BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A mac osx is better than a desktop computer

I'd like to begin by saying that I really hate Macs. My opponent has based his first argument on the premise that there are no viruses known that affect OSX in any significantly harmful way. A quick Google search will tell you that this is quite possibly true and I won't contest it. I just wonder if my opponent actually read the article that they posted. It isn't very pro-Apple or pro-OSX if you ask me. In fact, it covers a whole lot of points which explain exactly why there are no "Mac Viruses" and I'll expand on them... 1. Minority of the market --------------------------------- Now, I understand that being a massive minority of the market would explain why Mac's had LESS viruses, but it doesn't explain why there are NONE. I think it doesn't alone explain it, but it does take a step in the right direction. This [1] shows that Mac's have just one tenth of the market for computers in the US. Now, a quick refresher lesson in how viruses work. They spread by attacking exploits in large numbers of machines. Automatically, by designing a virus that goes after OSX, it's going to be one tenth of the efficiency. 2. Making changes to the OS environment ----------------------------------------- The next point that I'd like to make addresses the fact that because OSX uses a Unix-based kernel [2] and file-system it is less vulnerable to self-replicating code, because it doesn't allow the user to run any executables outside their own memory space. Again, this is true. However, this very fact is the reason that so much software has to be specially designed for Unix-based systems, from the various flavours of Linux (Ubuntu, yum!) to OSX and more often than not, simply cannot be built to run on these systems. Gamers, you know what I'm saying. 3. What's the hell is a virus anyway? -------------------------------------- Finally, who the hell worries about viruses anyway? Those things are archaic relics of the past. While the term 'virus' is used by layman to describe all manor of computer nasties, it is actually malware (you know, trojans, spyware, worms...) that is getting the most attention from black-hat coders these days and Mac's sure as heck aren't immune to that. (See my opponents article for some examples) Conclusion ----------------------------------------- The fact remains that comparing OSX to any pre-7 Windows software is always going to make Windows look like a syphilis-infected whore. Do you want to put your data into that? However, the release of Windows 7 sees a significant closing of the gap between the integrity of their security features. I can tell you from first-hand experience that Windows 7 is a strong unit. Viruses that would have you formatting your XP installation, bounce off Windows 7 like it's wearing a virus-proof vest. Coupled with a strong anti-virus program like Symantec Endpoint Protection and this resolution is negated. Sources [1] http://gigaom.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
A mac osx is better than a desktop computer

The Windows vs Mac is great. Let's begin! 1. Rumors The Mac OSX is rumored to not have any viruses. This is true, but not entirely, because many people did not have viruses if they bought an OSX. Windows, nah. I had a Windows computer, but it got a virus easily. There is not a Mac virus yet. . http://tech.fortune.cnn.com... Thank you. I will start off a bit slow.
A mac osx is better than a desktop computer

I'm going to assume that my opponent is either comparing the time-equivilant hardware and software of macs and pcs are the time of the compaq princeton. However, since a search on the HP website (Compaq merged with HP in 2001) found no results and even the mighty Google had difficulty finding anything remotely related to "Compaq Princeton" I think we should work out exactly what we are debating. I suggest a Mac vs PC and/or a OSX vs Windows debate, you can choose any era of computing you'd like to compare, except Vista, since I frikkin' hate Vista and wouldn't argue positively for it. If you want to discuss this further, we can do it in the comments section.
The USSR was more pivotal to winning WW2 in Europe than the USA and Britain were

Clearly Britain, USA and the Soviet Union all played instrumental parts in winning World War 2 on the Eastern Front for the allies. Whilst Britain and Particularly the USA were focused on the far east the Soviet Union was the one that was allowed to solely focus on the Nazis and as a result contributed the most to winning the war. 1. The USSR faced the brunt of the Nazi war machine. Between 1941-1945 67.5% of German divisions and troops were located in the Soviet Union. (1) 54.25% of Nazi aircraft were also fighting in the Soviet Union between 1941 to 1944. Of the 3.35 million German soldiers who died in ww2(2), 2.8 million were killed on the Eastern front or 84%. The majority of the German divisions not stationed in the Soviet Union were or occupation and not for fighting. It was the Soviets who faced and destroyed the majority of the German army. 2. Many would call the victory at Stalingrad as the turning point in the Eastern front as the Germans failed to achieve any significant victories after the defeat. This was on the second of February 1943. Britain and USA did not land in Europe and more specifically Sicily until the 9th of July 1943. The war was already over by the time the USA and the commonwealth launched the Italian campaign. By the time Germany surrendered on the second of May the Allies had failed to take Italy and the entire 2 year long campaign was after the Soviets were winning on the Eastern Front. Certainly by D-Day the allies were simply speeding up the process and using it get what little leverage they could for post war negotiations. All the countries fighting the Axis won the war. No country alone could. But when asking, on the European front, who pushed the Germans back the furthest, who captured their capital city, Berlin, causing Hitler to kill himself and who went fighting beyond Berlin, and halted waiting for the others to come from the other side? The answer would rather simply be the Soviets. (1) . http://www.angelfire.com... (2) . http://www.worldwar-2.net...
The USSR was more pivotal to winning WW2 in Europe than the USA and Britain were

