BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People need to save to pay off their debts

In order to avoid the credit crunch trauma re-occurring people need to reduce their debts. Let us not forget that this recession was due to people not being able to repay their loans, be they mortgages, overdrafts or credit card loans. What we then need people to do is to save their money and repay the debts that they owe. By paying off their debts, banks will receive money that they then need to use to repay their debts to the Government, then the Government can repay what they owe. What is best then is to encourage people to save in order to pay their debts in order for our country to be able to repay its debts in order for our economy to improve.
Yes because.....

The Blackberry is the more modernized version of today's working class cell phone. Companies won't want to invest in a touch-screen cell phone because they are very fragile and it would make no sense the pay more money for a phone that you aren't going to use for its intended purpose. If you are the social freak (as every child in America is) then the iPhone would be a worth-while investment, because it has all of the social networking functions that connect you to the internet when you are away from your computer. But for mature adults, the Blackberry is the smarter option, because you have a keyboard instead of an on-screen keyboard, which can be tough to navigate with large adult hands. Plus, the Blackberry is a key factor in the work environment, because it links you directly to your work e-mail, documents, calendars, to-dos, alarms, etc. Overall, the Blackberry wins this battle to the iPhone, for it's maturity, diversity, and efficiency.
Yes because.....

Iphones are much more better than blackberries. I think this because an iphone has more better features than a blackberry. On an Iphone the web is better but it doesn't have no voice memo option and no voice text option On a Blackberry the volume is better but it doesn't have the touchscreen. A lot of kids enjoy using the iphone, they can check their emails and they can play games and save songs on Itunes. But to older people they think that Blackberries are better they don't won't to play games they just want to check their emails and talk to others. There are more advantages and disadvantages to both of them but I still think that Iphones are much more better than Blackberries.
The IPhone has more features

In my opinion I think that the IPhone is way better than the Blackberry. I think this because the IPhone has more features and is touch screen. The IPhone can download lots of amazing Aps and has the ability to go on the internet anywhere if you have the plan. The IPhone has everything you need text messaging, Facebook, MSN and much more. A lot more people like the IPhone because of its new technology that it is touch screen and is able to play any game you can if you download it from ITunes. The IPhone has ITunes connected to the IPhone so you can watch video, play games and listen to music.
iPhone is great tech.

As for technology well ALL iPhones are so far behind that the only thing keeping them afloat is the fact that the company has a massive hype-machine that makes them seem desirable. If taken on their actual merits, the most advanced phones are actually made by HTC. Voice controlled features are actually significantly older then apple would have you believe. The iPhone is not actually faster then Blackberry, processing power and simple, uncomplicated transitions make getting from one thing to another faster.
Blackberries are best for teens and up

First of all, there ARE free programs on the iPhone that allows communication with other IPhones, and if you havent noticed, the program BBM for blackberry is free however, you still have to pay monthly inorder to have the blackberry messaging useable. So that does not make BlackBerry better than the IPhone in that sense. Secondly, I believe that the keyboard is just the matter of whether you are use to it or not. Speaking from experience, i've had the BlackBerry Bold (known for the big buttons and easy texting) and the IPhone4/3GS. Personally, the touch screen IPhone keyboard is much more comfortable for me, but I think it's just preference. Lastly, Blackberries are more developed? Who says? Apple's had one of the greatest technological advance in years and Blackberry's new products are always similar to the ones Apple released couple months before. Like the IPad and BlackBerry Tab.
Blackberries are best for teens and up

