BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
iOS 7 is better than Android Kit Kat

There is a slight flaw in the study you sight. Their only Android contender appears to be Jelly Bean with TouchWiz on top. TouchWiz is known to be poorly optimized, and thusly, while I agree with idea of this report, their Android rating seems misguided. You argue that iOS 7 is smoother and faster with nicer transitions than Android, providing it is one a new enough device. Having a device new enough to run it smoothly does not mean that the operating system is going to run smoothly and at a satisfactory level on all devices it supports. Almost every Android device I've used has been less clucky than an iPhone 4 running iOS 7. Every new mobile device I've used in the past year has felt buttery smooth. From the iPhone 5, 5s, and 5c, the iPad Air and new Mini, the Galaxy Note 3, the Galaxy S4, the Nexus 7, the Nexus 5, HTC One the Note 10.1 and Galaxy Tab Pro 10.1. All these devices run the latest version of iOS or Android at this point, and all of them with the exception of the Note 10.1 performed with no transition hiccups at all.I know many people who have switched from iOS to Android and not felt any resentment or regret, myself included. As for your programming experience, Android uses Java not ja vascript, it's understandable how coming from C to Java could be difficult, but I figure it's more a personal problem getting used to the syntax differences rather than a complexity of the language. To each their own. Android isn't all about being pretty, one can get to the file system if they wish, or even root and overclock their device. Android can unlock the raw power of one's phone or tablet. Android is open, apps from any developer can be used, not just those approved by Google. I urge you to try a Nexus 4, 5, or 7 (2013) running KitKat 4.4.2 and overcome your bias. Those devices show the try beauty of stock, unskinned, unmodified Android. Pure Google in a sense. There are things that can be done on Android that iOS devices could never dream of doing.
novels (pro) vs comics (con)

Contrary to popular belief, there are some superhero novels as well, albeit they didn't get much fame. One example is Transformers Exodus, just loook it up on Amazon, it is better than the Transformers movies. Also, many detective novels have action scenes that are communicated well despite being text-only. As for fast-pace, it is just because of the short length of the comics it is fast-paced. The saying "a picture is a thousand words" come to my mind. Novels have the speed of a normal movie, well comics are more like short trailers or tv episodes. Overall, con hasn't rebutted any of the benefits of novel reading, and therefore I would say to vote for me.
novels (pro) vs comics (con)

Comics show how the characters look like and don't give way for our imagination to add custom perks. As for usage of Onomatopoeia, many novels use it as well,albeit in a more subtle manner, such as "crack of a thunderbolt" rather a plain BANGGG. Novels are a bit text heavy, but they increase our vocabulary, grammar and stimulate our imagination. In this logical world, there is often less place for daydreamers and more for practical workers.
US healthcare should be made universal

resist you treatment?" A good example of why US health care will not work as an universal health care system is looking at how poorly Medicare is handled. This is a system already in place that every senior citizen is guaranteed the ability to use, but the extensive restriction on Medicare give senior citizens poor health coverage that they have to subsidized with insurances like AARP. They are repeated turned down for procedures and higher end medications because it is just to expensive to do those type of things. Even in Obama's new law Medicare is being severely cut into in order to enact his law in the first place. So how is this new universal health care supposed to help everyone when it first has to destroy what the elderly already have in order to get enough money to enact the law. It will take over three years of paying into this new bill at minimum before any benefits are going to be seen.
US healthcare should be made universal

Universal health care will not resist you treatment for your illness based on the cost of the procedure. Health insurance is big business and they gain more satisfaction by declining patients and saving money than providing treatment for those in desperate need of medical attention. Insurance rates are sky-high and an incredible amount of the population in the U.S. cannot afford or stay on pace with medical finances. In addition, many Americans will not even attempt to visit the doctor in fear of their financial situation. Granted there will be flaws in the socialist system, welfare benefits are a good example. Overall, the need for extensive medical coverage is a priority based on the enormous number of the U.S. population that has no health care. You cannot put a price on someone's life and medical attention should not be based off of the wealth of the individual.
US healthcare should be made universal

