BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mac computers are better than PC's

Before starting my argument, let me clarify. By Mac computers, I mean computers with the Leopard or Snow Leopard operating system (10.5, 10.5.5, or 10.5.6). By PC's, I simply mean computers with Windows XP, Windows, Vista, or Windows 7. Also, I would like to thank my future opponent and wish him good luck. There are many advantages that Mac users can enjoy over PC users. Listed below are a few of them: 1. Macs are designed with "security in mind". Mac OSX is not affected by the myriad of computer viruses out there, such as Conflicker. Thus, there is no need for security alerts and sweeps, leading to a more productive work or play time. 2. Mac OSX is always up-to-date. This is because OSX comes with an automatic software update. This shows updates to any included Apple software and automatically downloads them. This saves you (the user) the trouble of updating the software. In a sense, Macs get better with age. 3. Mac OSX have email and chat programs automatically built in. The chat program, known as iChat, not only supports text chat, but also video chat, audio chat, and screen sharing (screen sharing only works for other mac users). Keep in mind that this comes out of the box. There is no installation needed for any of this. 4. Moreover, Macs are more reliable than PC's. When using a PC, you are using hardware that is made by one company, and software that is created by another. Thus, crashes are common. However, concerning Macs, the operating system and the hardware is made by the same company, resulting in less crashes. An application may quit, but this does not affect the rest of the system. Before listing any more, I will give my opponent a chance to oppose. My sources include: http://www.apple.com... http://www.apple.com...
we should have courage and reasons to have courage

Good day to all my opponent began his speech by asking the question of "is Hitler courageous?" the true answer is no. as I mentioned in my previous speech, A prime minister who destroys his country in the name of courage will not be seen as one but be seen as a tyrant, coward and a threat. Hitler only looked at the impact on the majority thereby ignoring the minority. This is an example of Respect. You must take into consideration the belief of every body and not to ignore the minority. Yes I agree that Hitler gave the Germans job but he did this forcefully by taking away the jobs of the Jews and giving it to the so called " superior beings". My opponent clearly misunderstood the fact that I mentioned in my previous speech that we must DEFFRENTIATE FEAR FROM COURAGE and not to eliminate fear in us. Fear is something that we can't get rid of. My opponent mistakes courage for Tyrant. there is a clear difference between these two terms. In the case of Hitler, he displayed himself as a tyrant rather than a courageous person. A courageous Man would stand for the right thing but a Tyrant would seek destruction. Brave leaders come in different shapes and forms and only once-in-a-lifetime. We have one; no one come close to the bravery and elegance-Ethiopian style than the young, charismatic, soft-spoken mother and a natural leader like Ehet Birtukan Medeska. All tyrants are cowards and come in different shapes and forms too. They are many, but no one exhibited cowardice than the depot ruling Ethiopia and his butlers who served him with disgrace. My opponent states is so called "Scenario" that "None the less the person is demonstrating courage because they choose to do the action that could produce the most benefit despite their fear" however he failed to realize that this is not an example of courage but of the will to survive. We must see that we need all five human traits to become courageous. First we have responsibility, you must have common sense to reason with and make wise decisions. respect if we have respect then we are responsible because it is our duty to be respectful to ourselves and others. Trustworthy if we are trustworthy that means that others respect us and we respect ourselves Caring: if you cared for something then you must have Trust in you that the thing you care for is truly valuable. Citizenship: how do you expect to be courageous if you do not CARE for your country and try to make a change. overall we must see that we need courage in our life and in order to do so we must have these characteristics. Valuable sources: http://ecadforum.com... http://www.brusselsjournal.com... http://www.thehappyguy.com... http://confidencetips.blogspot.com...
we should have courage and reasons to have courage

