BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Apple better than Andriod

I accept.Resolved: Apple is better than Android Because PRO is making a positive claim, only he has the burden of proof to prove that Apple phones are objectively better than Android phones. In the process, he must be able to prove that one can be objectively better than another. In other words, he needs to lay out a criteria for evaluation that allows us to rank one objectively above another. In the absence of that, all of his arguments fall flat -- and his burden remains unfulfilled -- because everything he provides us is making the implicit assumption that X, Y, and Z quality are desirable, one of which is without warrant. In the absence of a warrant, all of his remarks boil down to subjective opinion, in which case he doesn't establish his burden.To further expand on PRO's burden, he must be able to prove the following in order to win this debate. If he fails to so, you vote CON by default.P1) X, Y, and Z criteria establish objective superiority P2) Apples trump Androids in all three of these categories C1) Therefore, Apples are objectively superior to AndroidsP1 is establishing an objective framework for evaluation -- without that, his arguments have no warrant.P2 is evidencing that Apples actually fulfill these criteria, whilst Androids do not.C1 follows only if he can prove both P1 and P2. If he fails to do so, or there's the slightest bit of ambiguity remaining by the end of this debate, you vote CON -- because PRO will have failed to fulfill his burden of proof.To summarize what I must do in order to win this debate: (1) If PRO fails to establish both P1 and P2, you vote for me. (2) If by the end of the debate, it is even possible that either Androids are better than Apples, that they are equal, or that we can't judge which is better, you vote for me.So far, PRO has provided us with two unwarranted claims -- no evidence to even back up that they are true, or reason that they establish objective superiority. Therefore, he hasn't made a single move toward establishing his BOP.
Apple better than Andriod

PRO writes, "Well, the system that it uses can handle much more games, the iPhones, now, have accelerometers, gyroscopes, and other awesome sensors, the software that it uses is not 3 years old (the most popular software, i mean). " There is (1) no evidence for any of these claims, so you're not going to buy them; (2) no framework for gauging an objective criteria for superiority; and (3) no engagement of my burden analysis, or contesting of my point that he is doing nothing more than offering his subjective opinion. Even if these things were true -- and you have no reason to buy that they are, because PRO has the burden of proof and hasn't demonstrated as much -- they would not fulfill PRO's burden.
The world will NOT end in 2012

Dear readers, my case is simple. My opponent is predicting that the world will not end in 2012. He supports his claim in three ways. First, he cites the bible's stern warning that the end of the world is not predictable. Second, he cites the failed predictions of the Myans. Third, he cites the failed Armageddon predictions circa WWII and the year 2000. He uses three supporting arguments to forcefully assert that the future cannot be predicted. He cannot have it both ways. If the end of world is as unpredictable as he would have us believe, then the resolution must be false. This is enough to rest my case. However, it would be inconsiderate not to respond to his three points in Round 3. 1) Gambler's Fallacy I apologize if I am obtuse, but I cannot make sense of my opponent's grammar on this point. Yes, the Mayan's made many predictions that proved incorrect. It is illogical, however, to assume that they would make future predictions easier or more accurate. Predictions about the future, by their nature, are no better than guesses. It stands to reason, then, that my opponent's guess that the world will NOT end in 2012 is as sound as anyone else's guess that it will. 2) Bible If I understand my opponent clearly, he concludes that since the Bible says the end of the world cannot be predicted, then any prediction must be false, as though God says, "Well, they think it's gonna happen in 2012, so I can't do it then. " According to this line of reasoning, so long as humanity predicts the world to end each year, the world will never end and God is subject to the will of his creatures. This simply is not cogent. The Bible tells us that no man knows when the world will end. Predicting our doom is certainly futile. .. EITHER WAY. 3) Refutation My opponent, in his frustration, resorts to false assertions: - He says I didn't argue, but only spouted off random things. I guess the voters will settle this matter. - He says I stated random facts the my opponent never stated. They weren't random facts, they were based on common sense. The fact that the future cannot be accurately predicted is common sense since no one has yet to consistently and accurately predict the future. - He says the resolution was not meant to accurately predict the future. Why then did he emphasis NOT? I've read the resolution over and over, and it sure looks like he's predicting the future to me. - He says A and B cannot both be true. Really? It can simultaneously be the case that the future cannot be accurately predicted but that my opponent can accurately predict the future? The law of non-contradiction applies here. Either the future can be predicted or it can't. - He says E helps his case, but I listed it in the context of a logical argument that utterly destroys the resolution in question. Having responded to my opponent, I will rest my case. If this debate is to be judged on reason and logic, then the vote should justifiably go to me.
The world will NOT end in 2012