Just because a person has health care does not mean they will live longer happier lives. People do have the "right" to health care it mores of a matter of they can not afford it. Plus I don't want my taxes to go up because the junky down the street who has been in rehab multiply times is still being given treatment and medication though they chose to not change their lifestyle that will help them to stay away from their habit. There would still be a wait time because every emergency that happens that will be one more person in front of someone that has been on the "waiting" line for who knows how long. There are plenty of people out there that just chose not to have health care because they feel they do not need it. So now you would be forcing money out of their pocket for system they do not want in the first place. Then requiring more money in fines and possible jail time because they don't want to be in the system.
US healthcare should be made universal

Health care is a right for all Americans, the Preamble of the US Constitution states that one of its purpose is to "promote the general welfare" of the people. Just as all Americans have the right to a public education to help them in their future careers, they should have the right to health care because that promotes a healthier life. The United States is one of the few, developed nations in the world that does not guarantee health coverage for its citizens. Also by providing all citizens the right to health care it will stimulate growth for economic productivity. When people have access to health care, they live healthier and longer lives, they can then add to society for a longer time. The wait time would not be an issue if we had universal health care, once we start it everyone will be healthier because they have coverage so down the road fewer people will need to be waiting because they will be healthier from the start.
US healthcare should be made universal

Yes universal health care has been done in other counties. For instance in Canada, there is a universal health care. The people in Canada pay about 22% of there taxes to support this system. Everything thing is regulated by the government including how much doctors can charge for procedures and visits to the rationing of medication and medical equipment. In capping how much a doctor can charge causes problems also because some doctors are not able to cover over head cost or even make enough to bring themselves out of debt (i.e. being able to pay back their student loans). Another problem is the long "waiting" lines for people to be treated. There is no emergency procedures and people are put in a "priority" list. The problem with this is for every new "priority" problem patient they may get pushed farther and farther back in the line, thus their own problems getting worse.
US healthcare should be made universal

The United States population of uninsured citizens continues to increase each year. Health care has become unaffordable for many of the United States residents, both individually and through businesses. If the United States grants universal health care this would eliminate many health issues that are not being treated among the individuals who have no health care. Doctors would be able to concentrate on curing the patients rather than worrying about if they will get a check from their insurance. One point to bring up would be those who volunteered in 9/11, they are going through difficult times right now whether it be their family as well or just them but if they are out of a job and now uninsured this is unfair to those who served for us. Knowing that other areas in the world have universal health care, it is obvious that if can be done. It may be a tough transition but it is a necessary one.
W.L. Craig's formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is flawed.

The prepositional phrase, "In the beginning," modifies the verb, "created." It was the creation that occurred in the beginning, not God. God is the subject, the one doing the creating. The objects are the heavens and earth. The phrase "the heavens" is generally understood to mean the cosmos as we know it, not Heaven the afterlife. [1] So, from this sentence alone, we can get the following information: at the beginning of something, God created the universe. What is the beginning being referred to? Well, if the cosmos didn't exist until this moment, then the best deduction is that the beginning refers to the beginning of time and space. At any rate, the least logical interpretation is that God began at this moment. By placing God as the subject, the hidden assumption is that God already was. Indeed, by taking the rest of the bible into account (context is key), we see that God is defined as eternal and transcending his creation. God and his creation are separate. In Ephesians, God is described as "over all and through all and in all." [2] Note that God is not all and all is not God. God is distinct. Christian doctrine is logically compatible with KCA, as the beginning described in Genesis does not refer to God but the universe. Therefore, There is no basis to affirm the resolution that "W.L. Craig's formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is flawed." SOURCES 1. http://strongsnumbers.com... 2. http://www.biblegateway.com...
W.L. Craig's formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is flawed.

Good day to my opponent KRFournier, good day readers and debaters. I have created this debate as KRF's debate with Geo [1] intrigued me when I read his argument with KCA[2] as his example of a Pro theory for God. I would first like it to be noted that Kalam[3] itself is founded within Islamic Theology. As per the link it did spread in medievil Europe/Asia to both Christians and Islamists; it is however initially grounded in discourse between those of the Islamic faith in regards to Allah and not the Christian God of the Bible. By religious accounts these two gods are not the same individual, they have invoked different customs, ways of worship etc, I find it odd that Christianity found it convenient to cherry pick this theological principal from a rival faith and adopt it for themselves. From a Christian standpoint, it appears obvious that KCA fails due to Genesis 1:1 [4] Now, 'In the beginning' leads to some implications when talking about an initial cause for something to occur. The word 'beginning' [5] itself is the downfall for KCA, as you can see on point 5 re noun, origin; source; first cause. This means that 'in the beginning something happened and God was there all of a sudden. It must mean this. Otherwise Gen 1:1 would read 'Some time after the beginning God....'. Doesn't Gen 1:1 record in biblical terms, the start of everything ever? Doesn't Gen 1:1 offer up the notion of a Big Bang? Your thoughts KRF? [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.biblegateway.com... [5] http://dictionary.reference.com...
On the Following Fair Taxation System(s).

