BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Androids Are Better Than iPhones

====FRAMEWORK====RULES:1. A forfeit should result in the loss of the debate.2. Both debaters will refrain from using semantincs.3. Dropped arguments should consult to the automatic loss of a conduct point.4. Both debaters, will argue politely, yet intelligently. ====MY CASE====Given that my opponent did not present an opening case, I will go first. I will be standing in firm opposition to the topic entitled: "Androids are Better than Iphones" for the following reasons. .. C1: Iphone technology is far more advanced than that of the Android. . http://zapp5.staticworld.net...Stastically, The Iphone is more advanced than the Android, as demonstrated in the link above. Iphone exceeds in all of the following categories:Photos: +2% Network services: +2.5%Transferring photos: +8.2%Sending photos to email: +6.1%Social Netwroking: +4.9% Sending photo's to web: +1.8%The Iphone has several advantages that an Android does not present. Music: The Iphone works as both an Ipod and a phone. It's the best in it's technology. While androids have the capability of carryig music, they do not present the massive library and music storage capabilities that the Iphone possesses. You can update music right through your pc easily onto your Iphone, unlike with the Android. The Iphone also possesses a faster processer, so that all actions done on the phone are immedient, and speedy. . http://www.ibad.info...Features: The Iphone possesses many features that are superior to the android. Text is easy, with the VOIP ability. This was originally not introduced to the Android, and the android only developed this with in the last couple of years. The Iphone's VOIP ability is faster in processing statements from texters. . http://www.voip-info.org...Apps: "Apple has a commanding lead over all other smart phone platforms with 230,000 and counting in the App Store. But Google's Android platform now claims 70,000. " . http://www.msnbc.msn.com...A lot of people (like myself) find that after switching from an Iphone to an android, that a lot of there favorite apps aren't carried by the android. This can be dismaying, as having a plethora of applications is a great attribute that most people look forward to when buying an Iphone. "The iPhone has a huge lead here, and most game developers appear to be hanging back from committing to Android for the time being. The biggest exception is Gameloft, which has already published a considerable lineup of Android games including the platformer "Assassin's Creed: Altair's Chronicles," and the first-person shooter "NOVA. " Ironically, Gameloft said last fall that it was scaling back on Android development, and still refuses to sell apps through Google's embarrassingly chaotic Android Market, opting to sell through its own website instead. " When it comes down to 'who is the leader in entertainment, the Iphone definitely takes the cake. ====CONCLUSION====I will now await for my opponents opening arguments and rebuttals, and look forward to her response. I feel I have succesfully proven that the Iphone is far more superior than the Android.
Socialism

I must offer a very different opinion: Mr. Thomas Sankara is indeed a very special person, Upholding the African People, And just like Bobby Kennedy, Was assassinated in his primes. Thus, I want to talk about why Communism or even simply, Socialism would not work in that era and during this era. One of the most tragic family in the United State, Yet the most powerful, Is the Kennedy Clan. The three brothers each meeting their tragic end. The eldest: Joseph P Kennedy Jr. Walks into his death on a dangerous bombing run over the German V2 Rocket site during WW2. The middle: Jack Kennedy, Known as JFK to most of the american, Was a tragic president who had supported civil right movement, And met his tragic end by a bullet shot from a gun held in a Psychopath's hand. The final brother: Bobby Kennedy, Was perhaps the saddest of all. Living under the shadow of his older brothers for nearly all his life, After Jack died, He was forced to have his own goal in the first time of his life. After quitting from Washington due to the bloody political duel with the president Lyndon B Johnson, He was elected as the Senator Of New York, And after that, Went on a crusade to support human right movement. How ironic and tragic, When Bobby was shot dead, According to a journalist: " It is as if they(The kennedy aide) were all expecting this to happen. " The reason, Is simple, CIA and FBI will never tolerate any kind of socialism or even a little left wing movement due to Mr. Hoover. It is continued to today. A communist country will never be able to form, Because, Of the assassination. According to Fidel Castro himself, There had been no less than 30 attempts made on his life. But he is lucky, And avoided them all.
Socialism

