BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Boeing Superjumbo V Dreamliner

I believe that your argument is absolute rubbish. The Z900 is the greatest aircraft to ever roam the skies (that aren't UFOs, BEAM ME UP SCOTTIE) and is much faster to take off than either of these. It is also the quietest aircraft in the world, and is, quite simply, the fastest. It can be used for military planes and passenger planes (Although those're called Z901s) because they always break the light barrier without even causing Einstein's theory of relativity to come into effect. The Z900 is better than either of these; shut up and stop posting your bad arguments about your bad airlines and realise that the Z900 is way better than that absolute tosh you call a Boeing Superjumbo AND the utter blatherskite you call a Dreamliner.
Technology Stops People From Having a Stimulated Brain.

I will now proceed to rebut my opponent's contentions. Before I begin, note that I am referring to my opponent as Pro, even though he is marked as Con. I believe this is an accident on my opponent's part, as he states that "technology stops people from having a stimulated brain", consistent with the resolution, even though he is Con. First, please note that all of my opponent's points center around physical conditions; that people stay up late on phones, that the vision is affected and that technology can lead "to a serious habit". The debate centers around stimulation of the mind; unless Pro can prove that these physical conditions results in a less stimulated mind, he has not met his burden of proof. Second, my opponent's contentions center around the fault of the user, and not technology. Causing "a serious habit" is not the fault of technology, nor is people staying up late on their phones or affecting the vision; this all comes down to the user. Technology's purpose for simply accessing information and connecting to networks such as the Internet, and nothing more. Thus, technology is not stopping people from having a stimulated brain; it is the user who is stopping him/herself from having it. Unless Pro can show that technology is causing this, he has not met his burden of proof. For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution. Thank you.
Technology Stops People From Having a Stimulated Brain.

I negate the resolution, "Technology stops people from having a stimulated brain." I negate the resolution based on the following: 1.) Technology allows for common access of information. 2.) Technology has large benefits when used in an educational system. 1.) Technology allows for common access of information. Technology allows users to access banks of information online [1], including but not limited to Wikipedia, ABC-CLIO and the Encyclopedia Britannica. There are also numerous video channels where people can access information teaching about numerous topics like world history, biology and geography, such as CrashCourse and CGPGrey. Technology is not resulting in less stimulation; its resulting in a freer, more accessible way of accessing information for all [2]. 2.) Technology has large benefits when used in an educational system. Technology, in fact, has numerous positive benefits when used in a classroom, such as increasing motivation and collaborating more with peers [3]. Technology is also beneficial for teachers, allowing them to access many different kinds of students and seeing how they learn [4]. In education, technology gives teachers the ability to access their students, see how they learn and base their classes around them, while the student has more motivation to learn. In conclusion, technology allows for greater and easier access of information for all and used in an educational system, it is a great tool for teachers to access students and students to be motivated in classes. For these reasons, I strongly urge a ballot in negation of the resolution. Thank you. Sources: [1] http://www.marcandangel.com... [2] http://thenextweb.com... [3] http://www2.ed.gov... [4] http://www.edutopia.org...
Free will is not an illusion

If you do not think there is free will then what is there. What is determining our actions, Thoughts, And desires. And your example of the cake, The reasoning is basic psychology using dopamine, Seritonin etc. Eating a cake will increase your dopamine levels and most of our overall decisions are based on needs. Like the need for dopamine and a sense of happiness. Also should this have been an official debate calling a valid argument silly and irrelevant even when it has use would be frowned on.
Free will is not an illusion

I don't think lack of free will necessitates divinity. With BoP on Pro, I'd urge them to back this up. How is it that desires are out of our control but decisions are? Don't desires often determine decisions? They definitely do for the unconscious steps we take. If you desire cake, You may decide to eat it. If you do and say you weighed pleasure against calories, I'd ask you how you came to which one you favored, Etc. Etc. The last sentence just seems silly, Irrelevant, And unsubstantiated.
Free will is not an illusion

Our actions are determined by neurophysiological/biochemical processes. It's just physics. Synapses fire through neural pathways in the brain that lead to thoughts, Decisions, Movements, Speech, Etc. Synapses may fire to maximize certain neurotransmitter flows but desiring them is not of your own accord. Seeking what we call "pleasure" is not a conscious motivation. See: masochism. You can find a rigorous proof of Determinism derived from Einstein's ToR here: https://goo. Gl/Wwx8L3
European countries should stop receiving immigrants from other non european countries