The proposition on offer is that the following taxation system(s) are fair. The proposition is NOT that they should be adopted by the United States - I affirm. **************************** System 1 - Consumption Tax. The main component of this taxation system would be the abolishment of the income tax. Historically, when you want less of something (pollution, imports) you tax them at a high rate. Why tax one's legal work? Do we want less people to work? The government's revenue would then come from consumption tax. Several necessities such as food, living, and gas would be taxed at a much lower rate or not at all. Currently, there is no tax on essential foodstuffs. This should remain the case. The tax rate on consumption would rise considerably. However, people would have more money in their pockets to spend in the market, so this would be offset somewhat. This system would also tax the rich and the poor equitably. Since the poor are actually in NEED of certain items such as basic foodstuffs and housing, they will be paying for tax-free or low-tax options. The rich, on the other hand, have more purchasing power and will consume not only more in terms of total products, but they will be supporting a better lifestyle and buying items that have higher tax rates to them. Thus, the poor retain a much greater proportion of their base income, and the rich spend more of their base income as they see fit, leaving us with an equitable taxation system and the means to tax the rich at a greater rate. ************************************* System 2 - Flat Taxation Instead of taxing the poor at 10% and the rich at 25%, it would be much more equitable to determine an approximate basic living stipend for the country, and then make all income earned below that threshold tax free. For purposes of argument, let us assume this to be $36,000 (or $3000 a month). All income (from legal work, capital gains, etc...) that under $36,000 would be tax free. Above this threshold, tax would incur at the same rate across the board. The person who makes $36,001 would be taxed at 10% and the person who makes 3.6 Million would be taxed at 10%. Thus, all taxpayers pay an equitable amount of their income, and the poor actually retain a GREATER proportion of their base income than the rich. ************************** A last component: One additional component that would be beneficial to both these systems would be to tax imported goods at several times the rate of domestic goods - enough of a rate that it becomes cheaper for manufacturing companies to return their business to the United States. It makes no sense for the US to export raw material and import finished goods - that's what a colony does, and it's why Africa remains poor. ************************* I believe the above two tax systems to be fair ways to tax citizens under a model similar to that of the United States.
On the Following Fair Taxation System(s).