(Thank you for replying so soon, I thank you for clarifying this well enough. ) The Pro side argues that the Socialism is going to be an ideal society. However, I have simply 1 question, Why not go deeper? Despite Karl Marx had indeed named his communism the scientific socialism, I would argue for a much more radical society: The communist society. Many would argue that Communist society is too evil, However, The Soviet Union version is never really the communism Karl Marx had at heart. Following is a quote from wikipedia page of Communist Society: In Marxist thought, Communist society or the communist system is the type of society and economic system postulated to emerge from technological advances in the productive forces, Representing the ultimate goal of the political ideology of Communism. A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access[1][2] to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless, [3] implying the end of the exploitation of labour. However, Socialism continues to allow unequal distribution of wealth, And goods. Also allowing personal/private owning of properties. In truth, Admitted by Chairman Mao himself during the latter years of his life: Socialism is truly a type of government that is a capitalist communism. If we are going to debate on ideological ground, Why not go further into the realm of universal happiness? Obviously, Both socialism and communism could never work. Here I quote a famous line from Winston Churchill: Many forms of Government have been tried, And will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. "" Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
-Starter debate-

Which presidential candidates are we talking about? Why are they both horrible? I'm going to assume that you are referring to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump is not "horrible." He is another man with opinions, and he takes care of those that he loves. He has donated large amounts of money to charities; according to an article from 1998, Donald Trump sent out his jet to carry a critically ill three-year-old to doctors. In 2008, Donald Trump sheltered Jennifer Hudson free of charge after her brother, mother, and nephew were murdered. Hillary Clinton is no different. She co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families organization, which is still active today. Her management of the state department saw us a 50% increase in exports to China. She was pivotal in helping to secure $21 billion to help rebuild New York after 9/11. Senator Clinton also authored the Pediatric Research Equity Act, which requires drug companies to study what their products do to children, and to label accordingly. Millions of kids are in better shape due to this law. With these facts presented, we can conclude that our current presidential candidates are not "horrible." SOURCES http://www.snopes.com... http://people.com... http://www.aradvocates.org...
SHOULD WE listen to GOD

Because the concept of God varies between thousands of historical Gods and an individual's interpretation of what "God" is telling them, I believe listening to God is possibly the worst thing a person can do. Seeing as Pro used Biblical verses to support her argument, I will do the same the support mine as well. The God of the Bible is a tyrant, who commands His followers to do atrocious things in His name: Incest - According to Third Millennium Ministries, "The specific biblical commands against incest do not appear until the time of the Mosaic Law. Prior to that time, these relationships do not appear to have been condemned explicitly." Murder/Genocide - "Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the Lord your God." - (Deuteronomy 20:16-18) Child Abuse - Prov 13:24: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently)." Prov 19:18: "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying." Prov 22:15: "Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him." Prov 23:13: "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die." Prov 23:14: "Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." And that's a small group of examples from just one religion on earth. Just think of all the examples of human beings doing evil in the name of God. Countless. No, what the world needs is NOT to listen to Gods. What the world needs is societal empathy and love. A collective effort to live peacefully for the sake of peace and love. Not because some fickle sky dictator commands it. There is no morality in that.
SHOULD WE listen to GOD

Deuteronomy 6 all I read this today and was blown away. I was teaching at the women"s prison, teaching women who were put away for crimes committed (large and small offenses) hate crimes and crimes of passion-they are in prison for these crimes. So I was asking myself what term should I serve if I worship people, places and things instead of worshipping and serving God. The bible tells us that God is very jealous for his people, he won"t tolerate being 2nd or 3rd in our lives and this includes obedience to the voice of God"s spirit. So what are you ignoring about God? Should you have stopped today and led someone to Christ, should you have given that money to the poor, should you have sacrificed your work life in favor of Gods plan for you today, should you have stopped working at religious outlets they call churches today in favor of truly following Christ"s mission for you on this planet? If you wonder what"s going to be the end result this is what Jesus said will happen Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: MATTHEW 7: 22-24
Philosophers theory