point by point! 1)Gamblers Fallacy hes stating that if you flip a coin and flip it again the first flip will not affect the second.. The myans stated many predictions the myans would be more similar to predicting both before either happens if they chose heads then heads and the first one is tails their's no way that he can be right. 2)Bible He states that my argue helped him but people have predicted that the end of the world WILL come in 2012 but it is said in the bible that you can never predict the end of the world.. not you can never predict when it won't end as my colleague appareantly believes. and since people have predicted it will end in 2012 it proves that they're wrong no matter what 3)Refutation He did not refute any arguments he just named off things that someone reading this debate might interpret it as an argument but he did not turn it or take it out he just simply stated random facts that i never stated His subpoints A-F stand absolutely no ground in this debate showing that his: I've already stated his subpoint A the resolution was not meant to accurately predict the future stated in his subpoint B A and B could both be true but i'm not claiming subpoint B. his subpoint d is common sense and subpoint E. just helps my case so with that i strongly urge an affirmative vote in todays round. Thank you
The world will NOT end in 2012

I'll respond to my opponent, in this round, point by point. His words are proceeded by arrows for easy reading: --> I'm not saying that because they were wrong in the past automatically makes them wrong i'm just saying that it gives it a better chance. This is precisely what the Gambler's fallacy is. If you flip a coin 10 times, and 8/10 of those came up heads, are the odds better that tails will flip next? No, the odds of getting tails are always 1 in 2, regardless of previous results. According to your logic, the more people are wrong, the more likely they'll be wrong in the future. This is not the case. The fact that past predictions have failed has no bearing on future predictions. Now, if the resolution were "The world probably will not end," then you'd be right in basing your argument on past failed predictions. But you are asserting with absolute certainty the world will not end in 2012. How is your prediction absolutely guaranteed to be infallible? To answer simply, it is not. Your prediction is as much guesswork as those predicting the world will end in 2012. --> 1)BIBLE the bible states that no one can predict the end of the world and since the myans predicted it then their's no way that they can every be right This argument supports my position, not yours. The bible is correct in reminding us that the world's end cannot be predicted, one way or the other. From a biblical vantage point, it is just as silly to predict the world will end on a specific year as it is to predict that it won't. --> 2)refutation he didn't really refute any of my arguments so with that i stand with all of my 3 points still standing I did refute your arguments, all three of them, with a single paragraph. All three assert that the future cannot be predicted, yet the resolution does just that. In other words, your own arguments refute the resolution. My argument is simple and it simultaneously supports my position and refutes my opponent's: A. The future cannot be accurately predicted with certainty B. The resolution attempts to accurately predict the future with certainty C. Both A and B cannot be true D. If A were false, we would all know the future E. No one has been able to consistently and accurately predict the future with certainty, so A is true F. Since A is true, B is false. The resolution stands negated.
The world will NOT end in 2012

I'm not saying that because they were wrong in the past automatically makes them wrong i'm just saying that it gives it a better chance. 1)BIBLE the bible states that no one can predict the end of the world and since the myans predicted it then their's no way that they can every be right 2)refutation he didn't really refute any of my arguments so with that i stand with alll of my 3 points still standing thank you
The world will NOT end in 2012

My argument is brief and to the point. The future, by its very nature, is unpredictable. My opponent asserts the world will NOT (emphasis his) end in 2012. However, he cannot be any more certain of his prediction than the doomsayers he so readily criticizes. In so doing he commits the gambler's fallacy, asserting that since past predictions have been false, future predictions are more likely to be false. Just as a coin toss is 50-50 regardless of past circumstances, the probability of the world ending--however small--is the same for 2012 as it is for 2009. While both my opponent and I would agree that Armageddon is not likely to occur within the next 5 years, he cannot say with absolute certainty the world will not end in 2012. I turn it over to my opponent for his critique.
The world will NOT end in 2012

Because i stand resolved that the world will NOT end in 2012 i offer the following arguments 1) The bible The bible states that no one on the earth can forsee the coming of the end of the earth.(revelations) The bible also states that the horses must come first although some believe the first horse has already came(plague) the rest have not. 2)Myans the myans have been wrong on multiple occasions and all of their predictions are very vague and could be put into apects in alot of things. maybe the myans just stopped their calendar on that date for alot of other reasons other than that was when the world was oging to end. 3)its been predicted it has been said the end of the world is coming for a while. they stated it would end during WWII also that it would end in 2000 what makes this part so different Thank You
I believe that religion is about a relationship with god not about going to church every sunday.

