obvious troll. Yeah, I stopped reading once I saw you get all your info from a borderline tabloid. Two of your links weren't even about the G-spot. The other two are not trusted sources. They are organizations known to be bias just like fox news. You're only hurting your case here. Anyone who votes on this debate can easily google the facts about it and see many scientific research articles that prove the G-spot is a real thing. Any of them who have had relations with a woman using his digits can also call you a fool or liar. And Any female who has had any sexual stimulation from the inside WILL tell you that you're wrong. You simply lose. Go ahead and cry again about how I approach it. I have zero tolerance for stupid people and I will not play nice with you. If you want to be taken seriously and be treated like an adult, then start acting like one and stop saying stupid things that were proven wrong many years ago. I'm not here to be nice or polite. I'm here to reveal truth. Screw your feelings. Me hurting your feeling or me being rude does not change the facts. The facts are the ONLY part that matters. Grow up.
Resolved: The G-Spot is a Myth

Since it has already been scientifically proven to exist, you lost this debate before it even started. In the future, don't state your misinformed opinions about subjects that have already been proven or debunked. Also, don't even waste your time requesting a citation for the scientific research. You should know how to use google by now since even small children already do. I will not do the work for you. Take responsibility for your own education like any adult should and go look up the information yourself. In conclusion, you're an idiot when you say stupid things like that.
Should we have longer breaks in middle/high school

As a student of the upper the grades, I think there should be more time for a break maybe around 25 minutes. With that time, it allows you to have a better conversation with your friends. School is also about developing social relationships that many kids don't get even after school because of homework and other extra curricular activities. I have a lot of friends that don't text because they forget and allows a break that doesn't force you to hurry and eat lunch or be quiet and do your work. It is true free time that is taken from older kids just because we have more years and responsibility. Everyone needs a break no matter the age. I wouldn't mind extending school for 25 minutes would you?
Mechanical Pencils vs Pens

Note: In this argument, Pro/for = Mechanical Pencils and Con/against = Pens. Hello fellow debaters! I'm Oskar, and I'm new to debate.org. To start my debating off, what better way than to create a debate? I collect mechanical pencils, however I know a lot of people collect pens. So here's my question, Which are superior, mechanical pencils, or pens? Mechanical pencils are THE writing utensil! They are erasable, and you don't have to buy a certain refill for them! Lead is always smooth, what's your excuse Pens? Happy debating!
Mechanical Pencils vs Pens

I did not think this argument needed an outline as such. With my 2nd argument, I were talking about the fact that if, for example, I had a pentel pencil, I would not need to replace the lead with pentel lead refills; I could get uni lead if I wanted. It only goes by width, not brand. Pens, on the other hand, have to have specific refills. To your counter against my argument 3, pens aren't always smooth. The ink dries after a while and makes the pen not work, and you have to scratch away on a piece of scrap paper.If you found a mechanical pencil and a pen(both with lead/ink inside) in a drawer that had been closed for 50+ years, the pen would've dried up while the mechanical pencil would still work. Argument 1 shows that pens are too overused and mainstream. Pens are standard; it's same old-same old to use pen. Pencils make things more exciting, well, as exciting as writing utensils can get, which in my case is quite a lot :-D Argument 2 is invalid. You obviously didn't check your facts. Pencil does not fade. http://www.joethorn.net... this article. Joe Thorn even got ancient documents, written in pencil, from the national archives and there was no sign of the pencil fading. 1. When it gets wet, pen smears and ruins the page. Lead on the other hand, stays put. 2. Mechanical pencils are a piece of art. It's amazing how many ways there are for mechanics to push out a tiny piece of lead. Pens are boring in that sense. 3. There is a certain joy in buying new lead, and choosing the best, most expensive, amazing lead. What ink you can get depends on what pen. If you have a cheap pen, only cheap inks are available. Awesome debate so far! Thank you!
Mechanical Pencils vs Pens

IntroductionHello. I too am new to debate.org. I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate. I will be contending for the con/pens side. Since my opponent has not set a structure for this debate I will begin by refuting his arguments. My opponents arguments are as follows:1. They are erasable.2. You don't have to buy a refill.3. Lead is always smooth.Argument 1 rebuttal.Yes, mechanical pencils are erasable but is the benefit of erasable better than permanency? Markings of a mechanical pencil can ware off quite easily. Pens are also erasable but not quite as well as mechanical pencils.Argument 2 is false. Mechanical pencils require a refill of lead. Argument 3 isn't a contention towards pens.Pens too are always "smooth."Case for Pens1. Pens are the standard for formal signatures.2. The benefits of permanency outweigh the benefits of being easily erasable. Imagine two thousands years from now, archaeologists find two papers from our current time. One was written with a mechanical pencil and one was written with a pen. Pencil markings on the paper written with a pencil have nearly all worn off. The remnant of markings that are still visible are grammatically correct and there are no words scratched out. However there are no complete sentences. The other paper with pen markings is complete. No markings have worn off but there are grammatical errors as well as words that were scratched out. Which paper would be more significant to the archaeologists? Obviously the paper with pen markings because it contains more information.The obvious benefits of permanency with the con of difficult erasing easily outweigh the benefit of being easily erasable but no permanency.I again would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity. I am awaiting his next argument.