BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Samsung Is better then Apple

Of coarse Apple fan boys like you would choose Apple. Well first of Samsung does have have an App storehttp://www.samsungapps.com......# so You need to get your facts straight.As stated, many of those apps first appeared on Apple's app store. Proving that developers choose apple over Samsung when it comes to apps. And you cant expect a site to tell you which phone is better when one phone isn't even officially out yet. Check this out http://versusio.com...... Please note that the site you just gave me compares the exact same phone. So if thsi site is credible, than so are mine. If my sites are incredible, than so are yours.And the only reason apple may cost more then Samsung is cause Apple hypes up all these people into thinking their products are the best is cause they advertise more. But besides that the iPhone 4s is wayyy behind.First of all, the Samsung Galaxy S3 is newer than the iPhone 4S, so you would expect it to be ahead. However, I proved that they are still level when it comes to their specs and benefits. To be able to really compare them fairly, you have to compare the iPhone 4 with the Galaxy S2, or the iPhone 5 with the Galaxy S3..PRO drops all my arguments on why Apple is the better company.Vote CON. Vote Apple.
Samsung Is better then Apple

Of coarse Apple fan boys like you would choose Apple. Well first of Samsung does have have an App store http://www.samsungapps.com...# so You need to get your facts straight. And you cant expect a site to tell you which phone is better when one phone isn't even officially out yet. Check this out http://versusio.com... And the only reason apple may cost more then Samsung is cause Apple hypes up all these people into thinking their products are the best is cause they advertise more. But besides that the iPhone 4s is wayyy behind.
Samsung Is better then Apple

Firstly, I understand Samsung makes electronics such as TVs, and home appliances. Apple is focused on the music player and celluar market. The only way to compare Apple and Samsung is if you compare their similar leading products, like the Samsung Galaxy vs. the iPhone, or the Galaxy Tab vs. the iPad.http://www.ibtimes.co.in...According to the above link, the iPhone is more resistant to damage than the Samsung Galaxy S3. Thus, one point to Apple for it's better manufacturing.Apple: 1, Samsung: 0http://www.compare-cellphones.org...if you look at the above link, it compares the Apple iPhone 4S to the Samsung Galaxy S3, detailing which areas the phones excel in. Obviously, the iPhone is alot better than the Galaxy3 as it has a lot more areas where it exceeds the galaxy. This directly correlates with Apple being a better company than Samsung as a whole, as better products equate to a better company.Apple: 2, Samsung: 0Furthermore, Samsung does not even have it's own app store like Apple (or RIM) does. It uses the generic Android app store made by Google. In fact, many of the android apps first appeared on the Apple app store, such as Angry Birds. Therefore, it proves that developers would much rather develop and debut their apps on Apple than with Google. This shows that Apple is better than Samsung.In fact, if you look at the companies themselves, it is obvious that Apple is better than Samsung. Apple is worth more than Samsung, and has much more annual earnings on average than Samsung. Apple is the more profitable company.Therefore, Apple is better than Samsung.
The "big bang" theory is ridiculous, can not be proven, and should not be taught in schools.

You're welcome. It was and is not my intent to toss 'ad hominem' arguments. I was simply trying to ascertain your position and come up with your reasons for your stance which seemed to 'flip' a number of times. If your answers were clearer as to why you were advocating that stance, I wouldn't have had to clarify them so much. If you care to reply, why exactly are you against teaching the big bang theory to children ? Exactly.
The "big bang" theory is ridiculous, can not be proven, and should not be taught in schools.

Ivisman96, I said the theory was ridiculous "on it's face" in my opening argument, and it is. We don't comprehend the universe itself as it is, let alone how it formed. Just yesterday Science daily reported that we have once again "lost" a big chunk of the universe we thought was found 5 years ago. The greater the technology we acquire the more we learn just how little we actually know about the universe. This topic has nothing to do with religion in schools, which is an entirely different debate. Nothing is being debated or tested at that grade level, it is instead being presented to children as factual information. That is the problem. Most children of that age are not capable of distinguishing between theory and fact. Frankly, many of the teachers aren't, either. It is taught in text book fashion as a factual version of the creation of the universe. And how I know is having had two children go through it. "2+2=4, the first letter of a proper noun is always capitalized, oh...and by the way, the universe was created by an explosion which led to evolution, and your ancestors were monkeys." Some things don't have any place being taught in public schools. This is one of them.
The "big bang" theory is ridiculous, can not be proven, and should not be taught in schools.

Thanks Mmardderom for following up on your argument. Since your clarification, I believe I have won the first two points in your Topic statement. It is not "ridiculous" as demonstrated by your statement "I am not at all suggesting we should just dismiss the theory out of hand". The fact that it cannot be proven was dismissed by the definition of Theory in my first argument. As such, I will concentrate on the last topic statement; namely, that "(it) should not be taught in schools"--which you were kind enough to clarify as primary schools, 6th grade specifically (although I know some school districts now view 6th grade as middle school). Why do we send our children to school in the first place ? To teach them skills to make them more productive in society is one reason. To compete on a global level is another (with the advent of the internet we are more a global society than ever-one can only imagine what the future will be). Methinks this topic is a veiled attempt at imposing religion in the schools (and should probably have been stated as such) however I will postulate on the religious aspect in later rounds if need be. Instead, in getting rid of the first two points, let's get into the meat of the matter. You state, "A sixth grader, however, isn't in position to debate, study, or test the theory. " On what basis do you come to that conclusion ? And how do you know that is being debated or tested ? A sixth grader dissecting a frog is certainly not debating the ethics of such experimentation or testing hypotheses. They are simply learning anatomy. Same thing with math. You have to learn to add before you can move to complex formulas. Children, as growing beings are on a timeline of sorts with which they can get the information in a progressive fashion. They learn better earlier. According to a recent Newsweek Cover story, "Circuits in different regions of the brain mature at different times. Give your children the stimulation they need when they need it, and anything's possible. Stumble, and all bets are off" If the child can understand the concepts, then why should it be put off until college ? Something this complex needs to be introduced as soon as is practical. There is nothing to be gained by delaying current scientific teaching. In fact, it will be DETRIMENTAL to not teach it. And because learnig is a lifelong process, you have to initiate the conversation somewhere. You offer no reason as to why sixth graders don't have the mental capacity to understand the theory as it is taught to them. You DO share some fears that it will 'undermine' parents' ability to teach children as they wish.
The "big bang" theory is ridiculous, can not be proven, and should not be taught in schools.

