BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
'once saved always saved' v 'never saved to begin with' is too uncertain. only God knows

I'm not sure what your stance is. I don't know which you took...besides "God only knows." So here are my arguments: -Once you become a christian (Place your faith in Christ) then you are forever a christian -The relationship is between you and God...so yes, God certainly does know. By this I assume you mean that other people don't know your spiritual status. However...we should make it obvious about our faith so that others do know. -never saved to begin with: the reason that this is true is that, the person never truly repented/believed. it's pretty simple. Many have a very high emotion at say...a Youth camp...but then never actively try to have a relationship with God. This emotion was just compulsive. -Being saved isn't some type of magic. It is an active relationship. -You can never lose your salvation: Jesus said that "I will never leave you, nor forsake you." -People that truly repent and believe will follow Christ and his ways. Of course we are all human, and we fail, but we do try and get back up. -Don't think I am saying that you are saved by what you do...aka Works. I don't believe that. But, if we are a christian we want to please him, by actively obeying and repenting. This demonstrates your faith. (so others know) -So yes, you are either Saved or not. Pretty Black and White. About Hitler...I don't get at all what that meant. Could you please clarify? Thanks! ~MM
'once saved always saved' v 'never saved to begin with' is too uncertain. only God knows

'once saved always saved' v 'never saved to begin with' is too uncertain. only God knows. is it possible to be hitler and saved? it depends on how he approached what he did, and if htere was any sliver of repentence in his heart. only God knows that. was hitler one who if he was ever 'saved' is still saved despite his crimes? only God knows. was hitler one who was never saved to begin with? only God knows.
iPhone OS is better than Android OS

I have tried to keep this debate on the topic of your opening statements since I felt that was a better indicator of topic than the title: iOS vs. Android which is a very broad subject in general. I have let you lead with the open opportunity to diverge, but you seem very intently focused on the the home button user interface layout. I will conclude with my final comments contra your concerns of the Android configuration's risks and propensity for errors. Considering we have focused on this specific area of the interface, I apologise for not having raised the iPhone X interface as a discussion point, which ditched the home button entirely. I see that as taking design principles of minimalism, with the replacing swipe I would expect to be more cumbersome and sluggish than a quick tap on other iPhones/Android. Having basic functions at hand with a single button press follows the simplicity principle of user interface design, simplicity is not reducing buttons for the sake of reducing buttons, it's making the basic repeated tasks clear, easy, and low effort. The home bar does that. In your last statements, you have again raised worries over making mistakes with pressing (or double pressing) these buttons accurately. I have done a little informal searching for any accounts of this actually being an issue, but I did not find it as one. I could see it pitched as an accessibility problem for physically disabled, but for the general populace this is not an issue. The modern smartphone is almost entirely based in capacitive touchscreen interaction, it has taken off because it is so intuitive and reliable, this is not the age of the early resistive screens you might have to jab at a few times or use a stylus. On the home bar buttons specifically, button size is no issue either. I was able to find guidelines from Apple and Microsoft about minimum button sizes, but they were given in pixels (44 and 34 respectively), which means they are not a consistent measure for size with varying resolutions of screens. I thus found a study on what minimum acceptable touchscreen button sizes could be that do not cause additional errors (Target Size Study for One-Handed Thumb Use on Small Touchscreen Devices, https://doi.org...). The three base buttons are already significantly larger than the 9.2mm given as an acceptable minimum in the study, I would bet across the vast majority of modern Android phones. My Android phone's are by my estimate about 15mm wide (it is difficult to measure precisely since they are not visually bounded). Plus there is an unresponsive buffer zone between each of the three home bar buttons, meaning if you miss your button being too far left in natural error, you are more likely to hit nothing than the home button. Overall, while we have barely scratched the surface of the two interfaces, never mind operating systems, I cannot say the increased functionality available in Android as discussed is a disadvantage. On the contrary, it is advantageous for an efficient user experience and widely accepted across the industry for good reason. An attractive edge for Android over iOS.
iPhone OS is better than Android OS

The time difference for the basic use-case of switching apps in either iOS or Android is negligible, either you're pressing a button twice to bring up running apps, or tapping the persistent button on the bottom right of most Android interfaces to do the same thing. I fail to see how it is a waste of time if the processes are so near identical. In fact, since Android can deal with a double press too, and has the dedicated button, tapping the app overview button twice will switch you instantly to the last app you had open.
iPhone OS is better than Android OS