I thank Rodmaster for instigating this debate. I will be arguing that The USSR was not more pivotal to winning WW2 in Europe than the USA and Britain were. Since no definition of pivotal was used by my opponent, I am sure it's appropriate to provide my own, which I find unbiased and accurate. Pivotal- Vitally important; Critical [1] I will now hand the debate to my opponent, who has the burden to prove how and why the USSR was more pivotal in WW2 in Europe. I eagerly await his response. Source 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Olympics should include rocks, paper, scissors as an official event.

Rock, paper, scissors is fun. Loads and loads of fun. And I don't doubt lives have been altered over it. But, you have to acknowledge that if it were to become an official sport, it would humiliate the athletic world forever. Imagine it. "And here comes Jackson from the US to face off with Hawthorne from England. This should be a good one. Jackson almost lost with a rock in round one against China. Boy was that a close one. He almost got carpal tunnel he practiced so hard for that round." How ridiculous is that? The game requires no athletic training, is entirely mental, and would make a complete joke of all the hard working athletes who train for years upon years for this one opportunity. To award someone for a completely random contest is what we have the lottery for. To even contemplate this idea makes me sick.
The Olympics should include rocks, paper, scissors as an official event.

Every four years, each seasonal olympic games integrates new and more unusual sports in their competition for medal placement and glory. Examples: trampoline, luge & curling. (HA!) Rocks, Paper, Scissors requires skill, mental fortitude, prowress, endurance, and incredible athletic ability, the likes of which few athletes have ever known. Ergo, Rocks Paper Scissors SHOUD, nay MUST be introduced as an official olympic sport in Beijing.
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

OBSERVATIONS: My opponent has failed to present a quality argument. SUMMARY: One could say that making vaccinations compulsory is just more government interference in our personal lives. We're not talking about tickets for not wearing a seatbelt folks. We're talking about what is good for society. It makes perfect sense to make immunizations compulsory. Let's examine the PROs: - Prevents most illnesses - Cost effective - Higher immunity equals less disease - Less chance of disease spreading / epidemic - Less disease equals the potential for higher GDP - Fewer insurance claims - Healthier people - Creation, testing, marketing equals jobs Requoting statesman Benjamin Franklin, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". These are all facts of my case, and they remain undisputed. Thank you!
Public health concerns justify compulsory immunizations

Judges ready? Opponent ready? CROSS EXAMINATION: - My opponent failed to present a negative constructive, there is no information to challenge. - Does the lack of a negative constructive by the CON/NEG imply concurence with the PRO/AFF? FIRST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL: The pros greatly outweigh any cons (none stated notwithstanding) in regard to immunization. FACT: Medical science proves that vaccine lots are routinely checked and deemed safe. FACT: Medical professionsals are in favor of immunization. FACT: Immunizations are a cost effective way to protect people and prevent many diseases. FACT: The CON/NEG has not presented any argument. Given the above, there is no reason whatsoever why people should not be vaccinated. It makes perfect sense to receive vaccinations. It is clearly in everyone's best interest to receive vaccinations. In concern for public health, compulsory immunizations are in fact justified. Thank you.
That the Olympics are overrated.

Basically, pro hasn't rebutted any of my arguments for his own reasons. I state the olympics are not overrated as they are the greatest sporting event of all time, have no evidence of drug usage, and no evident corruption. I already stated traffic problems come due to any event, but pro doesn't counter. I state that how can pro prove corruption has grown in the corruption, but pro doesn't counter. I asked for pro's source as to 190 million being associated with olympics, there is no source.
That the Olympics are overrated.

As for the traffic problem, I will say it once more, that doesn't make the event overrated. With that definition, any event involving too many people would be overrated, such as award functions, concerts, speeches, political rallies, revolutions even. Traffic is an issue that comes with any grand event, although I didn't know 190 million people visit the Olympics. Do you have a source or something? And for your claimed drug usage, tell me one athlete who uses illegal drugs, there is hard evidence to prove that he does and still hasn't been caught. Parents often control what their children watch, therefore drug interviews won't reach them. And children are not like sponges. More often than not, the reporter gives some information about how drug usage is bad after the interview. If you think they would easily follow the footsteps of the celebrities, why won't they listen to their parents and drug enforcement agencies? Children are NOT retarded. And Sherlock Holmes took cocaine, but I don't see Holmes' fans taking cocaine. Holmes counts as a celebrity. Olympics seems a good event. The music, the anticipation, the visuals; and on top of that a platform to give credits to talented sportspersons. It is a platform for nations to show-off their sports' pride. Olympics has so many events, if there was no olympics what would happen to these athletic fields? Long Jump, Javelin throw, discuss, these platforms don't have many fans, how would their athletes show their mettle?
That the Olympics are overrated.