My opponents proposition is " I believe that religion is about a relationship with god not about going to church every sunday.", where "I" speaks of him or her. Therfore, I must show that she does in fact believe that religion is about a relationship with god not about going to church every sunday. To prove this, I will post her own opening argument as evidence that he/she does in fact believe such "You do not have to go to church to be a believer of God or to have a relationship with him. You can worship and talk to him anytime or anyplace and be just as happy about yourself and happy with your life and not have to go to an organized place. I belive God will forgive and love you just as much as everyone else even if you dont revolve your life around going to a church or some type of organization. Church is a great place but just because you dont attend every single sunday and event doesn't mean your any worse of a person. Church to me is just a place to socialize and worship with fellow members, sometimes you need privacy when it comes to a serious talk with the man above."
I believe that religion is about a relationship with god not about going to church every sunday.

You do not have to go to church to be a believer of God or to have a relationship with him. You can worship and talk to him anytime or anyplace and be just as happy about yourself and happy with your life and not have to go to an organized place. I belive God will forgive and love you just as much as everyone else even if you dont revolve your life around going to a church or some type of organization. Church is a great place but just because you dont attend every single sunday and event doesn't mean your any worse of a person. Church to me is just a place to socialize and worship with fellow members, sometimes you need privacy when it comes to a serious talk with the man above.
There are no compelling arguments based on science to suggest God is personal.

You wish for a bigger penis, God gives it to you. What has this done to any and all men competing with you for a woman? Caused a disadvantage. What has this in turn done to children of that woman? Forced them to have your genetics as opposed to what they could have had. What does this do to the sons of you? Allow them to inherit big penis genes. What does this in turn do to the men they compete with?Don't like that example? Let's try another.You pray for amazing grades, God gives you temporary super intelligence and you get straight A's, you compete with a guy who didn't pray for good grades and although a natural genius happened to get slightly lower percentile A's than you, but only one of you will get the place in the university... God had to give one of you slightly better than the other... Boom, you get in. What has this done to the other guy? Disadvantaged him career-wise for his whole life. Now what if that guy had the true capacity to have been the next Einstein but because God was trying to be personal, he didn't care for the big error he made to humanity in allowing a mediocre guy who prayed for intelligence to just get them. Truth is whatever god will do in trying to be personal will always, inevitably, undoubtedly have an extreme chain reaction and affects fate negatively in a way (every positive has a negative counterpart) it is impossible for God to only worry about one person without harming others in the process indirectly. God is the ruler of all, it is impossible for him to neglect this and assume he can alter one cog in the machine without f*cking the whole mechanism up.
There are no compelling arguments based on science to suggest God is personal.

Another God debate, I will start by saying, This debate is to assume that the universe was created by a singular God. Once accepted, It is my opponents Bop to prove by Philosophy, Science or any other method that God is able to be personal to every living entity, or we can narrow it down to humans for the simplicity of the debate. Note: this is a debate which favors the existence of God. but unlike other debates where people choose regular arguments, Such as the theological argument or the argument for design, and the ontological argument or the KCA, And others which only suggest that it is likely that God exists, I have found no strong arguments that can compel me to accept, that God is personal with his subjects. I look forward to a worthy opponent and thank them in advance.
There are no compelling arguments based on science to suggest God is personal.

What I am saying is that it is impossible for God to be personal with his subjects unless he is personal with all at once in one big game plan. Considering that there seems to be a clear logic and fate to the madness I assume God is personal but is BALANCING HOW PERSONAL HE IS with one and another. In my round 2 debate I was explaining how easy it is to make an error if he were too personal.
life support

Okay the problem I have with your statement is that you even state in the beginning why taking them off is smart because a person who is brain dead is legally dead. There, you are contradicting yourself. Aside from that, you are trying to place a valid statement on 'what ifs' and 'maybe's' . im sorry, but thats technically not a valid argument so we don't know. People who usually go for life support are living in a world of ' rainbows and unicorns' and try to have hope and faith in the fact that that person may wake up, when in most cases they dont. Look at the facts and throw away the 'maybes'
The Affordable Care Act should be repealed immediately.