I think therefore I am refers to the mental not the physical just because you think you're someone's hair does not mean you will become it. There are alot of different right perceptions and heres the one I like If you put your mind to it you can do anything. But of course thats within possible realms you still can't become someone's hair. And in my mind to take such a great quote out of context makes you a very sad ignorant person.
theory of knowledge: empiricism vs. rationalism

my point is how we see dreams when our senses are shut down"- as I said before we see dreams because they are a memory of something that has already been seen. Also your senses don't actually shut down as you put it they are still very active and still recording information. You would not have this knowledge if it was not for your senses. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... I do believe it because it is a proven scientific fact and I am studying physics at university so I know a rather lot about it. As for your mythical creatures I'll keep an open mind we could be but I doubt it simply because there is not a lot of evidence to support this theory. My point still stands. We still see the painting. It still gets registered by our brain. All knowledge has to come from the senses. http://www.accessexcellence.org...
theory of knowledge: empiricism vs. rationalism

1] my point is how we see dreams when our senses are shut down. for example: you see a dog while awake with your senses. fine. now you see the same dog in dream state without your senses. now here is the point: knowledge can arise without senses.2] "could you see the picture that is in front of you?" - I will be honest. Physics determines that there is still a light source whose photons still travel to the painting and the "right" wavelengths of photons get reflected back to our eyes which detect them and send a signal to our brain. If another part of the brain is active enough it will mask the effect. Therefore we still see the painting even if our mind is not fully aware of it at that moment.do you believe this photon nonsense ? if this nonsense is true, then we are seeing ghosts, gods, spirits and all kinds of unimaginable creatures, even though our mind is not fully aware of them.
theory of knowledge: empiricism vs. rationalism

Dream state - we can only dream of things based on what we have sensed while awake. If we had not sensed it we would not dream it therefore knowledge starts with your senses. "could you see the picture that is in front of you?" - I will be honest. Physics determines that there is still a light source whose photons still travel to the painting and the "right" wavelengths of photons get reflected back to our eyes which detect them and send a signal to our brain. If another part of the brain is active enough it will mask the effect. Therefore we still see the painting even if our mind is not fully aware of it at that moment. "I know a beautiful woman who only exists in my fantasy and not in the real world." Ignoring the fact you should probably go get a girlfriend, you are still creating this "perfect" woman based on what you believe to be beautiful from the women you have already seen. Dream - as I said before we can only dream of things based on what we have perceived in real life. These dreams are recurrence of the memory of sensing an object when we were awake. It only appears to be real because it was based on something that at one time was real. Knowledge has to start with our senses.
theory of knowledge: empiricism vs. rationalism

1] We can only concentrate on an object if we can sense the object through touch, taste, sight, sound or smell. ok but what about dream state? we cannot sense an object in dream because all senses are shut down before sleep.we can "see" dream in mind's eye.2] Even if your mind is "somewhere else" we can still have a knowledge of objects around us due to our senses.suppose you stand before a picture and think deeply about a movie that has no relation with that picture. could you see the picture that is in front of you? please be honest.3]I pose a question to you. Would we know what beauty was if we could not identify an object through our senses?i know a beautiful woman who only exists in my fantasy and not in the real world.arguments:we can feel objects in our dream where none of our senses are present because senses are shut down before sleep. how could we still feel objects? we feel object through our mind.knowledge starts with mind.
theory of knowledge: empiricism vs. rationalism

We can only concentrate on an object if we can sense the object through touch, taste, sight, sound or smell. Even if your mind is "somewhere else" we can still have a knowledge of objects around us due to our senses. No animal is likely to survive very long if we cannot sense objects and therefore have a knowledge of they danger they present to us. Our perception of an object does depend on the nature of the mind but we can only perceive the object once we have identified that it is there through our senses. I pose a question to you. Would we know what beauty was if we could not identify an object through our senses? You have to sense an object before your mind can make any perceptions about it.
theory of knowledge: empiricism vs. rationalism

ok. but unless we put our mind upon an object i.e. concentrate on an object, we cannot know the object.for example: there is a phenomenon called absent-mindedness where one cannot know an object because his mind was somewhere else.besides our perception about an object closely depends on nature of our mind.the best example is perception of beauty. what one consider beautiful, another may not consider that.so first comes the mind, then comes the knowledge. thats why rationalism is the source of knowledge.
The death penalty should be illegal.