According to research, in order for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years, It's required to have a fertillity rate of 2.11 children per family, with anything less, the culture will decline, historically, a culture never reversed a 1.9 fertillity rate, a rate of 1.3 is impossible to reverse, because it would take 80-100 years to correct itself and there is no economical model that can sustain a culture during that time. In other words 2 pars of parents each have 1 child, there are half as many children as parents, if those childrens have 1 child, then there are 1 fourth as grandparents. If only a million babies are born in 2006, its hard to have 2 million adults in 2026. As the population shrinks, so does the culture As of 2007 Fertillity rate of France: 1.8 England/Great Britain/United Kingdom: 1.6 Greece: 1.3 Germany:1.3 Italy: 1.2 Spain: 1.1 Across of the entier European Union of 28 member states, the fertillity rate is 1.38. Historical research tells us that those numbers are impossible to reverse. In a matter of years, Europe as we know it, will no longer exist. Yet the population is not declining. Why? Immigration. Islamic immigration, of all population in Europe since 1999, 90% have been islamic immigration. France: 1.8 children per family. Muslims in France: 8.1 per family. In southren France, where are are a lot of churches, there are now more Mosques than churches. 30% of the children age 20 and younger are islamic. In the larger cities (Such as Paris), that number has grown to 45%, by 2027, 1 in 5 french men will be muslim, in only 39 years, France will be an islamic republic. In the last 39 years, the muslim population of Great Britain has grown from 82,000 to 2.5 million, a 30 fold increase, there are over 1,000 mosques, many of them former churches. In the netherlands, 50% of all new borns are muslims, in only 15 years half of the poulation will be muslims. In Russia, there are over 23 millions muslims, that's 1 in 5 Muslims, 40% of the entire Russian army will be Islamic, in just a few years. Currently in Belgium, 25% of the population and 50% of all newborns are muslim. The government of Belgium has stated: 1/3 of all European chidren will be born to Muslim families by 2025, just 12 years way. The German government, the first to talk about this in public, released a statemant saying: "The fall of the German population can longer be stopped. Its downard spiral is no longer reversible. .. . It will be a muslim state by the year 2050. " Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya said: "There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don't need terrorists, we don't need homocide bombers. The 50+ muslims in Europe, will turn it into a Muslim continent withing a few decades. " There are currently 52 muslims in Europe, the German government said that the number is expected to double to 104 million.
Protective Edge was justified, and was conducted with professionalism

At first, let's remind of some basics of international law : Israel is a legitimate State since 1948, and every legitimate State has the right to defend itself and its population . Israel is a democracy, guided by the principles of justice and morality. Hamas is considered by most of countries in the world as a terrorist organization, seeking only destruction and violence, and despises international norms. Protective Edge was justified The main reason for Protective Edge was not to avenge the murder of 3 Israeli teens, but to defend its population from rockets. Since the beginning of 2014, Hamas has fired more than 450 at innocent civilians. 40% of the Israeli population is at range of rocket fire. But moreover, long-range rockets (delivered by Iran, which doesn't care about the Palestinians at all, but is just interested in messing up the whole region), can reach strategic points, like the Ben Gourion Airport in Tel Aviv. It is the only airport in Israel, and if foreign air companies decide they won't travel to Israel anymore (which was almost the case for a few days), it can put the domestic economy in trouble . Secondly Hamas has built numerous tunnels, which are a real threat, and is the reason for the ground operation which followed the surgical air strikes. Hamas uses its tunnel to import weapons, and can potentially carry out terrorist attacks in Israel mainland. And was conducted with professionalism Air strikes were very accurate. If Israel wanted to undiscriminately target Palestinians, it would have carpet bomb Gaza. The IDF did its best to forewarn the population, located close to the upcoming strikes(personally, in the whole history of war, I've never seen an army forewarning the population about when and where the bombs will fall, so that they can hide elsewhere). This precaution policy is even not in the interest of the IDF, because Hamas members could also flee from the area. Most of the population killed in Gaza is male (81.9%) and between 18 and 28 (50% ) , an age group one could envisage may also contain many Hamas members. The death toll is attributable to the fact that Hamas is hiding civilians, and uses them as human shield, by firing rockets from schools and hospitals and denying the possibility for the population to hide themselves and to flee from the war zone.
Hard work is more important than talent

Talent is more important because it's all about working smarter not harder. A coal miner can work very hard and still only bring in minimum wage while a talented person who only works part time in an office can make twice the money as the coal miner. That is the difference between a blue collar worker and a white collar worker. You will learn someday that it's not how hard you work it's all about social connections and having talent for spotting business opportunities. Talk to you economics teacher to get the real truth Work smarter not harder
Macbook Pro's are better than Macbook Air's

