BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
New car production laws

:) sorry for the false accusation! But you seemed to be really frustrated with the lights problem, you even purposed a law to make it easier to change them... I will try to go direct to the point. I agree that the governments, not only in the US, but all over the world, should address these problems in regard of car's safety. I also don't believe in capitalism and I believe that the governments should intervene much more often in the economy and not only as a last resort. It was many times proven that capitalism is not reliable and not even the principles of modern economy are reasonable or sustainable. But back to the debate. My only problem is establishing these suggestions as laws. In an ideal world, where everyone' safety is a priority and where governments main interests is people' safety and the assurance of their survival, as the survival of the next generations, this laws would not even need to be passed, because the car manufactures would apply those measures anyway. And in our real world, establishing these laws is not plausible, because there are too many interests and negative consequences. About the car companies bankruptcy, I doubt that Brand X would be the only one to go down. Too many people wouldn't appreciate these impositions and wouldn't buy new cars, putting all the manufactures in very fragile positions. In the US we have the great example of all that stupidity about the guns. If the government isn't able to pass laws in regard of this matter, imagine the chaos it would be, if they forced people to drive autonomous vehicles. There would be a revolution and the car companies would join it! To conclude, I really appreciate my opponent views, I probably wasn't the best opponent, since I agree with him in almost everything. But despite my agreement on the improvements purposed, I just believe that there are better ways to apply them, than through imposing laws, like dialogue and financial support.
New car production laws

Well no, I never had any issues with my head-lights (In fact, i also drive older cars only, like a Toyota MR2 and a Pontiac Fiero). Reason for the head-light rule, is because of safety. Always having your head-lights on, increases your visibility to others, which can only be a good thing. Also, many idiots don't turn on their head-lights, until it's absolutely pitch dark. On the legal and financial issues. The state is there for a reason, it can use force to get things done faster, if it were up to the manufacturers or customers alone, change (the one we need) will happen very slowly. Solar panels are a good example of this. The industry does not want people to produce their own power at home, since that kills their profit. Look at a country like Germany though and you see almost no houses without solar panels on their roofs. Yes, it will indeed lead to a few bankruptcy's here and there, but this is not a problem at all, would you rather have brand x go bankrupt, while fatal traffic accidents drop by 50%, or would you rather have brand x survive and not reduce the amount of fatal traffic accidents? The government (as it was intended at leas) in my opinion, is there to try to remove some of the negative aspects of the system a society lives in (in our case capitalism). The odds of an automated vehicle crashing while driving in automatic mode, are far lower than the odds of a regular person crashing a regular car. This ultimately means, that the risk attached to these rules are quite minor in a legal sense and any government should be able to easily cover for any issues financially. On a more technical note. Modern cars already have electronically controlled brakes, electronic steering and an electronic acceleration system. Most cars also have GPS on board, so you wouldn't really need much more, in order to get at least the automatic intervention part working. You need sensors to detect distance and relative speed compared to anything in front of the car and the back of the car and a small (cheap) computer to handle the data. If the front sensors notice an object coming close rapidly, it can apply the brakes in case the driver isn't responding (many cars actually already have this). If the driver wants to pass another car, but the sensors notice it can not possibly pass the object in front of it, without crashing into oncoming traffic, the car will refuse to steer in that direction and refuse to accelerate, until the danger is gone. Just this simple change, can already save thousands of lives every year and it only requires about 300 dollars worth of sensors, to be added to the car. On a side-note, i actually think the government should be there to slowly kill capitalism in the first place, but that is an issue for another day.
New car production laws