The blackberry is a phone that has several functions. You can download apps from appworld and there is a free program to talk to others who have a blackberry. There is also email, facebook, games and more. Generally the iPhone is for people who don't text much or need to type on it much because the keypad is a bit hard to use considering it is a touch screen. Though both of my parents have iPhones, they generally only call people on it, and give it to us to play games on it. Blackberries have many functions, and iPhones do too, but I think that overall, the Blackberries are better developed. Also, this debate shows a lot of bias towards iPhones, the title itself, "Is the iPhone better than the Blackberry??" favours the iPhone, it literally favours the iPhone, or favours the blackberry in ways. << I have yet to see a product that apple releases that wasn't something already put on the market. The only 2 things apple has been good at is having a "technological look" and a user-friendly interface. Tablets were around before the iPad (Microsoft had the first, even though it was unsuccessful, Apple did not invent the tablet), MP3 players were around before the iPod (Kane Kramer invented the first, then followed Audio Highway. Saehan Information Systems created the first mas produced MP3 player after those. Diamond multimedia, Compaq w/ HanGo, Creative, Cowon and Arkos all created MP3 Players before the iPod. Infact, Cowon even coined the "i" before their name calling it the iAudio and being accused of stealing the "i" from iPod before iPods were even around.). Palm, Windows and Blackberry all beat the Iphone to the Smart Phone market by at least 5 years. Apple has never done anything that was never done before. The closest they ever got was creating a tablet that sold. All apple has is a "name" from their "technological look" where users think that theyre getting the most advanced technology when really they're usually behind themselves. They always release a product that is next to pathetic but is sold as the greatest technology so people buy it. Months later they put out a new version better fit. For example, the first iPads didn't even have USB ports. They were ABSOLUTELY nothing more than an oversized phone that couldn't make phone calls. In fact, my phone was more powerful than the first iPads that came out. If you really believe that Apple is advanced in technology then you were just suckered into a false reality
Blackberry Is Better

In my opinion the blackberry is better. I personally have a Blackberry and it is a great phone I have played around with peoples Iphones and i dont think there the greatest. I'm not that big on touch phones so the iphone is not my favourite. Heres a website with a couple of reasons why th blackberry is better. http://crackberry.com/top-10-reasons-why-iphone-still-no-blackberry
In today’s world our country needs the best brains it can get. Our economic future depends on educa...

In today’s world our country needs the best brains it can get. Our economic future depends on education and technology, and making the most of the abilities of all our citizens. Selective schools do this by allowing bright children from all social backgrounds to get a high quality education. They can then become the researchers, engineers and business leaders of the future. This also creates a more mobile society in which your ability matters more than how well-off your parents were.
There is no magic way to select children by ability, but tests are a good way to decide. Every chil...

There is no magic way to select children by ability, but tests are a good way to decide. Every child in an area takes the same exam so their results can be compared fairly. Some types of test may be better than others but that is a reason for coming up with improved exams, not one for scrapping the whole system. \ In any case, testing is not the only way to choose the best school for students. An alternative to testing is to have primary school teachers advising on the best type of secondary school for each child. This is done in Germany with some success.
All good schools are hard to get into. Often parents move, paying more for a house just to be close...

All good schools are hard to get into. Often parents move, paying more for a house just to be close to a good school for their children. This also makes class divisions worse and is less fair than an entrance test for selective schooling. Without selective education, ambitious parents will choose to send their children to private schools, out of the public system entirely. This is bad, as they have paid taxes like everyone else, and deserve good state schools for their kids. It also means there will be even less social mixing in schools.
Children are different and there should be different kinds of schools to meet their different needs....

Children are different but they are all of equal value. With selective education brighter children are valued more highly, and the rest end up in much worse schools. In mixed ability schools all children are valued equally and can learn a lot from each other. Weaker students gain a lot from having more able children in their class, and brighter ones can be stretched by being asked to help those who need support. And children are often good at some subjects (e.g. English) but weaker at others (e.g. Maths) so selection on ability can make little sense. Such differences are best catered for by having streaming within a mixed-ability school.
In today’s world our country needs the best brains it can get. Our economic future depends on educa...

Countries without selective education systems do very well economically. They also have more mobile societies than countries like the UK. Selective schooling actually wastes talent, as many bright students will be missed by the exam process. They end up in poorly-funded schools without much hope of a good education. And the best teachers will go to selective schools, leaving other children with less good ones. The best thing for our country’s future would be to fund mixed ability schools better. That way well-trained, committed teachers in well-equipped classrooms can help every child make the most of their talents.
There is no magic way to select children by ability, but tests are a good way to decide. Every chil...

Even if selective schooling was right in theory, there is no good way of dividing up children so they all go to the “right” school for them. Usually selection is done by an exam taken in the last year of primary school, like the 11+ in parts of the UK. Such tests are not a fair way of selecting children as this is too young to make a good measure of their abilities. The exam may test some things (e.g. Maths ability) more than others (e.g. language skills). And in a one-off test, any child may do badly – what if they were ill, or there was trouble at home? Some very bright children react badly to the stress of a test situation. And no one has yet come up with an exam that paid coaching cannot help with, so richer and pushier parents can give their children an advantage.
Clever children who are interested in learning are often bullied in normal, mixed-ability schools. ...