In my previous speech, I mentioned that we must differentiate courage from fear and this is one of the problems that we Americans shear. An article from Pickthebran. com describes fear as an illusive giant which we must overcome. my opponent mentioned that the other four characteristic of the human threat does not relate to courage however my opponent failed to realize that you cannot Aguirre courage with just one human trait, you need all five in other to realize and differentiate fear from courage. Respect: As I mentioned in my previous speech, courage is standing on what you belief and also backing it up with action. If you have no respect for other peoples conscience or feeling, then you are not a courageous man for a courageous man would recognize others belief and respect it. An example would be one of a prime minister. A prime minister who destroys his country in the name of courage will not be seen as one but be seen as a tyrant, coward and a threat. Caring and citizenship: yes I agree with my opponent when he said that these revolves around loyalty however caring as to citizenship is also a trait needed to become courageous. how do you hope to stand for what you belief in if you don't care? when a man cares he does according to a Michael Smith so when a man cares about a change in the environment, he will stand for it and will accomplish it. "The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those scared and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. " (Theodore Roosevelt) Trustworthy: if we look back on our history, we can find that most courageous men have made themselves trustworthy through there various speeches and campaign. Throughout the Bible, we find God choosing seemingly unimportant people for important tasks. Moses had run away from Egypt and spent 40 years tending sheep in the desert when God called him lead his people out of slavery. King David was the youngest son of his father, and when the Priest Samuel asked to see all of Jesse's sons, no one thought to bring David in from the work he was doing. The Prophet Jeremiah responded to God's call by saying, "I don't know how to speak. I am too young! " (Jeremiah 1:6, Good News Translation). none of us would have chosen these two as leaders but God saw that they were trustworthy and he sent them off to a courageous quest which they accomplished. we could find that contrary to what my opponent said, we must have all five traits to be courageous no matter what. . http://www.dennydavis.net... . http://www.pickthebrain.com... . http://www.scoutinterfaithworship.org...
we should have courage and reasons to have courage

Thank you for the post I look forward to the debate. Courage according to Aristotle is a human virtue/mean that falls in between two vices. On one side is foolhardy which is excess of courage and is a reckless action in cases where it is inappropriate or simply to ignore rational fear. This can be illustrated by one of your examples, in which someone runs into a burning building with no hope of survival. On the other side is cowardice which is excessive fear in cases where there is no cause for them or to surrender to irrational fear. An example of this is Xanthophobia or the fear of the color yellow or the word yellow. The color and word do not pose a threat yet the person still fears it. Courage is in the middle and is in which one is aware of rational fear and chooses the action which has the least reproductions and greatest benefits. So if a person is in a burning building (and the fire is not engulfing the building but is still large enough to pose a threat to you and the person in the building) you should assess situation and acknowledge the risks (am I able to enter this building without immediately dying) by acknowledging the risk you acknowledge that there is something to fear. However, you feel that given your certain abilities and current equipment you could save them and get out alive yourself and do so that is courage. Of the five traits you mention Responsibility, Respect, trustworthy, Caring and Citizenship. I feel that only responsibility could be linked to courage because you are doing what is the most responsible thing to do despite your fears. Respect, trustworthy, Caring and Citizenship all seem to revolve around loyalty rather than courage. Your statement on citizenship is loyalty to one's country and is not what makes courage. Caring seems to be more of a loyalty to an idea, cause, or person. Trust worthiness is something you need to build loyalty between groups of people.
Science has done more harm than good