My opponent has unfortunately forfeited his third round. I extend all of my points across the flow, I. Life imprisonment is as immoral, if not more, compared to death penalty, in one way or another. Both are amoral treatments in one sense or another. II. Death penalty eliminates the risk of failed rehabilitation. III. Death penalty conserves scarce economic resources. Voting Issue: I have proved that the incarceration alternative to death penalty is even more immoral than death penalty itself. After, I have showed the practical, municipal advantages and societal benefits of death penalty which its alternatives lack. I urge a vote for the Con. Thank you.
The death penalty should be illegal.

Thank you for your argument, Pro. Now let's look at this from various aspects, including the ones both the Con and Pro share: Morality - Pro says that this is not "moral" and that human life is valuable. If so, are we treating a human life any better if we lock up the criminal for his/her decades and rot in jail? Obviously not. In fact, I see prolonged sentences that come with charges of murder, etc. as a much more cruel punishment than ending the criminal's life. Now, both options are immoral in one way or another. Ergo, we must now focus oneach option's practical advantages over the other. Here are a few primary ones for capital punishment: I. Death penalty completely eradicates the risk of failed rehabilitation and the criminal repeating his or her actions after release (if there is one). II. Death penalty saves tremendous money, esp. in today's 1.3 trillion deficit. III. Death penalty helps prisons learn smoother and have more space. I urge a ballot for the Con.
The death penalty should be illegal.

The semantics seem pretty straightforward. I would like to mention that death penalty is only frequent in cases of murder. Case: Death penalty is an ultimate, decisive action, needed to lower crime rates. Each year, hundreds of criminals are re-released to the American public. We must then ask, should such heinous criminals be able to released? It is nonsensical to even risk the chance of a failed rehabilitaion. In fact, ABC News reports that it costs $888 milion a year to support federal and local prisons. The judical system lacks a reason to spend thousands of dollars on individuals who have knowingly broken the most primtivie rule of morality (never kill another human being). As well, it fails to be efficacious in its rehabilitation of murderers. What is the practicality behind spending cash to support a criminal who killed a human being, especially in today's failing economy? There is absolutely none.
The death penalty should be illegal.

The death penalty is supposed to be a punishment for someone that does something very extreme, like a murder or a rape. So for someone who kills, should they be killed? Do we live in an eye for an eye lifestyle? Do people with assault cases get beat up as punishment? Or people that steal, do they get robbed as punishment? NO! There is never a reason to take someones' life. Nobody can be the judge of who gets to live or who does not get to live.
Tigers are better than lions

I never said that lions were king of the jungle. And elephants also live on the savana, not the jungle. And to add on to that, elephants are one of a lions food sources. Granted yes, tigers are cool, they look better, and they're braver. But lions are more friendly. I'm sure a tiger will be more likely to claw your face off then eat you. A male lion is too lazy, and as long as you feed it, you shouldn't have a lot of trouble with it. Just because you don't go around collecting information from the interenet doesn't mean your argument is better. For all anyone knows, your knowledge of tigers can be very limited. So you wouldn't get very far. And you shouldn't get too cocky. If you brag that your going to win, you most likely won't. In fact, by doing this, your showing me that you're a sore loser, or your over confident, and that if you do lose, you'll probably over react. And as long as we have other animals on the plate, I say gorillas are way cooler.
Tigers are better than lions

Yes but lions are called the king of the cats. They have a beautiful golden coat, and a lovely mane. People also own lions as pets. Section 1: White lions exist as well, and they're probably more rare. And unlike the white tiger, they're almost extinct. Organizations are working towards protecting them but it's become a sport to hunt them for trophies. http://www.whitelionshomeland.org... Section 2: It's possible for lions to live in almost any kind of environment. They are also unusually social, which can be a good thing for those who own them as pets. And lions are widely recognized animal symbols in human culture. They have been extensively depicted in literature, in sculptures, in paintings, on national flags and films. How many have tigers been on? Two? Three? http://www.diffen.com...