Comparing iOS to Android, there are some clear design philosophy differences like the one you've mentioned. The single home button is a hallmark of Apple's simplicity in physical and visual design, but it is a trade off. With this single button either serving as home with a single press, or the task switcher on two, it is less convenient than having the option to access either with one press. Your suggested problem with Android's typical multiple buttons at the bottom of the screen is that it makes it more prone to irritating accidents. However us humans are good at fine motor controls, and I personally cannot remember missing the app switching icon on my current Android phone. Moreover, and what I would like to end with, is that I do not believe this is a reasonable issue with modern smartphones. The average size of a phone nowadays allows ample room at the base of the screen for a few ubiquitous buttons, and to reduce it down to a single one is going to sacrifice efficiency.
iPhone OS is better than Android OS

Task switcher in iPhone OS is better than Android OS because of the way the task switcher is triggered. In iPhone you double "press" the home button to activate task switcher while in Android, it's very sensitive because you need to "touch" the "Recent App icon" to make the same result. By saying sensitive I mean your fingertips might mistakenly get to the adjacent icons that will lead you to other results and this will make you irritated.
Euthanasia

I live in Colorado, USA. Colorado became the 6th state to pass a "right-to-die" law by physician aid in dying, or assisted suicide. So the issue at hand is certainly on the map and is relevant. It may be a federal law one day, recognized nationwide. Time will tell. So are you arguing that this public health issue needs to be a federal law? Or should we continue to leave it up to state legislature? I also need to ask, what do you mean when you say a person has to give a "good" reason to be considered for this process? You say they need to have a good reason as determined by the person asked to perform euthanasia. If this is the case, can't we just take situations and mold them to a beneficial law? For example: I am hungry and need food. It is illegal for me to steal food. But I have a good reason to steal food. I am hungry and need food. Should I be able to steal food? If we give subjective opinion (i.e. i have a good reason to undergo this procedure) ruling authority over every aspect of our lives, their is no law. What do you mean by "good" reason? I'm sure we can find out together.
Euthanasia

Euthanasia should be legal under the circumstances that the person requesting it have good reason (as determined by the person asked to perform the euthanasia), and they should be required to wait for a certain period of time so that can think over their decision in case they decide they do not want to go through with the procedure. I also think they should be given a psychological analysis to see if they have something that can be treated and if so attempt treating it before allowing them to ask for euthanasia.
Britain's membership of the European Union

Hello, I am Jacob Gibbs.Resolution: Britain would be better off as a member of the European Union.Rules1. No abuse of semantics.2. No resorts to insults or personal attacks.3. All Terms of Service apply.4. Breaking any rule constitutes a forfeit.StructureRound 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3&4 - Rebuttals
Imabench's 499th debate: The Chinese government is retarded.

How about that.... The retarded Chinese government hired their top retard to accept this debate and defend their actions...... Im honored at the chance to get a free win so easy ;D As for my argument..... Well the evidence pretty much speaks for itself .... I mean smog most certainly does not make people funnier, it does not make them more intelligent, it does not make the Chinese people more equal or united, and it is in fact horrendously unhealthy for you and your health: http://bodyandhealth.canada.com... http://www.lung.ca... http://library.thinkquest.org... http://www.webmd.com... http://www.airnow.gov... Thats all I got for now, I will now allow my retarded opponent to give any arguments he can put together :)
Imabench's 499th debate: The Chinese government is retarded.

As my 499th debate ever on DDO, I shall argue that the Chinese government is completely retarded. I will argue that the chinese government IS retarded, con will argue that it is not. My sole evidence for why I believe the Chinese government is retarded will come from China's response to people about why SMOG IS A GOOD THINGFor those of you who dont know, China has a smog problem, a BIG one. Its so bad that people can literally chew on the air and schools regularly close because the smog is too thick to see. Many people have complained that China has to do something about the smog, and in response, the Chinese government listed 5 reasons why Smog is GOOD:These are the following reasons the Chinese Government actually gave for why Smog is a good thing: . http://news.yahoo.com...1. It unifies the Chinese people. 2. It makes China more equal. 3. It raises citizen awareness of the cost of China’s economic development. 4. It makes people funnier. 5. It makes people more knowledgeable Again, this is all completely real, and it is what the Chinese government actually said about why people should think smog is a GOOD thing. .. . Even I cant make this sh** up. .. . And since this actually happened and isnt a prank, I shall argue that the Chinese government is indeed retarded. .. .. Not North Korea level retarded, but still pretty damn retarded.
There is no objective basis for moralatiy