Unfortunately, what my opponent describes is a utilitarian tax system, not necessarily a fair one. I thought the resolution was clear from the arguments that a fair tax would be one that taxed both the rich and poor equitably or in an equal manner. My opponent also somewhat concedes that the two systems are "reasonably efficient." He then contends that: a) It preserves inefficient industries. b) Doing A is a waste of resources. c) Increasing the price of manufactured goods hurts US workers. **************************** a) On inefficient industries. My opponent uses the auto industry as an example. However, if one considers a company such as Toyota, the use of the tariff system becomes clear. There are major Toyota assembly plants in Huntsville, AL; Georgetown, KY; Princetion, IN; San Antonio, TX; and Buffalo, WV. None of the cars produced at these plants, even though designed in Japan would be subject to additional costs. Imported Toyotas from Japan would be subject to a higher tax rate. Thus, the import tariffs encourage foreign competitors to move production to the United States and create more jobs in this market, rather than risk losing the market of the largest consumer nation on the planet. And if GM can't handle the rising number of Toyota plants in the US, they will go under - showing an example of an inefficient industry that folded under this hypothetical model. b) On the preservation of inefficient industries. I'm not sure that my opponent's case for this is actually that logical. It seems to me that if the North Carolinians can make X amount making textiles, and X + Y amount making pharmaceuticals, the economic choice is clear. My opponent's example is simply a case of foolish or uninformed economic practices. c) On the damage to US workers from increasing import tariffs. If the cost of importing a good goes up, the sale price does as well. This is a simple way to get American companies like Proctor and Gamble to move their 31 plants in China to places like the same town where their headquarters is - Cincinnati. Import tariffs encourage US companies to pay US workers to make their products. This seems like a very good thing for US workers to me. ********************* I must apologize for my opponents confusion in the following points... I was not arguing that this system would help lesser-developed nations. When I said "It makes no sense for the US to export raw material and import finished goods - that's what a colony does, and it's why Africa remains poor," it should have been read as stating: 1) Exporting raw materials and importing finished goods makes no economic sense. 2) Therefore, it makes no sense for the US use the model in 1. 3) The model in 1 is what a colony does. 4) The model in 1 is also why Africa remains poor. Once again, my apologies for the confusion. ************************* I believe I have shown that my proposed addition to the systems my opponent concedes are "reasonably efficient" will not have the disastrous effects he proposes. I would ask that he pay more mind to the systems themselves, and not the component of import tariffs though. AFFIRMED.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C: The universe has a cause.The conclusion is universe has a CAUSE. And question is what is this CAUSE?1. This Cause is eternal, because it exists out of time and space.2. This Cause is transcendental, because it exists out of time and space, it transcends time and space.3. This Cause is uncaused* therefore it is one.4. This Cause has a will, because this eternal and transcendental Cause bring into existence temporal and finite events, therefore chose to do so, and choice indicates will.*If you say what caused this cause, then what caused this cause that caused that cause that caused universe, and I can repeat it for infinity. And if chain of causes go for infinity, that indicates the universe does not exist. The best and simplest explanation is the explanation. Because if you make this cause more than one, many unanswerable question will arise.So, Eternal, Transcendental, One, and Will - you can call this Cause anything you want, but rational people call this Cause (The) GOD.I read all your sources and your arguments of course but it does not defeat or refute the P1. First of there many models of universe and ideas about Big Bang itself, and I cannot argue all of them, I mean even scientists does not agree within themselves which is true. Just Alex V. said something does not make it true. And all models cannot be true,at the same time. And vilenkin's model is just model, which is not proved to be the true model (factual and evidentual).
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Is Sound

Thank you for very nicely prepared argument. First of all, I do not have to quote W.L. Craig, most of his arguments are not his (and some of actually Islamic) and I am not Craig. Secondly my intention was not to show the proof for P1 in intro argument, I am going to do it, in this round, sorry for misunderstanding.Now, let's begin with quantum fluctuations and nothingness. Questions is where does that particles come from? And what causes it? And their lifespan is too short to observe, and so we cannot observe the cause also, and scientists squiz the "uncaused" into fluctuations. If you say the quantum fluctuations is uncaused, that means you are making the claim, and I expect you to bring the evidence for your claim. If we do not know and you cannot observe the cause (yet) it does not mean it is uncaused. The Vacuum is not nothing, it is a physical object, which has energy and pressure and volume (of course) (!Alex Vilenkin) and it works under the law of universe. The virtual particles do not come into being from nothing, they appear in vacuum, so they are caused by vacuum. So, saying that, particles pop out from nothing, is fallacious argument."Spontaneous quantum tunnelling process" is an assumption, and I do not believe in assumption, it is a leap of faith. I believe in what I KNOW to be true, after I know it is true. Also the laws of nature exists in the nature you cannot export them out of nature.Now, let's return to P1."Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a self-evident proposition (call it axiom, if you want), and it is the universal truth. Because the opposite of this proposition is illogical and irrational. Let's assume something can come into being without a cause, it implies that, something come into being from nothing. Question - Can something come from nothing?! Nothing is the absence of everything, everything that exists - particles, energy, mass, volume, everything that can be attributed to any object.If indeed something can come from nothing, the why we do not observe such happenings in the universe. The science is observation. And if scientists holds the view which he cannot observe (or prove), then he has a problem with reality.With Big Bang it is not only the universe (matter and energy) begin to exist, but also time and space. So anything before time has to be eternal, so what ever caused the universe has to be eternal. Let's assume it is not eternal but, temporal that means it is subjected to time, but it contradicts the proposition "time beginning with Big Bang."Sources:http://arstechnica.com...http://www.scientificamerican.com...videolink-http://www.youtube.com...http://www.newscientist.com...