BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
smoking should be banned

thank you microsuck for accepting and for the argument.. Reasons why smoking should be banned. In the United Kingdom people complain about the health service. Not enough GP"s and sometimes there is a need to wait for weeks for an referral appointment. The NHS (The health service in the UK) spends every year "1.4 and "1.7 billion on smoking related illnesses. Every day 1000 patients are admitted into hospital because of smoking related illnesses. Just imagine how many beds it would free up if there would be no smokers anymore. I know that if they would stop smoking that it would not immediately make things better but eventually it would. It would free up the health service in the UK and other countries. So why does the government allow smokers to continue. Well for the start because in the UK the government collects every year "9 billion an tobacco duty. But with the cost of smoking rising in the UK and the flights into eastern European countries falling many people actually buy cigarettes abroad for which the government actually doesn"t get any tax duty. On tobacco plantations children as young as 3 are working every day to provide the tobacco needed for cigarettes. I personally think that this is a disgrace and the tobacco companies should be fined for this. But often they blame the contractors and avoid any responsibility. Smoking is also one of the biggest polluter. In a cigarette there are around 4000 chemicals and 400 toxic substances. These chemicals and toxic substances are then filtered and what is done with the cigarette filter? Its thrown away. Often simply on the road and eventually ends up in landfill sites. thanks
Natures like the earth proves that the beliefs of Muslims are only right and true

You speak as though the elements of nature obey your people to the letter, if so... then why not summon a volcano from the center of New York? Why not wipe out non believers with tidal waves the size of a nation? For that matter, if you control fire, why am I still alive? I sit here, mocking your notions of a god, and yet I do not burn, are your people just afraid? On another note, you speak of these fresh, preserved, dead bodies as though they are proven fact, if so, then why not mail me a head, or maybe a severed hand? You know, preferably a few thousand years old, but still fresh, with no chemicals. Oh no, you wouldn't do that, it would just expose your lies. The fact is, no reputable non Muslim scientist has ever seen these, and if they have, they certainly never told the public. When evidence is hidden, it is only safe to assume a bluff, so until all evidence is put forward, for the whole world to see, then I will continue to mock you, and all you stand for, because I do not like lies.
Natures like the earth proves that the beliefs of Muslims are only right and true

Q- 1-There are many religious books in world like Torah for Jews, Bible for Christians, Veda, Gita etc for Hindus and Holy Quran for Muslims . There are Millions differences among them. The followers of these books claim that their book is only the true and others all are false, mixed, cancelled or fabricated. In this situation a neutral person wants to accept any books as a guidance for finding the right path to the God who created this universe. Then what he should do? He should study these books? If yes, then it will take many times and he haven"t so many times. If no, then what he should do? Please guide me. A-He should see the natures like the Earth, the, Fire, the Air, the water etc and accept the book whose followers have control on natures and the natures obey them. Because the natures are like a neutral judge .They do not tell a lie. They are 100% true and neutral. They obey only true God or true followers of God. According to my research the Natures obey only the God of Holy Quran Almighty Allah and His true followers only. They do not obey any another fabricated Gods or followers of any religious books. Example no -1: We have researched that there are hundreds fresh dead bodies with fresh blood of Muslim Martyrs and saints who are preserved from decay in their graves since centuries and years without used any chemicals. Once We have dug their graves for any reasons, we have found them in above condition, our Doctors have examined them and there are thousands eyewitness too. We will not dig their graves for every person on his desire, because you are 5 Billions at this time in world. So, if you are sincere then contact us with your Doctors, Researchers
Android Is Better Than iOS

The whole purpose of having a mobile OS is to provide end users with the ability to run applications efficiently and effectively. This effectiveness is a direct correlation to the users interactions with the device's UI, and therefore a more user friendly UI results in a more effective and efficient platform for application and thus a better OS. iOS's UI is better than Android's UI because it is much simpler and more efficient. iOS provides the user with a paginated view of all installed applications that can be easily navigated by swiping through these pages. All applications are easily accessible to the user and can be grouped into folders to maintain organization and accessibility. This is a more efficient way of managing applications as opposed to Android's use of an Application drawer, which puts applications out of the users initial view and requires an extra step to access them, making it less efficient than iOS. Another way in which iOS's UI is better than that of Android, is in the user's interactions with the actual devices. iOS devices contain very few buttons including the home button, sleep/power button, volume control buttons and ring/silent button on the iPhone only and screen lock button on the iPad only.[2] Having such few buttons on the device provide the user with simple way to control the device as opposed to Android devices which typically contain at least 7 buttons making the device more complex and require more physical actions of the user. This shows that iOS has a more user friendly physical UI and ultimately contributes to the OS as a whole. iOS's superior UI provides a more efficient platform for users to interact with their applications than Android does, thus it is the better OS.
Android Is Better Than iOS

