BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mac vs PC

Thanks for the excellent Debate, Pro. I did not urge Apple Users to vote for me, I urged everyone to vote for me. My opponent has laid forth many arguments, none affirm his resolution, and many contradict it. According to my opponent, to get an equivalent value from a PC, you would need to buy the PC from Microsoft.com, extra storage from Amazon.com, a processor from intel.com, sign up for dropbox.com, get anti-virus from Avast.com, buy a touchpad from Logitech.com, and buy upgrades from a parts vendor, or take it in to a professional and get it upgraded. I argue that people’s time is worth more than that and therefor the decision to buy a Mac is far superior to buying a PC. My opponent’s link to the 6 TB storage accessory on Amazon is designed for a Mac, which helps illustrate my point. My Opponent also argued that the American Customer Satisfaction Index was flawed. We will have to disagree about the quality of the 70,000 interviews they conduct each year and the educational quality of the University of Michigan School of Business, where it was founded. I believe Apple winning 8 years in a row serves as a great indicator that consumers who buy Macs will be happier about their purchase than a consumer who buys a PC. My opponent seeks to divert reader’s attention away from the benefits of the Icloud by using a Red Herring argument, namely, dropbox. Dropbox is a web application. Any value you get by using dropbox is the same value you would get with a Mac or a PC. I-Cloud comes free with iOS 5 and is engineered to work with Apple Devices, including Desktops, Laptops, and Mobile devices. It syncs across them, saving the user time and effort trying to network several different devices and copying information from one to the next. My opponent also seeks to convince readers that by buying a low quality computer, and then loading it with cheap freeware anti-virus “solutions”, you will somehow get more value. Avast’s free anti-virus does not contain many features, and is only for use at home, not in a business. If you like to use high quality software made by high quality software engineers on high quality hardware made by high quality hardware engineers, you can’t really expect them to eat Ramen Noodles every night. Pro has not affirmed his resolution, and I maintain my points as stated above. This argument is getting pretty drawn out and Pro has not provided any evidence that buying a PC is better, only equivalent, and more like inferior.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

1. Is life sacred?Depends on how sacred is defined. Important, yes. Holy, no. 2. Do you believe China and the US may be hostile towards each other?Yes.3. Should the government protect the people and focus on issues at home instead of abroad?We should focus on issues at home, but that does not mean we completely ignore issues abroad as the word instead could possibly imply.4. Should we completely cut off aid to Pakistan?No.5. Does life begin at conception?Life begins, but not the existence of a human being.6. Should US Laws/Bills (i.e. Budgets, Obamacare, everything Congress passes, etc...) be required to be Constitutional (US Constitution)?Yes.7. Do you support the US income tax (of any kind, flat or progressive)?Yes.8. Is Ron Paul a good pick for President of the US (discount the impossibility)?No.9. Are rocks inanimate objects?Yes.10. Have you contradicted yourself yet?I am not aware of such a situation.-----------------------------------------------------Questioning is now finished. The next two rounds will consist of debating the existence of contradictions in my responses.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

1. Is life sacred? 2. Do you believe China and the US may be hostile towards each other? 3. Should the government protect the people and focus on issues at home instead of abroad? 4. Should we completely cut off aid to Pakistan? 5. Does life begin at conception? 6. Should US Laws/Bills (i.e. Budgets, Obamacare, everything Congress passes, etc...) be required to be Constitutional (US Constitution)? 7. Do you support the US income tax (of any kind, flat or progressive)? 8. Is Ron Paul a good pick for President of the US (discount the impossibility)? 9. Are rocks inanimate objects? 10. Have you contradicted yourself yet?
I Will Not Contradict Myself

1. Can inanimate objects hold emotions? No. 2. Is China an enemy? No. 3. Do you support abortion? I support a women's right to choose to have one. 4. Should the US discontinue its use o the death penalty? In most cases. 5. Are you against cruel and unusual punishment? Yes. 6. Do you support the war on terrorism? No. 7. Do you support funding wars and military operations in the Middle East? No to the war, yes to some military operations. 8. Do you support any war? Yes. 9. Do people have a moral obligation to assist people in need? Yes. 10. Do you support foreign aid? Yes.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

Thank you Magicr for answering my first questions and for clearing up the rule misinterpretation. 1. Can inanimate objects hold emotions? 2. Is China an enemy? 3. Do you support abortion? 4. Should the US discontinue its use of the death penalty? 5. Are you against cruel and unusual punishment? 6. Do you support the war on terrorism? 7. Do you support funding wars and military operations in the Middle East (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, etc.)? 8. Do you support any war? 9. Do people have a moral obligation to assist people in need? 10. Do you support foreign aid?
I Will Not Contradict Myself