It is a real shame you forfeited that last round. "Teaching" That is a small difference and often the school will get kids to get the laptops themselves from carts so the teachers will not have to carry multiple at a time. Maybe the airs are more maneuverable but your point was "teaching" and weight should not make a difference in the teaching of students. Like stated before the pro has 16 GB. Much more room to download educational programs therefore being better for teachers and helping students to a bright future of success! "Entertainment" Well, you mention movies, but guess what? Want to watch a movie? Go to the movies or watch TV! Yes, maybe that laptop can play movies better, but there are many other and better ways to watch a movie! If you want to watch a movie you don't need a computer! This goes not only for airs but all computers. Just use a tv! It is true that the graphics require more room but which computer has less room? Macbook Airs. So what if the graphics on the pro take up more room, you get more room with the pro anyways! Finally, you bring up DJ's. Well, have you heard of 13" Pro's? they are only two inches bigger then airs so instead of using an air the DJ may lean towards the smaller pro. "Wireless Web" How about people just connect the laptop with one small wire and keep the laptop charged? And when you are on the go just use the laptop minimally! Come on. No person should be online for 9-12 hours unless you work on your computer. "Education" If the costs are that much of an issue you should not even get an apple laptop. They are all very expensive regardless of the type. I would also argue that the costs are worth it, like pointed out before pros have more room and more room means more educational programs which means a better future for kids. "Graphics/Speed" Do I need to repeat myself? "Macbook Air- "1.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 or 1.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 processor. Macbook Pro- "2.4GHz or 2.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 or 2.8GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 processor. " Macbook pros are faster and even though you said differently the fine people at apple would disagree with you. The 13" has 2.9GHz, 13" with retina has 2.8GHz and the 15" has 2.6GHz. Both of the airs had only 1.7 GHz. My statement is supported by apple. . https://www.apple.com... I am very tired and thus I will end my rebuttal here! Thanks for debating me!
Macbook Pro's are better than Macbook Air's

Ok here it goes! I will only do three points. Argument 6: SuperDrive A superdrive is basically a CD slot, and is used for playing CD's. NONE of the Macbook Airs have this feature built in to them but one of the Macbook Pros have this feature BUILT-IN: The MacBook Pro 13-inch. This is an advantage because with your computer, at no extra charge, you can play CD video games, watch movies on a CD format, and burn things onto a CD. Argument 7: Too Small for the SDXC card slot Yes, I know a common argument for Macbook Airs is that they have the ability to go all the way down to 11-inch. That comes with disadvantages though, like not having a SDXC card slot. That means that that computer can not have this certain data chips plugged into the computer. Argument 8: Core Processor Macbook Air- "1.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 or 1.7GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 processor" Macbook Pro- "2.4GHz or 2.6GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 or 2.8GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 processor" "A dual-core processor is a single, integrated circuit with two separate cores or central processing units. Dual-core processors give a significant performance increase over single-core processors with complex software and games---particularly with multi-tasking. Applications and games that support dual-core technology will benefit from the dual-cores while only performing one task; however, older applications that do not support dual-core will not see much of an increase, except for the benefit of increased multi-tasking support." GHz is the speed of the processor. Thus, a higher GHz=a faster computer= a better computer= Macbook Pro is a better computer. Thank you, DDD
Macbook Pro's are better than Macbook Air's

Good job! Argument 3: Wireless Web. Nobody likes wires. They get in the way, and often limit maneuverability. Well, the macbook Air has from approx.9-approx 12 hours of wireless web. While the macbook Pro only has 7-9 hours. Argument 4: Education. We can probably agree that macbooks have benefits regardless of Air vs Pro. Well, if you were a college student, you would want the macbook benefit for less. 13" Macbook Air's cost from $900, 15" Macbook airs cost from $1000. Now, the Macbook Pros. All Macbook Pro's regardless of size or display cost more than $1200! That is more money than needed for the macbook benefit. Argument 5: Graphics/Speed. Rob Griffiths, Senior editor at Macworld, decided to get a new macbook. He wrote an article about his time. In the said article, there is a portion on graphics and speed. "A 13-inch MacBook Air configured with upgraded RAM and storage space (and with the faster CPU) was only $150 less than an equivalent 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro. For that extra $150, I"d get better graphics (Intel Iris versus Intel HD Graphics), and a notably faster CPU (a 2.8GHz Core i7 versus a 1.7GHz Core i7)." Thank you- mcalcara Sources- http://www.macworld.com... https://www.apple.com...
Macbook Pro's are better than Macbook Air's