I do not think that Con has proven that there is an objective basis for morality. Just because ". .. mankind seems to have a general consensus on what is moral and immoral. .. " does not mean that morality is objective. At best it means that many people believe the same thing; that many people have come to an individual conclusion about morality that happens to be the same as other people who have each come to an individual conclusion about morality. Just because a group may have the same idea about morality does not mean that morality has reality independent of the minds of the people within that group. I will provide two examples to illustrate. First, for many years ". .. multiple humans in multiple different places had the same idea of what is moral and immoral. .. " and decided that slavery was moral. Further, "[w]e have sources, such as religious text, dating back centuries discuss[ing] the concept. .. " of slavery and supporting slavery. But today, some people, but not all people, think that slavery is immoral. So which is it? Is slavery moral or immoral? Second, to continue the topic of killing someone, when Con states, "I follow under the general, accepted, belief that killing a human is immoral", does that mean that killing a human is always immoral? I have met many people (and read about many more people) who would say that killing a man who was trying to kill you would not be immoral. Or that a solider killing another solider during the course of a war would not be immoral. So which is it? Is killing a man moral or immoral? Since there could be different answers to the questions asked in both of my examples depending on who you ask and when you ask, it does not appear that ". .. mankind seems to have a general consensus on what is moral and immoral" and supports my conclusion that there is not objective basis for morality; that morality is based on belief, or opinion, or preference, or wish, or hope, or some other non-objective source.
There is no objective basis for moralatiy

My position is that there is an objective basis for morality. My argument is that morality is perceptible by all observers since mankind seems to have a general consensus on what is moral and immoral. Opinions, ideas, beliefs, etc are thrown around all the time yet are rarely taken with overwhelming agreement. To get a group of people to agree with anything is a difficult task. Yet if you were to take a poll, overwhelming people would agree that killing a person is immoral. Morality had to get it's start somewhere, and it has been a forefront of human behavior for centuries. If morality was based on individual thought, then it had to be agreed to by the masses, and then spread to other people groups. Although that could be easy to do now, it wouldn't be so easy centuries ago. We have sources, such as religious text, dating back centuries discusses the concept of morality. We have different religions that seem to have the basic premise of what is moral and immoral. Therefore multiple humans in multiple different places had the same idea of what is moral and immoral, and shared it with other humans, who agreed. Morality has to therefore be something ingrained in humans from the beginning. Morality is a concept accepted by people no matter what race, religion, living circumstance, etc. Few things are generally accepted by the masses as morality is. If it was dependent on individual thought people would heavily disagree on the basic foundations on what morality is. Generally people think before acting, commonly people think of what is the right thing to do in a situation. Therefore morality is an idea created by humans to define the thought process all have encountered before doing an action, such as killing a man. Morality is therefore a definition. It cannot be objective or nonobjective since it is a description. Therefore it is my conclusion that killing the man on the beach was immoral, I believe that the basic premise of morality is perceptible by all observers, since the concept of morality dates back centuries. I follow under the general, accepted, belief that killing a human is immoral.
There is no objective basis for moralatiy

My position is that there is not an objective basis for morality; that the act of judging or labeling something (and action, thought, etc.) as either moral or immoral is based on non-objective sources. For this debate, the term "objective" will have the definition found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind. Since this topic could have a potentially wide range of discussion surrounding it, for clarity please limit this debate to one aspect: killing another person. To restate my opening sentence, the act of killing another person is neither moral nor immoral, it is an act. If a person, or persons, wishes to attach a label (such as moral or immoral) to the action then, 1) it is a choice of the person or persons to attach a label, and 2) the choice of label will be made based on belief, or opinion, or preference, or wish, or hope, or some other non-objective source that does not have reality independent of the mind of the person or persons attaching the label. Consider the following scenario: I live completely alone on an island in the middle of the ocean. There is no one else on the island and there is no communication with any other people. On this island, I live my life to the fullest of my ability given the circumstances in which I find myself. One day, an unconscious man washes up on the beach. I walk up to this man and I kill him. The tide washes the body out to sea and I continue with my life. My argument is that, objectively (i.e. having reality independent of the mind), the action of killing the man on the beach was an action of killing the man on the beach (the action was neither moral nor immoral). It is my argument that if one choses to label the action "murder and therefore immoral" or "self-defense and therefore moral", or anything else, that is 1) a choice made by the individual (or group), and 2) a matter of belief, or opinion, or preference, or wish, or hope, or some other non-objective source that does not have reality independent of the mind of the person (or group) attaching the label. The burden of proof will be shared. If you (Con) think that the act of killing the man on the beach was moral or immoral or anything else, and you think that your conclusion is independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers (i.e. objective), then please present your arguments. I (Pro) will attempt to demonstrate that the arguments provided by Con are not independent of individual thought and are not perceptible by all observers (i.e. not objective). The debate will consist of five rounds. Please provide your opening arguments in Round 1; Round 2 through 4 will be for rebuttals and additional arguments; and Round 5 will be for rebuttals and conclusions. Thank you for your participation.
Should iPhones have spell check