Do contradictions start in R4? Yes. 1. Do you really support Obama and his views?On most issues, yes.2. Do you think border security should be increased to stop aliens from crossing the border between America and Mexico?No.3. Do you believe the minimum wage should be increased?Yes.4. Is your profile an accurate and truthful description of you?Yes, except for the About Me part.5. Do you think citizens should have smoking/tobacco rights?Yes, but not if smoking involves causes harm of others. In other words, in private is fine, but not if other people are forced to deal with second hand smoke in a public location.6. Do you believe in God?No.7. Do you believe some actions are objectively morally wrong?No.8. Do you believe drugs should be legalized?Some drugs such as marijuana, yes. More dangerous drugs, no.9. Is Earth a sad place right now?Overall, yes.10. Do you support George W. Bush?I assume by support you are referring to his actions as president and political beliefs. Overall, no.Interesting questions.
I Will Not Contradict Myself

First, do contradictions start in Round 4? Anyway, the questions: 1. Do you really support Obama and his views? 2. Do you think border security should be increased to stop aliens from crossing the border between America and Mexico? 3. Do you believe the minimum wage should be increased? 4. Is your profile an accurate and truthful description of you? 5. Do you think citizens should have smoking/tobacco rights? 6. Do you believe in God? 7. Do you believe some actions are objectively morally wrong? 8. Do you believe drugs should be legalized? 9. Is Earth a sad place right now? 10. Do you support George W. Bush?
I Will Not Contradict Myself

I've scene few of these and I thought it might be intersting to try. Con asks 10 yes or no questions in each round from Rounds 1-3. I will answer each question to the best of my ability. If a question cannot be answered with a plain yes or no, I will explain why this is the case.In Round 5, Con will point out the contradictions have occurred, I will offer a rebuttal. The same happpens in Round 5.
Humans are sentient.

My opponent's singular argument is an appeal to authority, in that my opponent says because he/she said something is true, therefore it must be true. This argument does not affirm the resolution due to it being a logical fallacy [1]. Since this is my opponent's singular argument, and it fails to fulfill the BoP, Con claims victory by default.Thank you.Reference [1] http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
GMO's Are Dangerous and Should Be Banned

I must reiterate I'm not really against labeling of it ... so long as its not overly required to the point it is significantly damaging GMO's and giving organic an artificial advantage in the market. A prime example would be like the labeling they instituted against cigarette companies where entire 1' x 3' areas of their packaging had to be reserved for high definition stomach turning pictures and anti cigarette propaganda. That's going way too far. Simple labeling or open disclosure on the company websites suffices. They're tested well enough to pass FDA standards. Some organic foods can't even claim that level of cleanliness (though admittedly is quite low). Its acceptable. Yes, your last paragraph about the vision people have over GMO's is exactly the type of 'scare tactic' type image that has unjustly grown around their use. Its of course nothing like that. The modifications are actually much more simple than some zombification virus like in resident evil. Its just stuff like making the outer cell wall of a fruit slightly thicker to make it more resilient to bugs and weather, making a strain more 'horny', as it were, so it attempts to reproduce even out of season, strengthening the immune systems of plants so they are less susceptible to pestilence and other sickness that might kill them and decrease yield. Basically we do it to our own bodies to prolong our lifetime, why not prolong the life of our food sources such that we can continue to benefit from them for much longer periods. On a side tangent, there is a level of consistency you get from a company making the entire genome of a strain proprietary. They know it and basically clone it. You know what you're getting. Organic foods are far less controlled and you could actually be subject to mutational effects that come from plants constantly reproducing. I can't say I've seen it be a problem that has escaped its own demise or was ever not filtered out by FDA or some other quality control ... but there is some risk there. Risk in leaving things up to nature to decide what its gonna dump on you this week. Bad weather, pestilence, bad crop.
GMO's Are Dangerous and Should Be Banned