When you have 190 million people visiting one small, confined area all at the same time, serious pollution and traffic issues arise. First of all, the traffic will be congested. With human traffic, we see dangers, resulting in gigantic waiting times for not only tourists, but also residents, which seems hardly fair to me. This can possibly be fixed by improvements in infrastructure and public transportation BEFORE the games, but that will clearly bump up prep costs by big numbers, making a virtual loose situation for all. Furthermore, the cars also cause air and noise pollution. In terms of air pollution, all of these cars pose legitimate carbon emission threats considering they can be on for hours and hours during commutes. Not only that, but the emissions can stay in the air for months, risking the cardiac and pulmonary health of all inhabitants. In terms of noise pollution, thousands cars travelling to and from the Olympic games at any one time could affect the all the residents in that area. This could lead to insomnia and other illnesses which is unfair to the habitants because they did nothing wrong and do not deserve this. Altogether, the Olympic is certainly overrated. Secondly, athletes who take drugs have a negative effect on other people, especially children. When you look at the messages that is give young people about drugs they are usually negative, warning about the potential risks associated with their use. Drugs destroy lives " people who use them lose their jobs, their families and are very unhealthy not to mention illegal. This just doesn"t match up to what is seen when they see a story on an athlete telling all on a TV chat show, or a famous sportsman who has been caught doing the 'wrong thing'. Mixed messages are extremely dangerous when it comes to providing drug information to young people. They learn when a consistent message is given to them and unfortunately celebrity drug use, particularly the way it is represented in the media, often contradicts everything they are taught by everyone else. Although many would imagine that stories of famous people using drugs and experiencing a range of problems would discourage teenagers from going down the same path, in fact, in many cases just the opposite happens. Unfortunately, the only message that some young people pick up is that these athletes have 'made it through to the other side' and continue to lead very glamorous and successful lives.
That the Olympics are overrated.

Firstly, we aren't debating if SPORTS is overrated or not. We will debate whether Olympics are overrated or not. I say no, as they are the biggest sports event that happens in years. In which other event have you seen so many athletes of different sports uniting to compete? As for drug-enhancers, it is hard to smuggle drugs as it is, and if the authorities detect it you are disqualified. And this can happen in any sports event expect the Olympics. Surely you don't mean to discriminate over the rich (professional) and the poor (dirt road runner) athletes? A dirt road runner has ran on uneven roads, without proper equipment for their entire life. Surely professionals with all their luxury would have tough competition with them. A thief would be the best athlete, and you can't blame corruption for that. Traffic problems and pollution are caused by any grand event, whether it be a music concert, opening of a new mall, or the cricket world cup. Doesn't mean that the event isn't good. I haven't saw the Olympics and I am not into sports, but it is a grand sports event and requires viewing for all athletic fans.
That the Olympics are overrated.

Welcome, ladies and gentleman. I feel sad sometimes because I think our modern world has corrupted the intent behind the Olympic games. It used to be a time when the best athletes in the world got together and were celebrated for being the best. However, in this day and age of performance-enhancing drugs, and professional athletes competing against people whose only training is running on the dirt road outside their village, a feeling of corruption surrounds the event. So, the topic for today"s debate is that the Olympics are overrated. As an affirmative speaker, I will be commenting on the fact that Olympic games attributes to traffic problems and pollution. And my second point is that athletes who take drugs have a negative effect on other people.
Barack Obama is overall, a worst President than George W. Bush

Welcome to DDO. I'm looking forward to a good debate.We have no perspective history to judge the two presidents, we'll do the best we can with the data available. A Chinese historian was asked, not long ago, what he thought of the American Revolution. He said, "It's too soon to tell."You said you wanted to open, so I'll let you go first. That will give us each an equal number of arguments in the debate.
Barack Obama is overall, a worst President than George W. Bush

I have just joined Debate and hope that I follow the rules as well as etiquette. I have looked at some of your positions and man we can debate a lot. I looked at your statements in the same as this debate title and you are the kind of person I learn from debating. Your statements are based for the most part on facts, you do not throw barbs and seem to be willing to stay on task. There are a couple of things that appear not on point for me. 1. There are not many people voting and I question if much can be derived from the results. 2. Not one for the con? Is that an indication of the leanings of the members of this site? Only four voted, all for you and one was you. Is this a who is going to win debate and the voting is stacked. Since this is my firs attempt, I would still like to give a whirl and see how influential the discussion can be on opinions. I do not care who "wins", I care if learning occurs and each is understood by the other - not agree or disagree. For this reason I have stated that I am con, my intentions and what I want to accomplish. If you choose to accept, I will make my opening statement. Thank you
Aquarium Hobby