Hello, I'm Raskuseal, and I'm gonna debate why Science has done more good then harm. I'm gonna assume that round 1 is posting our views, round 2 is proving it, and round 3 is final counter arguments. I look forward to having a good debate on this topic. I believe that science has done more good then bad because of all the things science allows us humans as a species to to: We can fly airplanes to travel great distances quickly: we have eradicated polio, an extremely lethal disease cured by science: we have created televisions and the internet to share information instantaneously: And we have knowledge of how the world works, thanks to electron microscopes to discover atoms and particles. Now I completely agree that some of the best scientific advancements have been discovered because of war: it's an deniable fact. But if we were all religious nuts, then we would still believe that diseases were caused by hexes and curses, not bacteria or viruses: The apple fell from the tree because god willed it: and god controls the weather to make earth flood, make it high and dry, or perfect.
There is no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Justice and ethics tie in together so well. When we look up the term justice, it says "it is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, wealth, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice". Yeah, justice is about making the right choice, but who are you to say it is right or wrong? Do you know what brought on the reason for a so-called termed "wrong" decision? If a man's wife is sick, and he steals the medicine to help his wife because he doesn't have any money, he could feel that he's making the right decision. As I said before, there are alot of factors that effect the decision making process in terms of right and wrong. There could also be diseases, hence in murder cases, some people plead insanity or so some other sickness that effects their actions. All we can do today is follow the law. Just because it is a law, a rule, or mandate of some kind, it does not mean that we HAVE to follow it. We as human beings have an obligation to do what we think is right, which is why people protest certain laws today. When we do something good, afterwards we look for a sense of emotion of approval. When we do something bad, we dread that feeling of guilt in our conscious. Now my question to you is, how do you know what one is feeling? If you can't provided an answer for that, then there is no way you or anyone else for that fact can say if a person is making a right or wrong decision. There are lots of belief systems out there based on ethics or morality by different philosophers, which is why people always struggle with making "just" decisions. A philosopher by the name of Jeremy Bentham came up with a term called "Utilitarianism", which is basically "The greater good for the greatest amount". Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy or theory that judges the morality of an action. For example, lets say your on a speeding train and the tracks separates into two. You have an option of going down one track, and one track one only. Track one, which has grandmother tied to it, or you can go down track two which has a family of people you have never met. To satisfy the Utilitarianism theory, you must choose hitting your grandmother with the train, because you are saving a whole family which is more than person, hence "The greater good for the greatest amount". For the Utilitarians, a good life is a life that benefits the most amount of people, not just one person or the people you care about. I'm sure you feel that that decision was wrong, but as I said there is no right or wrong when it comes to ethics.
There is no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Ethics is the use of morals to help guide and govern a person decisions. When a person is put into the situation where they must decide whether something is right or wrong, it is true just as you said that their sense of right and wrong and their morals will be different from someone else. Though when you choose, a normal thought would be whether it is going to be good for you or bad for you, and normally what is good for you will be the right way to go. Intrinsically you may be right, but what really matters is whether or not it is for the good of not just you but for the people holistically. Yes there can be many factors to influence our morals, the biggest being our environment but that does not mean that the right or wrong choice will ever change, because what is right when making a decision is again what is the good for all not just yourself. Justice is way of using ethics in order to find the way to bring order and bring the good of the people to the ones committing the injustice. At this point is no maybe or might be, there is clear right or wrong answer. The right being what will benefit the people the most and the wrong being what is the least beneficial. This may go against the ethics of some people individually, but as a whole is what really matters. Even today with all the factors that do influence who we are, such as religion, there are always only two answers when it come to making decisions and that is whether it is right or wrong. For example, if a mans wife is sick and needs medicine or she may die but they do not have the money to afford it would it be wrong it he went and stole the money? Of course it would be wrong because he is committing an act that is affecting the good of all others in a negative way. Though to him he may be morally doing the right thing, regardless of his own morals he will be wrong. Ethically there is always a right or wrong answer, and that being the one to help bring the good of the people first.
(Anime) Which one is better Sasuke or Naruto

It seems that my opponent has forfeited this round. Also, please remember that I must prove Naruto is better (morally superior, in this case) than Sasuke. 1. Sasuke Uchiha sided with the "bad guys."My argument is relatively simple and easy to understand. See, while Sasuke went to side with the "bad guys" (i.e. Orochimaru) and his ambition/purpose in life was to kill his older brother, Naruto sided with the "good guys" (i.e. Tsunade) and his ambition/purpose in life was to become Hokage (the leader of the leaf village) so that he may protect the ones he loves. As you can clearly see, Naruto is morally superior to Sasuke, since Sasuke not only wishes to kill his older brother, but will do nearly anything to obtain this goal (such as becoming evil to gain more power). This clearly shows intense greed on Sasuke's part, whereas Naruto has not showed such powerful and intense greed. Conclusion- Although this may have been short, I believe that only one argument is necessary, since my opponent has yet to produce even one argument. Furthermore, he will be unable to do so in the next round, as it is the final round, and any new arguments should not be counted by voters. Thank you.
(Anime) Which one is better Sasuke or Naruto

Because my opponent has not defined what "better" shall mean in this debate, I shall do so. Better: morally superior, more virtuous [1]Furthermore, Pro has not yet chosen which character he shall be advocating in this debate, which makes me uncertain as to what the BOP (burden of proof) is. BOP-I, Con, will be supporting Naruto Uzumaki, and I must prove Naruto is better than Sasuke. My opponent, Pro, will be supporting Sasuke Uchiha, and he must prove Sasuke is better than Naruto. (I assumed my opponent would want to support Sasuke, since his profile picture is Sasuke. )With that said, I'll hand over the next round to my opponent. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
America should split into multiple countries.