Did you not even read my last paragraph? Android apps crash half the time that iOS apps do. That sounds like efficiency to me. And also, the latest version of Android is 4.4. And even with 4.3, it wasn't "plagued with glitches" like you describe. Did you name any specific issues? Nope. And I am not code-literate, but I can download a patch or google a fix. iOS in fact, doesn't fall behind, I agree with you on that. But what it does is that they wait until someone else tries and fails or partially suceeds, and then they release their own version. They did this with the iPhone, the iPad, and the iPod. Now if we were living in 2007, I would not have a viable argument against iOS vs Android. But since then, Android has caught up and passed iOS by about Android 4.1/iOS 6. And the gap just keeps getting wider. If Steve Jobs was still around, he would think of some, new great innovation to put Apple ahead again. But he's not. So they try to make do on the iPhone 5s by adding touch ID and some new internals, and the 5c is just an iPhone 5 with a plastic case. That doesn't sound like innovation to me. If by "general end-user" you mean an ordinary Joe walking down the street, someone like my grandma who doesn't know beans about tech, then yes, you are probably right. But for anyone with even just a little experience with tech, Android reigns supreme because of increased features and smoother user experience. "The features that they do implement are almost 100% reliable and stellar.In other words, Apple nails it when others don't." No. Ever heard of Apple Maps. The one that was a complete failure. That doesn't sound 100% reliable and stellar to me. iOS 7 and on has had many glitches, and as many if not more than Android.
Android Is Better Than iOS

The term better, as defined by New Oxford American Dictionary, states " of a more excellent or effective type or quality" - meaning that whichever platform, iOS or Android, must prove that it is more excellent, and effective. In other words, the platform must meet the basic requirement of being effective - which I believe that both do. However, it must also be efficient. The level of efficiency within iOS is stellar compared to Android. Currently, Android 4.3 is still plagued with glitches and for the general end-user, it can be extremely frustrating. For those who are not code-literate, any chance of rectifying issues is nearly impossible. IOS 7 runs seamless, is reliable, and the speed is on the high-end compared to Android 4.3. One common counter to iOS is that it falls behind, or it's developments are delayed and is always running behind the standard of technology. This may be true that Apple will wait to implement features, however the features that they do implement are almost 100% reliable and stellar. In other words, Apple nails it when others don't. I have personally dealt with both, and both have their pro's and con's. Android excels in customization of GUI, while iOS comes with minimal persistent bugs. Ultimately, it is because of that that I must give my vote to iOS - especially for the general end-user.
Android Is Better Than iOS

Google didn't just all of a sudden decide to make Android because it wanted an iPhone competitor, it was originally in development to compete with Blackberry and Symbian OS. Yes they added the touch screen at the last second, but they did that also to compete with the LG Prada, which was launching in 2006. So we can assume it was added before the launch of the iPhone. Yes, when it originally came out, iPhone may have sold more than Android. But as of now, and since 2010, Android has had the highest smartphone OS market share in the world, and only in the US does the iPhone sell better. In 2013, Android accounted for 81% of global smartphone sales. Apple and Blackberry and Windows Phone accounted altogether only 19%. The reason that iPhone sells better in the US is because specifically here, we and our companies have a "if they've got it, it must be good. " I am a student and I see this everyday, people who have iPhones think themselves to be better than other people. Even if the Samsung Galaxy S5 is technologically superior, almost everyone thinks iPhones are better. "Apple is more secure and it's easier to use" Why does everyone think Android isn't secure? I mean, there are new glitches in iOS like, every update, and the ones that get fixed with the update simply get replaced with new ones. Apple apps crash 1.7% of the time, according to Techradar, which is great, but Android devices running 4.0 and up crash 0.7% of the time. That in itself is a fact, Android is easier to use than iOS and more secure. Yes, Samsung has had several security issues, but this debate is about Android, not Samsung. Consider the Nexus line, stock Android, I own a Nexus 7 and never once have I had a security issue with it. Again, it's a textbook case of thinking iPhone is better for no real reason. Here's my sources. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(operating_system), . http://en.wikipedia.org..., . http://en.wikipedia.org..., . http://www.techradar.com... I look forward to the rest of our debate.
Android Is Better Than iOS