Whether or not you enjoy it is irrelevant, the fact is that is is not good for the environment. If you want a hobby that is good for the environment you should plant trees, because your hobby is bad for the environment. This is best demonstrated by asking a simple question. What do Aquariums consume? Aquariums consume energy, raw materials and time. and What do Aquariums produce? Pollution, and joy to those who harbor them. This is not a hobby that is good for the environment.
Aquarium Hobby

Us aquarist enjoy it. Like some people like to draw some people breed fish and keep fish. Because of most of our fish being bred the Salinity, Ph and tempurture doesn't need to be monitered as it used to be. Is that a bad thing that people enjoy spending time with fish and enjoying caring for them. An organazation came out Called C.A.R.E.S Preservation to help aquarist and other people learn about fish in the hobby that are endargered or exinct in the wild. Having Cares is giving Enviromental impact to all species. I would accually rather keep a threatned species in my aquarium because people out there don't give a crap about that fishes well being as the hobby might be its last resort.http://www.carespreservation.com...
Aquarium Hobby

Personal aquariums are bad for the environment simply because they are a worthless waste of time. All the materials, energy, and thought that go into creating these aquariums and breeding these fish are wasted. These fish have to be cared for very specifically, when transporting these fish the Ph must me monitored, salinity, temperature, there must be proper filtration, lots and lots of time and energy is wasted on these fish. Until there comes a time that Aquariums have zero environmental impact, they will be bad for the environment.
Aquarium Hobby

About most to all of the fish in the hobby from both fresh and saltwater are bred in fishfarms. Fish caught out of the wild go for a high price and could of been bred in the hobby. Many countries thought put a ban to collecting fish out of the wild for the trade including Brazil, Colombia, and Thailand. Today you can find wild varities of fish that have been bred in the trade for years.With draining the wetlands in Southeast Asia and building Dams in the Amazon, Fish are dieing the the thousands each day but those same ecaxt fish are still swimming around the the trade. For example the Zebra Pleco is a rare and exotic fish native to a tributary of the lower Amazon. Brazil put a ban on its collection when the Belo Monte dam was built but the previous collected fish were bred. Bioligist say the Pleco will go extinct by 2030 but they will they live forver in the hobby. Another species in the same condition is called the Redtailed Shark, Not a shark But a minnow that lives in the wetlands of Southeast Asia that is currently Extinct from draingage. Today the Fish is a common fish in the hobby sold a low a $5.
Plagiarism is real

"The pro themselves describe the first two points as 'unfalsifiable' and admits that plagiarism is purely man-made opinion and subjective by nature not real or objective! "Actually I didn't state that in the slightest. I said that opinion as to whether someone else plagiarised is subjective because you are not that someone. For example: Person A may believe that Person B plagiarised Person C, but Person D may believe that B didn't plagiarise C at all. Person A & D's opinions are subjective because they do not know whether B has intent or not. But if B did have intent then it is plagiarism. "Pro easily could have typed that all as an original piece then afterwards searched on google and happened to have realised someone else wrote same thing before. Your closing argument is invalid for this reason. "What Con seems to not be realising is that, although it is technically possible that I could have written out that paragraph in the exact same way accidentally. .. I did not do it accidentally! I did it with intent and with knowledge of it. Therefore I plagiarised it. Ergo. .. . Plagiarism exists. Ergo.
Plagiarism is real

Pro easily could have typed that all as an original piece then afterwards searched on google and happened to have realised someone else wrote same thing before. Your closing argument is invalid for this reason. The author needn't be credited if the person never read the author's work but simply accidentally said exact same way! The pro themselves describe the first two points as 'unfalsifiable' and admits that plagiarism is purely man-made opinion and subjective by nature not real or objective! This is absolute fallacy to the art of debating. You are saying that because something is pure opinion it is real? This is not proving that plagiarism is real. That is all.
Plagiarism is real

I do not consider evidence of past cases of plagiarism as proof that it is real. The entire set of cases and law itself I am arguing is imaginary. The law and past cases do not prove that the law itself is not based on an imaginary concept that seems so real to human mind but isn't objectively real. You must explain following since you are pro and thus have BOP. a) that what appears as plagiarism is not pure coincidence. b) that when a person readds something and is inpired by it and words somethign exactly like that it isn't just memory and not plagiarism. c) that is someone were to read all sources used in an article and happen to make a debate sourcing the identical sources and quotes form the sources and same explanations of sources it isn't different form plagiarism d) that if same thing is done twice the person who did it second time deserves to be punished and seen as immoral because of 'plagiarism', especially if it is not for commercial purposes (not money or wealth is gained) You better also explain why if a person copies another it is even a concept to consider as real and not just being inspired by the , especially if they edit it.