Pro says: Thank you, Sitara, for a prompt response. I think that our positions aren't actually all that different. I believe that you will actually come to agree that the current law needs to be repealed and replace with something that will actually work, as I have argued... and as you have stated in your post. I will demonstrate below." I say: maybe so. I feel dumb now. Pro says: "-The law makes it more difficult for people to get access to health care, as evidenced by higher premiums, longer waits to see a doctor due to an impending doctor shortage, a smaller number of doctors willing to accept insurance, and fewer treatments they are "allowed" to do for you." I say: Not to sound like I am 10 years old, but that totally sucks. I believe that healthcare is a right so that bothers me. Time will tell I guess. Pro says: "-The law is riddled with loopholes, corruption, uneven enforcement, bureaucratic abuses, political favoritism, and other tools that the government can use to impose its will upon the people." I say: Over taxation causes a multitude of problems including this. Pro says: "-The law over-regulates what treatments people are allowed to receive based on factors that have nothing to do with medicine, and it creates lots of barriers between doctor and patient, damaging the doctor-patient relationship." I say: The law already does that. Did you read about my experience with my HMO? Pro says: "-The law does nothing to address the real costs of medicine in this country and in fact has cost much more than originally projected." I say: How so? I am detail oriented. LOL. Pro says: "In a consumer-driven subsidy plan like the one in Indiana, this wouldn't be a problem. The difference is that instead of the government making the decisions about what care you're allowed to have for you, you get to make those decisions by paying for your care out of a Health Savings Account that the State contributes to much as it would have paid the hospitals or doctors or pharmacies directly under Obamacare. Now, you have the power to make decisions about your health instead of letting some bureaucrat do it for you." I say: Privatization is not always the answer. That is a big problem I have with libertarians. Pro says: "In light of all of these things, it seems to me that you actually agree with me and think that Obamacare should be repealed... and replaced with something a) that works better, b) that gets voted in by a fair and open referendum without any tricks, and c) that doesn't leave the door open to governmental corruption." In that case, I do agree. I am so sorry.
Religion is the cause of all of the World's problems

Society is crumbling because of Religion, Look at our Education system a Prussian model used to keep the mases Ignorant, and the Prussian system was mainly Roman Catholic and Jewish, Also Many Americans have been InIndoctrinated through the Church to Accept Jesus Christ as our own and only savior when there is absolutely no proof of his Existence. SJW's and Liberalism were fueled by government because some proverbs stated to treal all equal like our Women etc.
we should rise the legal driving age to 18

I was telling specially in Mexico or other yes (corrupt) developing countries . Yes many times my parents tell me if I wan to drive but the get with me in the car and supervise me , but we drive in a place without too many cars or in the stets neer my house but they are few cars and drive slow . But many don't do this , many learn and drive alone and they don't think in what could happen , we have luck for having our parents that supervise us more and take care of us the real problem is that not everyone is like this.
we should rise the legal driving age to 18

But if you would know it is illegal in the US to drive without a adult as a passenger and either way or not they are going to jail and they will tow the truck or car what ever he is using. you should point this debate on different countries such as Mexico that many teen can basically go anywhere because of the corruption of any poor country. many parent would want to teach you and can i ask you something... Have your parents asked you to drive or park the car.
we should rise the legal driving age to 18

Yes, many people die in car accidents , but in the last years teenagers crash more, I know that you are still a teenager at 18 but with out young people we could"t get new ideas , new people to work or make the world a better place , also isn't just the people in the car in the accident they can also kill people around the crash , innocents just walking or something. Although you need adult supervision many don't do this , maybe we need to rise the legal driving age and make sure they are supervised correctly .
we should rise the legal driving age to 18

If you have noticed that 18 is still considered a teenager and also not only immature teenagers crash be aware that there are also grown people after clubs. which a 18 year old cannot go to so the only way they get is is going to parties at houses. the limit to drive actually is 25, but you have to be with an older adult such as a parent. so it is more personal if your parents have confidence in you. to have a driving class is at the age of 16 just to get a hang with the wheel, how to brake to take that fear so when they are 18 they"ll be prepared