I just want to point out, that I'm not saying that those suggestions shouldn't be taken by the car manufactures, just that it is completely different implementing these ideas as laws. By only making some agreements between the US government and the manufactures I believe you could already change many things. After all, all the car companies are trying to improve their cars security, while diminishing their foot print. I agree that they are taking away too long! And maybe the government should try to interfere... but than it would be colliding with lots of personal interests and capitalistic ideals. And after crossing this line, where should they stop? Why only implementing those measures? Why not forcing the manufactures to produce complete electrical vehicles, with renewable materials? And why stop in the auto industry? And let's keep us in US, because implementing this in a world scale is too ideological. 1- To be honest, I don't understand the point of this. What's the problem with the knob? I guess it's to prevent the lamp burning out? But then why not just make the manufactures use only LEDs headlights? This way you would also prevent a minor consumption of your battery. 2- I completely messed up the number of the topics --' I apologize. But here I was referring to the development of the autonomous vehicles. If the companies don't have the financial funds to develop them and they are forbidden in the US, I would guess they would stop exporting any kind of products (updates) too. Focusing in other markets and leaving their american costumers burning. 4- Do you think, if everyone was force to have this autonomous cars, the companies would have easier access to that financing? But wouldn't it make the price of the vehicles increase a lot? And if people didn't want them anyway and weren't actual force to change to the new ones, it would probably take a while till they got really sick of their actual cars. Do you think the companies would survive this break? (And again... this completely goes against the market rules... you're putting the companies with this technology in a serious advantageous position). And assuming this could happen, and google could actual support this autonomous systems.. Don't you think, that they would basically take over the world? They already have complete access to your computer and smartphone. Do you want to give them your car too? ;) 5- I completely agree with you. But you ended up by not answering this topic. Who would be the one to blame? If you're presenting this as laws, probably the american government right? This would be probably the best scenario, but the opposite party wouldn't make this easy. PS. You had some serious problems with you car's headlamps, right? I don't relate with this, because, though I've only driven really old cars so far, I never had any problems with the lights. But I'm sorry for your annoyances! ;)
New car production laws

Great arguments indeed. However, the issues you raise are not real world issues (in my view), since the technology to do so exists and is easily available. 1. It is in fact easier to build headlights that are always on, this way you don need a knob in between the wiring. Mazda has (at least in past models) already done this, there is no financial or technical reason, for other companies not to. Also, older cars don't require to have this, the sole purpose of these laws, is to improve road safety which will happen over time. Perhaps a small financial benefit for the owners of older cars, could persuade them to update their cars. 2. Well, i did propose to get this in on a world-wide scale, but foreseeing that this might not be possible, do you think car manufacturers would pull out of such a huge market, over something as small as this? 4. Most car manufacturers already have this technology, the only thing stopping them from fully implementing it, is a financial one. A car manufacturer building cars with these systems in place, might lose market-share, because customers might prefer not to have these systems, therefore, making it mandatory for all manufacturers removes this issue. For the manufacturers that do not posses these systems, there will be specialist companies, who can supply them (Google for example, or MIT). 5. You raise a very good point here, however, The amount of accidents prevented, have more importance than the amount of accidents that are (unlikely) to happen because of these systems.
New car production laws

I will not base my argumentation on incompatible laws or unconstitutional matters. I will rather try to discuss this, only based on common sense and, through this way only, demonstrate the difficulty of implementing such rules. 1- What do you purpose for the already circulating vehicles? Should the owners be forced to "update" their cars immediately? Do they have a certain time to do it? Will they be fined if they don't? How much would be the fine? Would the vehicles be apprehended? 2-What if some companies, don't agree with these terms and just stop export to the US? What alternatives have the consumers that bought this brands' cars, that don't have access to any kind of updates? 4- What if some companies don't manage to develop this autonomous systems? Would they be forbidden in US? What if they are american brands? Are you going to close them anyway? Or will american factories have special deals? 5- How will accidents with this autonomous systems be dealt? Will the owner or the company be responsible? Or will the blame fall upon you? After all, you we're the one to force everyone driving with this technology. Or do you ingenuously believe that there won't be any accidents? Even with autonomous and not autonomous vehicles circulating at the same time? I will stay with this for now. I completely understand if you decline to answer, since this wasn't probably the debate you wanted to have... I don't know.
New car production laws

We should have a new and international set of laws stating the following: 1. Every new car should come with automatic lighting (light should always be on, without requiring user input to do so) 2. Automobile manufacturers are forced to design their headlamps, in a way that makes it easy for the every day person to replace the bulbs. 3. All cars need to be fitted with sensory equipment, allowing the car to always stop the driver from making a deadly mistake. 4. Automatic and complete take-over of the driver, by an autonomous system, is a mandatory safety feature in all cars, within 5 years after this law goes into practice. This means that all new cars coming out of the factory, can take over from the driver, if said driver is posing a risk to himself or others (either by being drunk, falling asleep or just being a genuine idiot).
Cats are Better than Dogs!