Con's concern lies solely with the threat of war. I will start by asking, "Why would one of these countries want to try to attack another?" Would Dixie want to reenact the union between New England and Dixie. I do not think so. Let us also not forget that all countries will get what they want in terms of military anyways. New England is not militaristic while Dixie is. Dixie would get what they want as well as New England. The split would lead to political and social benefits. Political 1. The nations would get what they want in terms of taxation. No more tax arguments, if there are, there are few. 2. The nations could all get balanced budgets. Since disagreements would be small, passing new budgets would not be nearly as hard as it is currently. 3. The nations can get what they desire in terms of energy independence. Dixie would not be forced into adopting hybrid cars while New England would not be held back from it. 4. I have already mentioned military. Socially 1. People in Dixie would be able to continue their basic Christian beliefs. They would not have to do what New England wants in terms of abortion and gay rights. All the while, New England can do what they want in these terms. 2. GUNS. Gun control may work in New England while it does not work in Dixie. Take guns away in New England and loosen gun contol in Dixie. Both areas get what they generally want. I will stop for now.
America should split into multiple countries.

OK just no 1. USA:united states of america. we are all united together not separated into groups 2. there can not be peace between these people if they all move into where the political views of any party is. They will have war because you can separate people with different ideas of what is right. 3.this would make the army weak. We would have different armys that are not united wich makes us easier to attack. 4. all of these countries would still be affected by one another 5. this can easily start a very violent war
America should split into multiple countries.

1. New England-new England to Illinois 2. Dixie-GA and Tennessee over to Texas and OK 3. California- California, Hawaii, Alaska, NV, WA, OR, 4. Republic of the Midwest- Nebraska up to Minnesota, Over to NM and stops before Illinois BOP is on me My opponent starts the debate however they wish to Note: The split would be peaceful and it would be assumed that about 15% of people would move into a place that they fit better politically and socially. Political issues will be mentioned in detail but I would prefer this to be more of a debate about the societies of the new countries. Again, both will be mentioned. (Keep in mind I have limited the number of characters available to keep this debate shorter for the readers.)
It is reasonable to accept the theory of evolution

Breaking the rules and formats of the debate is considered forfeiture. This is in response to my opponent challenging Debate. org's atheists. I carry most of the burden of proof, however, my opponent must defend his position that evolution is untrue. Rules: 1. No insults or ad hominem. 2. The scientific position that no thing can be proved 100% and can only be shown to be closer to the truth and/or more likely to be true is the basis of our discussion. 3. The purpose of our debate is to determine whether or not it is reasonable to accept the theory of evolution. There may be evidence both ways showing reasons why it is reasonable and unreasonable. It must, on the whole, be more reasonable than unreasonable. 4. Evolution is not abiogenesis, nor the theory of Earth's origins. 5. No arguments will be presented in Round 1. As the burden of proof is on me, I must make the first argument. My opponent must simply agree to the rules in Round 1.
Is the big bang theory real

What is the origin of God? If you think everything needs to have an origin, including the universe, then God must have an origin too. If God created the universe, who created God? Why God exists? If this question cannot be answered, the idea that the universe is created by God does not make more sense than the Big Bang. If the universe cannot come from nothing, why God can come from nothing? The complexity of life may make people believe that the world we live in now is created by someone, but it does not mean that the one who created the universe is that God mentioned in the Bible. It can be someone else, another God, or something else. Christianity is not the only religion in the world, so considering the Bible as a way to deny the Big Bang theory is not acceptable. Even if the God in the Bible exists, it does not mean that the Big Bang theory is unreal. The Genesis is written by human, not God himself. Even saints makes mistakes, and it is very normal and common for people to write down the process of God's creation using a way that people at that time tend to believe in and understand. Think of the knowledge of people thousands of years ago, they do not know much about how the universe forms. Therefore, writing the Genesis in a more dramatic way is a good idea at that time. Also, the Bible is not he only book that Christians should trust and believe in. The main idea of the Genesis is to show people that God actually created the universe, while the details of the creation is less important. The events stated in the Genesis is not everything. Christians are allowed to use science to explain the formation of the universe and life. The statements in this paragraph are taught in Catholic high schools in my city, so it must not contradict with religious belief. The Bible did not state that DNA is the genetic material of life. However you won't deny that it's true.
Is the big bang theory real

The Big Bang is technically possible. Yes, God could have created the world from a big bang effect. But it does not seem like that is how the Bible states God created the universe. The Bible did not say, "The universe expanded and then there was light." The Bible says that God spoke everything into existence, and it just appeared. You can still be a Christian and believe in the Big Bang Theory, but the Bible doesn't line up with the theory that the universe expanded and caused life to form. It just does not line up with what the Bible says.