Why? If you don't like it stick with the current plan where you can have it or not have it. That, logically, makes it better for everybody because the people that like it can have it and the people that don't like it don't have to have it. Statistically speaking autocorrect is rarely wrong. It is only if you are an incredibly bad speller that it may get wrong because it is difficult to associate words with each the correct word when it is completely wrong. As a result, if the person is a decent speller then autrocorrect should be very efficient, beneficial and time saving [1]. Sources[1] http://blog.dictionary.com...;
Should iPhones have spell check

Iphones should have the spell check feature because there are people that spell things wrong a lot of the time and the spell check is designed to correct people's work that they spell wrong. It is absoloutely pointless removing the feature because then you have 1 less option whereas with the original version you'd have 2 (including the one that you would have in the other plan). The current i-phone allows you to to turn autocorrect off if you want to. This ultimately means that people that want it can have it and people that don't do not. My opponent advocates restriction that forces people to have no autocorrect. Since with the autocorrect plan you can still have autocorrect and no autocorrect, the addition of options means that this is an easy pro victory since my opponent proposes that we have no autocorrect whereas I propose that we keep the system the same (with autocorrect) so that people that don't want it can have no autocrrect. and people that do can have autocorrect. I have a win - win scenario my opponent, however, has a win - lose scenario which is clearly worse than my plan. To turn autocorrect off on an iphone you simply must follow these steps: 1. Open up the settings app. 2. Go into General. 3. Go into Keyboard. 4. You have the options, now, to turn off autocapitalization, turn off auto correction, turn off spell check, etc.
Life is fair

Thanks safenations, for the response."Observation: Because life is very complicated we are going to have to take it as a whole and cannot argue specific scenarios."I agree, we do have to take it as a whole, so at the point at which there are masses of people that are treated unfair and unjust for no apparent reason, you have to address the issue. "Luck is not unfair it is luck and that is not life it is just odds."Well luck is not unfair because luck normally correlates with a positive thing however when someone is unlucky, that is unfair. Thus, luck can be discarded."Contention 1: everyone has equal opportunity People have the choice to do things and can make things happen. If they really want to no restrictions will not matter"This is an extremely far-fetched, unsupported and bland statement. Everyone does NOT have equal opportunity. As I stated earlier, millions of humans are aborted before they ever get to live. Would you call that equal opportunity? How about the starvation in Africa? Poor little kids are born into houses where they barely can eat, play, and sleep without possibly catching a disease. Meanwhile, in the U.S. some kids are born into million dollar houses in perfectly happy-go-lucky neighborhoods with a great education. Would you say this is equal opportunity? There is no evidence for this statement and I think we can agree it is not applicable to the debate anymore. "Contention 2: people have to deal with oddsOdds are not unfair. People benefitting is not bad and people can change. Luck and chance are a major factor of everything so you can't votes on that"This is a pretty odd statement. My opponent's argument is not clear and really provides no tangible argument for the resolution. Of course people have to deal with odds! That doesn't mean it's "fair". Fair is just or appropiate in the circumstances. When people have to deal with odds that cause them not to live and to live in terrible conditions, that is not just or appropiate in the circumstances. He also states that people can't change. A pretty biased statement. Perhaps most people cahn change but some have no resources to. There are people of mental enfeeblement, starving children, and innocent civillians dying in wars. Is this something any of them can change? I don't see how this contention is an argument and should be discarded as well. Conclusion:Although it is unfortunate that my opponent doesn't have time with school however I am in the same predicament. This is not a justifiable excuse for a debate. My opponent provides no refutation for my contention and doesn't justify the resolution at all with his contentions. There is no evidence to support my opponent's lavish claims so I urge a CON ballot.