It is quite possible to have a culture that values learning in a mixed-ability school. But it is hard to achieve this positive mood if all the brightest children have been taken out and put in selective schools. Students who remain in normal schools have been marked as failures at a young age. How they did in an exam aged 10 means their teachers and parents see them as less academic, and treat them as such. This adds to the child’s own sense of failure and encourages them to see learning as something that is not for them.
All good schools are hard to get into. Often parents move, paying more for a house just to be close...

In theory, a selective school is meritocratic – children from all social backgrounds can go there if they are bright enough. In reality, class plays a big part, with most selective school students coming from well-off families. This is because wealthier parents often pay for extra lessons to help their children in the entrance exams. So selective schools are not after all giving bright children from all backgrounds equal chances in life. They even make existing class divisions worse by giving extra opportunities to those from better-off families. The state should not be spending tax-payers’ money on a system like this.
Children are different and there should be different kinds of schools to meet their different needs....

Children are different and there should be different kinds of schools to meet their different needs. Children with a talent for music or sport should go to special schools to help them develop their gifts. Less academic children need a vocational education – one that gives them useful skills to prepare them for the workplace. And bright children need more academic schools that push them to learn and achieve as much as they can. Selecting students by ability is the way to make sure we provide each one with the best type of education for them.
Harmful speech needs to be filtered

Prop need to take a position on violent media as a whole. If they contend that music that glorifies VAW creates VAW, then obviously it’s implicit within that argument that violent music leads to actual violence. What Prop have shown us is that women tend to be victimized more often than most other demographics, but they have thus far failed to justify why their proposal only seeks to protect women from violence, are they asserting that a female victim is more of a victim than a male victim? If indeed a causal link exists between musical violence and real violence, then shouldn’t the government be banning all violent music? An opposition to music that glorifies VAW is a principle opposition to all violent music, which is why our second question became pertinent and was inadequately dealt with; what makes music so special that only violent music creates street violence? Why is it that horror films which are made for no other reason than to entertain and terrify, and which stimulate more senses than any song could (movies add visual stimulation), are permissible under Props paradigm, but Eminem’s song is not? We expect the majority of society to be at the very least as reasonable as the members of team Australia. Bear in mind that it's not a very high bar that we had to set considering what we've seen so far. The difference between the forms of speech that prop refers to & Eminem's song is that their speech is specifically targeted at an individual with the aim of inducing a specific, violent response, but a recorded song is open to interpretation, the songs that do call for violence against a specific group (versus mearly glorifying it) are usually classified as hate speech and are banned in most western nations, but when they are it's done consistantly against all forms of hate speech, why does prop seek to protect only women, if their proposal is truly effective, where is the harm in protecting other groups as well? Clearly because there is no real benefit.
People are justified in listening to violent music

One fact that is undeniable about humanity is that morbidity is part of the human condition. A consequence of our highly developed brains is that we become very conscious of our mortality, we become fascinated with violence as well because it is so closely linked to death, and we all want to understand death, we all want to know what happens after we die. So people end up seeking different ways of dealing with their fear of death, but the most common way is by desensitizing ourselves to the idea. Some of us do this by delving into religious scriptures because they offer salvation after death, but a lot of us also subject ourselves to an environment awash with death. The most read newspaper articles are usually those about wars and murders and other acts of violence, even when they are not pertinent to our direct personal security, because the more we hear and read about violence and death, the less shocking it becomes, and we spend less of lives fearing it.This obviously extends to the creative aspect of humanity as well. We all spend a lot of time thinking about violence, so it is not really surprising that the most creative of us end up making art about it. From paintings, to music, to theatre, we are obsessed with violence in our entertainment, even gratuitous violence. We have famous painters like Francisco Goya (1) being applauded for their violent art , Stanley Kubrick getting an Oscar nomination for directing ”A Clockwork Orange”, a movie rampant with misogyny; which clearly demonstrates humanity’s appreciation of violent art. So why is it that Prop want to ban only violent music? We have always had violent art within society, but contrary to what proposition would have you believe, we have also made monumental progress in terms of equal rights, so we need clear demonstration that violent music more than any other form of art, creates violence in society. (1) (http://emptyeasel.com/2007/06/06/francisco-goya-paintings-from-the-famous-spanish-artist/)
Censoring Art Is Dangerous