Cats are better than dogs because: 1: They are easy to maintain. You won't have to run them around the block to keep their energy levels low. All they need to function, is food, and a water bowl. 2: Cats are lazy. This goes along with 1. Cats usually sit around. They don't jump upon you, and lick your face like most dogs would do. 3: Cats are clean. You won't have to bathe them very often, as they groom themselves. 4: They are easily litter box trained.
debate with yourself

con has merely listed some 'cons' to networking sites. overall, there are more benefits. con says time is wasted on frivilous activity. but like hte wise saying goes "time that you enjoy wasting is not wasted time". people may not be as productive as they could otherwise be, but we dont always measure things by economic output. they still get their work done, by and large. society is not suffereing. face to face communication. while it has hindered face to face, it has opened a new door for us. much like texting is good fo some purposes, not good for others, and does hinder phone skills. but that just means more time needs to be given to both avenues, and ultimately, we are the better for it that we have the options at our disposal given some things are btter approached oen way or the other. children shouldn't be on the internet too much. this is common knowledge. if it's to the point of altering brain waves, it's too much. people might get exposed to predators, but this is just life. gong to a bar, or out in publc exposes you to danger too. we just need to follow common sense procedures for ourselves, but especially for our kids. your cite about GPA is pretty radical. 3.82 GPA just because you didn't use networking cites? this wasn't a common grade even befor the internet. these claims are so far fetched by con, that surely he needs some stat to back it up. it's pretty obvious this stuff is made up either way though.
debate with yourself

Topic- Are social networking sites good for our society? I say that the social networking sites prevent face-to-face communication; waste time on frivolous activity; alter children"s brains and behavior making them more prone to ADHD; expose users to predators like pedophiles and burglars; and spread false and potentially dangerous information. Students who used social networking sites while studying scored 20% lower on tests and students who used social media had an average GPA of 3.06 versus non-users who had an average GPA of 3.82 Having distractions like these in your surroundings have shown difference in the children's mental behavior and studies. They spend most of their time on social sites, reducing human interaction. They think what they are doing is interacting but clicking on your iPhones and iPads is not interacting. Today, a significant number of pre-teens have their mobiles and laptops. Do they even need them? They have 400 friends on Facebook but they know only 50 of them. Interacting is good but they get obsessed with it. So, leave your distractions behind and go and talk up to the people in your lives and then notice how amazing it is to literally talk to people rather than texting or IMing them.
UN ban on drones

1.they are used in risky situations, when it would be to dangerous for us ourselves to look over what's going on. has nothing to do with spying on others if they aren't doing nothing wrong, only when something is occurring. Just look at all what our country has gone through. Wasn't that enough for you ? Do you want more terrorist attacks? Do you want more people dying! ? Or would you prefer the drones to watch at all times for we can be safe. 2.It might kill many civilians but what happened when the twin towers were hit? They were innocent people.. Drone operators may feel guilt but so do the actual military at war in which have to kill them face to face. C. Therefore, un ban on drones .
UN ban on drones

1.) You said drones are used in risky or difficult flight situations. Lets say the risky situation is that the government is spying on the average person and they don't want to get caught. 2.) Drones also have negative effects on troops. Many drone operators suffer from emotional and physiological stress. Drone operators may feel remorse or guilt after they attack and kill innocent people. UAV's are loaded with bombs and missiles. They can drop a bomb and kill a lot of innocent civilians. 3.) Drones make the horrors of war appear as innocuous as a video game. C.) Therefore, drones should be banned.
UN ban on drones

PRO: 1.)Drones are used in situations where manned flight is considered too risky or difficult. This make it easier, for when something like this occurs they would still be able to be on the look out ad this is because there is no individual in it. It is computerized so no one will get hurt. 2.) They provide troops with a 24-hour "eye in the sky", seven days a week. Each aircraft can stay aloft for up to 17 hours at a time, loitering over an area and sending back real-time imagery of activities on the ground. This is great because no matter what time it is, there will always be surveillance. C.) There should be an un ban on drones.
UN ban on drones

1. You are committing the red herring fallacy again. Terrorist attacks shouldn't be your focus. We are talking about drones. My concern with drones also extends to police enforcement. Drones can have non lethal weapons such as rubber bullets and tear gas as well as lethal weapons. I wouldn't want to live in a world where I couldn't accuse someone of shooting me because a drone did it and I'd have no idea who was controlling the drone. What if people were peacefully protesting and a drone starts to spray them with tear gas? Nobody would be able to see who actually was attacking them. 2.Drones can be hacked as well. People with bad intentions could create havoc or worse attack people. C. Therefore, there should be a ban on drones.
UN ban on drones