iOS was the first popular software to go out, Android pretty much copied it. Who had the accelerometer first? iOS. Who had the Proximity sensor first? iOS. Who had the multi-touch screen? iOS. Yes Android lets you customize your phone more and all but Apple is more secure and its easier to use, there is a reason big companies have now allowed their employees to use iPhones instead of Android phones. Android is a great software dont get me wrong but it just cant compare to iOS when it comes to user friendliness, popularity, and originality.
Android Is Better Than iOS

Thank you for accepting/viewing this debate. This is my first debate, so please correct me if I'm doing anything wrong. I will be supporting Android. Rules -No swearing -Only your own personal opinions and knowledge/facts Opening Argument I am somewhat of a tech nerd, and I have used both iOS and Android. In my experience of using both operating systems, I have concluded that Android is the better of the two. Android is more customizable, in that it has widgets, which are live icons on your homescreen that display data from one of your apps without actually going into that app. In addition, there are many legal 3rd party launchers and modifications available on the Google Play store which allow you to completely change the look of the OS. Also, there are a lot more Android apps that are free or ad-supported, where as the Apple App Store has more paid apps, and who doesn't like getting something for nothing. Apple design for iOS 7, is completely unappealing to me, especially when comparing it to something as slick as stock Android. The font is so minimalistic that sometimes you can barely read it, and the whole of it is so neon it hurts my eyes. Some of the icons (Safari) look like a kindergartner drew them with crayon, and others (Game Center) don't have anything to do with what their representing. Finally, Apple has this "walled garden" approach, in that it only wants you to take from it's services. Want music? Then you have iTunes, but nothing else. And it's the same in all the rest of the services. Android, on the other hand, has the stock Google Play options, but there are other services available that you can download and use without rooting/jailbreaking. Thank you for your opinions and I am looking forward to our debate
The Ethical Value of Homosexuality

I accept the Instigator's criteria. I hold an Absurdist moral philosophy which is very similar to Moral Nihilism so this should be a good debate.ARGUMENTSA1. The Utility of ToleranceI assert that tolerance in general is a proactive value in society. There is no doubt that prohibition and/or taboo of certain things is beneficial for society. A society that permits murder would not be very successful. However, the prohibition and/or taboo of things also has certain negative factors on society, in relation to tolerance. In-order for the prohibition and/or taboo to be "ethically" justified, the level of societal harm it would cause, being permitted, must exceed the harm of those negative factors. I will present those factors and argue for them. In order for Con to dismantle the fulfillment of my burden, one thing he would need to demonstrate is why homosexuality causes more societal harm than harm directly caused by it's lack of tolerance for homosexuality.Factors:a. Communal cohesion.I assert that society is more productive when people get along. When a certain lifestyle is prohibited and/or taboo it has a negative effect on the communal cohesion of that non-tolerated group and the rest of society. b. Self-esteemAssuming there is value of any given individual's life in the context of society and it's ethical framework, I assert that concern should be given to the fact that an individual who is gay is likely to be hurt emotionally in a society that does not accept them. A2. Interconnectedness in Authoritarianism PoliciesI assert that authoritarianism in one field is likely to be connected with authoritarianism in other fields. In this case, the authoritarianism is that of prohibition and/or taboo of homosexual lifestyles. It is no coincidence that individuals, in public polls, who are against gay marriage also tend to be against the legalization of marijuana and abortion [1]. So, a society that is tolerant of homosexuality is also likely to be more tolerant across the board. A3. OverpopulationMy opponent may bring up that homosexuality is counter productive to society because it stunts reproduction. This is a non sequitur. Many theorize that homosexuality is actually nature's way of population control [2]. It is a fact that the more children a mother has the more likely the next child is to be homosexual [3]. Birth-rate goes down as population goes up [4] and there is increased tolerance of homosexuality in more highly populated areas [6].I turn it over to Con.SOURCES1) http://pewforum.org... 2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...3) http://en.wikipedia.org...4) http://www.globalchange.umich.edu...5) http://www.international-survey.org...
The Ethical Value of Homosexuality