(Why on earth did I open a 3 round argument?!)Anywayy, if the modified foods are better, then why are organic foods more expensive? Also, did you know that all of the following countries enforced labeling policies? Australia, Austria. Belgium, Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Greenland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom I'm quite sure the government of these countries aren't stupid. They knew GMO's are not properly tested so they wanted to give the people a choice. By saying this I am not saying GMO's have never been tested. They have, but not enough. As a kid, I'm not confident if this sounds "normal" or not, but when you said "Organic vs. GMO are just two corporations fighting each other for business. Organic wins their crowd through scare tactics and public perception and GMO tries to win theirs through scientific improvement to plants and animals for better food yield and by means of patent protection," I had a picture in my mind where there is a horde of zombies (GMO, since they're both "mutated") trying to take over the mass of surviving humans (Organic, because both are natural") , like the IOS (or android I'm not sure) game "World Zombination." Thank you.
GMO's Are Dangerous and Should Be Banned

Literally the only reason a business would pay to not be labeled containing GMO's is because of the bad rap they get from people like you. If everyone was jumping on the 'no sugar' band wagon ... companies would pay millions to get their sugar content off that label too. If it makes fiscal sense to pay a few million to save 10's of millions in sales, they'll do it. There is certainly some scientific proof that each is effective because they would not release it or pay to fund a project that doesn't render a superior product or better crop yields. If GMO's did things worse than the norm ... no company would pay for them as their cost would be higher than just using, say, plain old tomatoes. I can't say I agree with the aggressive patent and lawsuit practices they participate in, but I venture to guess those are brought on too by the negativity perpetuated aver a perfectly fine product they just got done spending millions on developing. Its sad they feel they need to offset that cost by way of lawsuits ... but I'm certain they take their fair share of licks from the organic crowd as well. I think organic farming is being misrepresented as some grassroots small business that's being kicked around by big business. There are plenty of organic brands linked in farming networks the same as any other food producing market, just like the GMO guys, just like Purdue, and any other. Organic vs. GMO are just two corporations fighting each other for business. Organic wins their crowd through scare tactics and public perception and GMO tries to win theirs through scientific improvement to plants and animals for better food yield and by means of patent protection. GMOs aim to target the masses by beating out their competition with lower prices, organic tend to target the wealthy privileged few. The US just happens to have a lot of people who take to fads and have generally more disposable income to spend on the image organic brands are selling them on. Frankly we've already defied mother nature to the extent that this type of food optimization is necessary to maintain the population we've grown to. If you wanted to wipe every food modification ever performed off the map today, you'd start a worldwide depression and so many would starve. I don't know your financial background, but i'd venture to guess you wouldn't be able to afford enough of the organic food you're fighting for to be able to feed your family. And lets hope you ate it immediately because organic food has substantially less shelf life to boot. (i.e. food shipments cost more and contain less choices)
GMO's Are Dangerous and Should Be Banned

GMO's have little to no scientific proof that its benefits are greater. However, there are indeed proof on the white mice, which showed signs of premature growth, smaller brains, the inability to reproduce, and large tumors. Different substances should not be mixed, and Mother Nature should not be defied. Even in the slim chance that it may not be harmful, it is also taking over organic fields. Despite not being able to reproduce, the modified plants easily contaminates nearby fields, and using this as an advantage, organic farmers were forced to pay the GMO companies for using their technology even though they didn't want to. At this rate, it wouldn't be long before organic foods disappear off the face of Earth. A very suspicious fact about GMO's is that companies are spending millions to prevent modified foods from being labeled as "Genetically Modified." That hints at how the food is unstable, and the companies are attempting to hide it. Do you have any proof that the benefits to their use far outweighs their non-use?
GMO's Are Dangerous and Should Be Banned

The blanket statement that GMO's in general are dangerous is false. Things should not be banned for use barring scientific proof of safety. People should be allowed to weigh the options and risks of use as the do with anything in life. Disclosure of GMO's in a particular product is one thing ... banning them completely is a gross overreaction to a few publicized incidents that are misrepresentative of GMO's as a whole and the benefits to their use, which far outweigh their non-use because of the very nature of the businesses that manufacture them.
Rap Battle (White vs Hispanic)

Alright first of all my food is more real than all of your chicks. The Mexican chicks is what everyone would pick. Just the other day I went to a American museum and saw many reasons why Americans think their are great. Beside the posters of every American president I found a secret room of every Mexican president. This battle was Mexican vs. Cracker so why you bring in the Blacks. You must be high on crack. The FBI may be out to hunt me. I get more scared when I think a Russian want to hunt me. Round 3 ended I not gonna say any more. Cause if I do a white genocide starts
Rap Battle (White vs Hispanic)

Hey friend, you are close to your end. Your jokes aren't funny, your life is crummy. You called my tacos yummy and i never told you your cheap burgers are good. People are like crayons, because no one likes the white one. Who took all your job? It was a mexican called juan. You can't rap its just complete crap. There aren't a lot of well known white rapper. Can't you see you are just a wantabe cracker? You only have sex with your hand while i have sex with 5 white girls. They put on their best dresses with curls. I crossed the border im extreme. I have seen ice and i didnt scream. unlike you who blow the police
The access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.