What side prop fails to acknowledge is that people are generally reasonable, which is why governments empower people to make choices that could harm them, because we expect every adult to be able to make informed decisions, and most of the time we are proven correct, which is why most people are not criminals. The harm that propositions logic has is that they do not realize that depending on the person listening to the song, we could have completely different interpretations of what the song means. This is because art is intensely personal; the emotions that art evokes are completely subjective, so one cannot simply assume that once someone hears a misogynistic song, they will be compelled to oppress women. For example, a lot of feminists maligned A Clockwork Orange for being exploitative to women because it depicted a lot of women being raped, but most people appreciated it as a warning against a society that was depriving people of their humanity (1), metaphorically turning them into cogs in a clock. This movie won four Oscar nominations, showing that gratuitous violence can be acceptable in society, and that we are capable of reading between the lines. So the question becomes: how exactly will proposition determine which songs are worthless and which are not? That is why censoring this music and any form of art is never a good idea. We can never really know the value of a work of art to different individuals, so it would be wrong to ban it unless we can determine a real harm, but as we have proven, the only harm that has been demonstrated by proposition is completely assertive. Music audiences have repeatedly proven that they do not take lyrics literally as the popularity of songs like Blowin' In The Wind by Bob Dylan would suggest, or Yellow Submarine(2) by the Beatles. (1)http://www.mouthshut.com/review/A_Clockwork_Orange_-_Anthony_Burgess-55646-1.html (2)http://www.lyricinterpretations.com/Beatles/Yellow-Submarine/2
A ban is necessary for progress in the status of women.

Ever since the sexual revolution era of modern developed nations, we have tried to make progress in the status and role of women in society. However, music that glorifies violence against women is preventing us from succeeding. Such music is demoralising to women and reinforces the idea that domination by males is natural and acceptable. This is not the case and therefore a ban is necessary. Banning this music would send a clear message that such attitudes are not acceptable in our society. Like any society, we have to enforce the values we wish to uphold. Music is an influential aspect of culture that DOES carry with it certain ideas, this is inevitable and therefore music that profits from its message of violence against women does glorify that violence and encourages it to continue. Remember that popular music is going to be far more influential than anything taught in schools or by the government. Popular artists are much more the role-models in society than the educators. In fact, many studies have linked media violence to aggressive real-world behavior [[http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm]], finding that listening to violent songs causes an increase in aggression [[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030505084039.htm]]. As popular music has such a strong impact, the only way the spread of such a backwards message can be curtailed is by banning the music that is glorifying that message. Violence against women is still, in most places, a huge problem. South Africa, for example, where more than a quarter of all men admitted to having raped a woman [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/17/south-africa-rape-survey]]. Music which encourages violence allows society to become complacent to the idea of such atrocities happening and is hindering the fight to change attitudes. It represents a perspective that is unacceptable and it offends the integrity of the world’s arduous journey to fix these problems.
Real social change requires real action.

Today’s society boasts of if equality towards both genders, though the lyrics and contexts of modern music state otherwise. By merely watching and hearing lyrics of the most popular songs from adolescent culture, it is inevitable to notice the sheer absence of respect for women, even through Eminem’s “Love the Way You Lie” which features Rihanna. The lyrics, “If she ever tries to f***ing leave again, I’mma tie her to the bed and set the house on fire” directly shows the violence and the music video not only collaborates this violence but also portrays females’ as sex objects. Rihanna’s own experience with violence through her boyfriend, Chris Brown, and her part in the song “but that’s OK, because I like the way it hurts” subliminally sends a message to many teens that even females find violent behaviour and abuse OK. A study done during 2003 in Washington, proved that violent lyrics directly affected, and caused violent thoughts. It is then unsurprising that statistics in the US of VAW show that every 18 minutes a female is beaten, and a female is raped every 6 minutes [[http://www.un.org/rights/dpi1772e.htm]]. It is also shown that in France, 95% of victims of violence are females, 51% of these crimes are committed by their husbands [[http://www.ideaconnection.com/solutions/7216-Violence-against-women.html]] - the link between violence and song lyrics that heavily glorifies violence is clear. It is preposterous for society to merely put on a facade that there is equality between the sexes, and yet, when statistics and studies prove and explain evidence contradict this do nothing about it. UN conventions, such as the UN Convention on Discrimination against Women have been put into place for the sole purpose of protecting women from inhumanity and yet the incidences are not declining significantly enough. Proving that these restrictions are not working and shows why further restrictions on music content are necessary.