BlueGalaxy Con I would like to herein discuss the ethical value of homosexuality. The reason I use the word ethical rather than moral is because of the distinction between right and wrong and good or bad. I am aware that when naturally defined, they do not carry any sort of dissimilar connotation. However, for the sake of this discussion, one of my initial methods was to remove all conceptions of subjectivity that could have entered in where I do not intend them to belong. Through my personal terms, ethicality applies to right and wrong(as in logistical/objective significance) whereas morality applies to good and bad(as in assigning emotionality towards any such object that does not necessarily(necessarily as in the modal connotation) bare intrinsic emotional substance). Thus to engage in such a debate means leaving out elements that deal with sentiment. For future reference, I am a devout Atheist, a theoretical Nihilist; my ethical orientation is that of evolutionary epistemology(and thence evolutionary ethics) and my personal view is that homosexuality per se is neutral but the advocacy, normalization, and general acceptance of it, however, is not(as in it is negative). I am not looking to debate somebody who is emotionally invested unless they have a prevailing sense of rationality. I do look forward to a sincerely stimulating debate! Thanks in advance to my opponent. For the sake of clarification~the burden of proof will be on Pro.
Gun Control = Poo

- You seem to think that it is easy for criminals to go and get a gun. This is not the case, it is more difficult to get an illegal weapon than getting milk at the grocery store. If there was no gun control then every criminal who wanted one would be able to get one, and civilians would still be able to get guns. The only difference is that there are more criminals with guns if there's no gun control. + Two things: For you or I it is more difficult to get a gun than get milk, but for a person whose life revolves around violence it will not be as difficult. Every criminal who wants a gun can get one. Criminals are people who commit crimes, typically in criminal gangs. Those gangs have international contacts, national contacts, can make guns in the country, sneak guns in the country, purchase guns from Americans, etc. The gun control is inneffective and will always be. "- Apparently 117% of people killed in 2004 were either killed by guns or knives. + 117% So everybody who was killed plus some was killed by guns or knives? So car accidents did not happen? Etc.? This statistic is ridiculous." Well, I'm confused. You did read my argument didn't you? You read the part that said "This doesn't seem like an accurate statistic"? Meaning that I don't think this is right. + Alright so heres what it boils down to: my fake statistis apparently. I suppose the website I got that from was not credible, however, there are a significant number of other weapons. Why not ban those? The rest of my arguments have gone unresponded to: - Criminals will attain guns no matter what. Innocent civilians will be the ones without guns to protect themselves. - The Constitution allows people to carry guns. There is no reason to void the Constitution on this. - Criminals will not register their guns. Making the gun count inaccuarate instead of not having one. - Criminals will attain better guns that civilians can not have and shoot at us. - You have NO offense. There is no reason to allow gun control. So far I win this debate for that as well.
Gun Control = Poo

You used a lot of words to say one thing: You think that because of gun control criminals will get guns while civilians will be left unprotected because of restrictions to their gun rights. This is the reason for gun control: To keep guns out of the hands of people who would use them to harm or commit crimes. You seem to think that it is easy for criminals to go and get a gun. This is not the case, it is more difficult to get an illegal weapon than getting milk at the grocery store. If there was no gun control then every criminal who wanted one would be able to get one, and civilians would still be able to get guns. The only difference is that there are more criminals with guns if there's no gun control. "- Apparently 117% of people killed in 2004 were either killed by guns or knives. + 117% So everybody who was killed plus some was killed by guns or knives? So car accidents did not happen? Etc.? This statistic is ridiculous." Well, I'm confused. You did read my argument didn't you? You read the part that said "This doesn't seem like an accurate statistic"? Meaning that I don't think this is right. You said that 66% of murders were from guns and that 51% were from stabbings. 66 + 51 = 117. So I completely agree with you when you say "So everybody who was killed plus some was killed by guns or knives? So car accidents did not happen? Etc.? This statistic is ridiculous." Please read and comprehend my arguments.