Pro Forfeited due to not thinking he is allotted certain arguments. Pro could have taken out my observation, thus destroying my rebuttals, but he did not and decided to just forfeit, losing the chance to argue his points and give these "informed opinions" to the voters. Thank you for at least accepting this debate, I learned some from your forfeit, but the argument that there was no ground for you was false. This is supposed to be a Lincoln-Douglass style debate, and allows you any arguments under the condition that you take out my own. If you had worked on your case more than just a couple paragraphs, it would have been strong enough for you do defend effectively.
The access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.

I'm done here. This debate will not allow the less-relevant tangent of me explaining a resource-based economy and how access is both feasible and neccessary for humans on this planet. "Money is not needed" is a very bold statement, and is immediately associated with naivete, as it is how the world "works." But who's to say it's the only way it can work? In fact it's not and it doesn't work. It's dysfunctional.And begging for votes at the end of the argument? Formal debates are more personal; about the corrupt greed of just winning, rather than just defending the case so the audience can take notes and create informed opinions off of it. I couldn't care less if you liked me or not.So now I forfeit from this debate. Vote for CON, I don't care. I'm not trying to be heroic, inspirational, or anything; just vote for CON. I scientifically know PRO is justified, but peoples' faith in capitalism on this site is too strong. I could've defended my case, but it's no use, recognizing the paterns of cultural bias from my experience on this site. If this topic was more relevant to Economics so that I could argue the feasibility of a Resource-Based Economy, I'd continue. If you wanna learn more about my position on economics, read one of my other debates or just google The Zeitgeist Movement. And don't base your vote on what I'm saying here when you go to my other debate; it loses the debate's purpose of arguing the strengths and weaknesses of the points. Peace.BTW: There are methods other than desalination, if you want to look into it. And no, my proposed economic system is not communism. Until you clear that from your head, you're gonna be wrong about it.
The access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.

This will be interesting. Now before we move onto the arguments, we need to establish some definitions here:Human Right - A right that self-evidently should belong to everyone. Commodity- any marketable item produced to satisfy needs or needs. Drinking Water- water that won't make you sick if you drink itHumans need water to live, and I don't believe you should have to earn/pay for your right to live. However, in the current economic system, water has to be sold or else that would increase unemployment rates and make the economy worse. That's how the world works. But who's to day that's the only way the world works? I propose a resource-based economy, because we have the resources to filter the oceans water and give it to everyone. This would also be helpful to humanity, because the sea levels are rising from melting ice caps and are projected to flood major cities in the future. If you want to learn more about a resource-based economy (which isn't bartering) you can look at one of my debates, google it, or watch a Zeitgeist film. But I won't go on that tangent. So in conclusion of this paragraph, it's both necessary for survival and it's resourcefully feasible, but not fiscally feasible. Coffee is a commodity. You don't necessarily need coffee to survive. Any specific food is a commodity. But access to food in general should be a human right, as it is fundamental to one's survival. Access to water or at least juiceable fruit is also fundamental to survival. So if we planted fruit trees in Africa, and gave them the tools to juice the fruit, and made the land arable, then that would solve some problems. But one of the things necessary for arable land is water, so why not give them water and the tools to filter it anyway?
The access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity.

I would like to debate this LD-Style, so if you accept, you accept all rules of LD-Style debate. You can find them practically anywhere on a debate website, just Google it and I'm sure you'll find them. (In this debate, a Value-Criterion will be necessary).1st Round For Con: Proposing the Debate1st Round For Pro: 1st Constructive (Arguments are presented)2nd Round For Con: 1st Constructive and Rebuttals to Pro2nd Round For Pro: 1st Rebuttal to Con's case and rebuilding Pros (No new arguments)3rd Round For Con: Rebuilding Case points and rebuttals (Conclusion)3rd Round For Pro: Rebuilding Case and rebuttals (Conclusion)I know this means I get one less round to argue, but it is the LD-Style debate regulation, so note that you get the extra round in this debate.I look forward to an educational debate.