Good job! OK my turn: Argument Three: BIG BIG AND BIGGER (1) For this 'BIG BIG AND BIGGER' point (I will at least have two) I will explain and show how Macbook Pros are the better computer because of screen size ability. The LARGEST a Macbook Air can go is 13 inch, where as a Macbook Air can go all the way up to a 15 inch screen! Why is this better? Well, a bigger screen gives a better experience when watching movies or playing games, and a bigger screen = bigger everything ON the screen, thus easier to read. And before you say that because it is bigger, it will be less clear, think again. RETINA DISPLAY. Argument Four: BIG BIG AND BIGGER (2) This part will focus on big memory/storage. I will compare the most memory holding Macbook Air (13-inch) versus the biggest memory Macbook Pro (15-inch Retina Display). First of all, the Macbook Air has a 4 GB and a 8 GB option but the Macbook Air has up to 16GB of memory. Secondly, the Macbook Air has up to 512 GB flash storage compared to a whopping 1 TB flash storage amount for the Macbook Pro! This makes the Macbook Pro better because it has a capability to hold way more files and can run way more amount of programs. Argument Five: Choices, Choices, Choices The Macbook Airs have only two options for buying, 11 inch and 13 inch, where as the Macbook Pros have THREE options, 13 inch, 13 inch Retina Display, AND 15 inch Retina Display. This is a BIG advantage because if you want something smaller for work or something, you can get the 13 inch normal display. If you are a photographer or just want great graphics you can get the 13-inch Retina Display. If you want amazing graphics and a ridiculous amount of storage and memory for a high-tech job, get the 15-inch Retina Display! Thank you, DDD
Macbook Pro's are better than Macbook Air's

Argument 1: Teaching. Macbook Airs are very good for teachers because, if they like, they can easily carry the laptop without getting tired or harming the computer. 11 inch Macbook Airs are about 2.38 lbs. 13 inch Airs are about 2.96 lbs. This allows maneuverability for people like teachers that may want to carry the computer in hand. Argument 2: Entertainment. Sub-point 1: Movies. Macbook Airs have a very good iTunes movie playback compared to the Pros. The 11 inch Air has a 9 hour movie playback and the 13 inch Air has a 12 hour movie playback. While the Pro's have only around 8-9 hours. Sub-point 2: Gaming. Improved graphics performance is one of the key changes for the Haswell processor line. The 13-inch MacBook Pro has always relied on Intel integrated graphics, unlike the high-end 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display, which offers switching graphics processors to balance performance with battery economy. The 2013 Retina MacBook Pro features Intel Iris Graphics, which can use 1024 MB (a lot) of system memory. Subpoint 3: DJing. This also goes back to my Argument 1 about being small and lightweight. The fifteen and seventeen inch [Macbook Pro] versions may be too big and menacing. They can ultimately block the DJ from the crowd. The Macbook Air is perhaps the smallest Mac machine you can get " and it ain"t cheap, but DJs might lean towards it due to its super light weight. So for the two reasons of being lightweight and better for entertainment purposes, the Macbook Air is better than the Macbook Pro. Thank you, mcalcara. Sources- http://www.uniquesquared.com... https://www.apple.com... http://www.macworld.co.uk...
Macbook Pro's are better than Macbook Air's

Ok let's do this! Argument 1: Retina Display Macbook Pros have an option that is very useful and that Macbook airs do not have: Retina Display. "When you pack so many pixels into a display " over 4 million on the 13R09;inch model and over 5 million on the 15R09;inch model " the results are positively stunning." So, when you buy a macbook pro with Retina display, you get razor-sharp text because of the astonishing amount of pixels that this product has to offer. Even just searching the web is stunning-because of the HD clarity. But don't just take my word for it- "It has a great screen....Retina display is an excellent idea."- David Pierce, The Verge "gorgeous Retina display"- Neil Hughes, Apple Insider Argument 2: HDMI port Going into small specifics now! Both the thirteen-inch and the fifteen-inch macbook pros with Retina display have a HDMI port. Now, what is a HDMI port? It is the ability to simply connect your computer to your High Definition TV. All Macbook Pros (with Retina display) have this feature where as NONE of the Macbook Airs have this. Thank you, DDD References- https://www.apple.com... http://www.theverge.com... http://appleinsider.com...
Macbook Pro's are better than Macbook Air's

Hello, fellow debaters. RULES: Round 1: acceptance only Round 2: max 2 points Round 3: max 3 points Round 4: max 4 points Round 5: Rebuttals only- no points You may NOT have rebuttals in any other round but the fifth. Also, no swearing. If you violate the conduct you get a automatic 7-points for the other group. This will be fun, and thank you, DDD
Pc Gaming Vs. Console

I'll start by defending the points I brought up in round 1. 1) Generally Pc games are designed to accommodate keyboard and mouse controls unlike their console counterparts. Although it possible to attach controllers to a pc for some games, that is an added accessory one does not normally start with. As such, the controls can tend to be a bit stiff in the case of the key board or too loose in terms of the mouse. Controls can make or break a game and when it comes to consoles the controls are more often than not easier to deal with than those found on a pc. This is because they are designed to fit an actual controller created for the game system. 2) Main console systems have a lot more variety of games than pcs. Consoles are what main stream gamers generally ply on and as such the main gaming market is geared towards them. As a result a greater production of games is put out for console systems than for pcs. Furthermore there are multiple game consoles available on the market, such as the Ps3, Xbox 360 and the Wii, and each one has its own strengths and/or gimmicks. Thus, game designers are give a greater outlet to produce their games for on consoles than they are for pcs.