1. Yes FBI says it, like I said... Look at All The terrorist attacks in the US. Your stating that they are hurting people ... But if they are over U.S soil then are you stating they are hurting us as the civilians, you too are getting away from your argument while I'm trying to prove my point 2. I'm giving you examples why we would use the drones, that's why I brought up the twin towers if it wasn't clear for you. Drones can be used for many other things, not just to be aware of Attacks in which would be to dangerous for is humans to be in them, that's why they are computerized . 3. Drones in republic of Congo patrol the border looking for illegal arms shipments or troop movements. Over the forests they seek out militia encampments etc.
UN ban on drones

1.) In round two, premise one you are commit the ad hominem fallacy. You begin to attack me when you ask me if I want more terrorist attacks. You also ask me if I want more people to die. I never implied any of that. Those questions you asked me do not add to your argument. Drones can be used for spying. FBI director Robert Mueller said, "the nations top law enforcement bureau uses drones to conduct surveillance on U.S soil." The FBI says it themselves. 2.) In round two, premise two you commit the red herring fallacy. You talk about the twin towers which are irrelevant to the argument. We are talking about drones not the twin towers. 3.) Drones kill innocent lives and cause people to get angry . That is why there is hatred toward America
Gays should be allowed in the US military, openly.

I accept the premise that soldiers in the heat of battle must subordinate all their individuality and fight as anonymous, order-taking cogs in a large war machine. But, when these battle conditions are not in effect (which is most of the time), there is no problem with gays declaring their "gayness" openly, just as any soldier can and should feel free to express any aspect of their individuality openly when the heat if battle is not in effect.
Gays should be allowed in the US military, openly.

But it's not the being gay that has to do with the conformity, it has to do with the openness. When you are in a situation where you have to take orders, your concept of you has to be thrown out the window. Blue may well be your favorite color, but you have to wear whatever Uncle Sam tells you too. You may prefer romantic relations with members of the same gender, but, while you are in the uniform, the only relationship that has any relevance to fighting a war is the one between you and what higher-ups think. Every possible way to grind away at your concept of your individuality is a necessity for military activities. There aren't gay soldiers and straight soldiers. There are soldiers, doing whatever they are told. So it isn't about being against homosexuality, it is against being an individual. And that is the nature of government and centralized coercion--to reduce everything to one, to work against a diversification of ends to be pursued.
Gays should be allowed in the US military, openly.

I really don't care either way, but there is one good argument for not letting people serve in the army and be openly gay: In order for the military to function, conformity is crucial. All self-expression must be kept to a minimum. You don't sign up for the military to be an individual; you sign up so that they can shave your head and you are just like thousands of others. So I think for that reason, don't ask; don't tell is a good policy. The more things that can apply to the better.
Laptop can be hacked even when it's off

I will start this debate by talking about Intel's backdoor known as anti theft technology. Basically, all Intel vPro CPUs (which include new mobile Core i5 and Core i7 chips) have an undocumented 3G chip inside. That chip is visible to the 3G network, even when the PC is not powered on. the 3G is part of a second physical processor embedded within the main one. The second CPU has its own embedded operating system and can be woken up at any time because the "phantom" power of the system is always there to draw upon. In other words, the secret 3G chip can act as a backdoor, complete with wake-on-LAN and wake-on-mobile. Which is to say, the computer can be turned on remotely through this undocumented 3G radio. Intel actually embedded the 3G radio chip in order to enable its Anti Theft 3.0 technology. And since that technology is found on every Core i3/i5/i7 CPU after Sandy Bridge, that means a lot of CPUs, not just new vPro, might have a secret 3G connection nobody knew about until now. http://news.softpedia.com... When you turn your PC, phone, laptop, Tablet how can you really be so sure that your device is really off. The device may appear to be turned off, but in reality the smart device is being remotely controlled by a hacker. The CIA infected millions of Samsung Smart TV's with a malware called weeping angle. Weeping Angle places the TV in a fake off mode, so the user believes the TV is really off.
Laptop can be hacked even when it's off

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about... A. If a computer is powered off, not plugged into a power outlet and sitting in a closet it is impossible for anyone to hack it. B. If you wiped the hard drive properly the only way any malicious software could remain is if it was written and hidden in the system BIOS or memory. Unless you were doing some really illegal things online there's not much of a chance that anyone would go that far to spy on you or attempt to gain access to your computer in any way. C. Stay in school...
Laptop can be hacked even when it's off

Picture this scenario. You think your home network is secure because you use common sense, use strong router password, updated Antivirus and firewall, then all the sudden you get attacked. You try to figure out how the hacker broke into your network. 6 months later you discovered that a laptop that you completely forgot about, which was burried in the closet was filled with malware. You are completly stunned because the last time u remembered wiping the Hard drive several years ago, you of course have no way to explain this