You're right. I should clarify my position. It is not my position to debate the merits of the theory itself, here. I have no problem with this theory being introduced, studied, and debated at the college level. It absolutely should be. That is where the research belongs. A sixth grader, however, isn't in position to debate, study, or test the theory. It is introduced as fact in a larger discussion of Evolution in primary grades. As evolution in general, and the big bang in particular are in direct or indirect contrast to traditional and religious beliefs of the families of many of the children this is being taught to, and as it has not been proven with any sort of certainty, it's potentially detrimental to introduce this information to children of that age. I am not at all suggesting we should just dismiss the theory out of hand, I'm suggesting we keep the discussion where it belongs. The only Science we should be teaching in the primary grades is that which we have, at least, reasonable certainty. In 6th grade children are dissecting frogs, not contemplating the origin of the universe. A parents ability to raise their children should not be undermined by scientific theories that are far from conclusive being introduced as factual to their children.
The "big bang" theory is ridiculous, can not be proven, and should not be taught in schools.

Thank you for posting this worthwile and misunderstood topic. Let's start off with a few definitions so we're all on the same page. Theory: 1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Science: 1. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. SOURCE: www.dictionary.com Just from the above definitions, we see that Theory is in fact, not necessarily a 'fact'. Secondly, the definition of science shows that it should INDEED be taught as everything systematically discovered up to this point has not DISPROVED the theory. The logical progression is that we show students where we are on this path to discovery, whereas some will then take it and either refute it, confirm it, or expand upon it with their own observations and experimentation. You're statement that you "(aren't a) scientist" deserves some scrutiny. I'm "no scientist" either, however, one should have a knowledge of something they are trying to refute. I would like to establish on what basis are you arguing that the science is in error ? I would like to know for the simple fact that my scientific explanation may be unintelligible to you and I would like to respond in the most appropriate (and understandable way) possible.
The "big bang" theory is ridiculous, can not be proven, and should not be taught in schools.

The whole "big bang" theory is ludicrous on it's face. It surmises that the entire universe is the result of nothing expanding into something through the force of density and temperature. If there was nothing, then where did the density come from, how do you gauge the temperature of nothingness? The theory suggests that space itself is constantly expanding. Now, I'm no scientist, but if anyone can please explain how space is expandable I'd love to make my living room a tad larger. There is no real evidence that this theory is accurate so we should NOT be teaching it to our children in public schools.
Thoughts on Neil Patrick Harris

But you should be careful in jumping right to his comedy as the only work he does. Also, as being a hardcore fan of his for 3 years now, it has nothing to do with the "gay hype" going on. His fanbase has been increasing since he was 15 years old. It has nothing to do with the fact that he is gay. Nothing. You should do a bit more looking into his work. Comedy? I'm not sure when the title of his work just became comedy... As a person, there is much more to him than a TV show. It is easy to look at one of his most famous works and categorize him based on solely that. Look to see what more he has been involved in, and not just acting. Being one of the greatest people does not necessarily mean that you have to change the world.
I'd rather be blind than be deaf

What I meant was to know what the words meaning looks like, for instance, how can you know what a blobfish looks like without seeing it yourself. I don't know why you mention how old the verbal language is because this the twenty first century. A deaf person could easily type something and have a robot or computer speak it. You should be more careful about what you say and know the implications. I don't believe there is an official language of the deaf. Literate deaf people can read and write in their native language (i.e. English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Greek, etc). There may be self driving cars, but are they readily available to the blind? Self driving cars also can't go everywhere that a human driven car could. Deaf people also have access to more jobs and careers than blind people. The cerebral cortex uses 30% of its neurons to see and only 3% to hear, therefore the brain of a deaf person has more access to their brain than a blind person.
I'd rather be blind than be deaf

Unless I know what the words look like? Words don't have shape, they are sounds we make with out mouths. Our verbal language is milleniums older than our written language. It may be an offensive comment, I didn't mean it like that though. Of course they are a part of society but it's a fact that there are deaf communities, why? Because the vast majority of society does not speak their language - which is an extremely important thing in order to be a social part of society. I know several blind people who get around easily, they have several techniques so that they can walk around like other people, for instance with sound and the cane or a dog. Today we have several other forms of transportation where you don't need great vision to use. Also, the self driving car is already invented, it's just a matter of time before that will be the most normal form of transportation.
I'd rather be blind than be deaf

How could you know what the song is talking about unless you know what the words look like. Why would you go to the beach if not for the beautiful view or to see the people and fish, plus if your blind you won't see the shark thats going to eat you. You can easily converse with people through writing, email, or texting besides sign language. If you were blind you couldn't drive and thats the only time I would listen to an audio book. Are you saying that deaf people are not part of society? That can be an extremely offensive comment. What of the elderly or veterans that have lost their hearing due to old age or physical damage? They can still be with family and still feel their faces, they haven't lost their arms.
I'd rather be blind than be deaf

Colors are beautiful, but they don't trumph tunes. What is nature if you can't here the birds sing? What is color if you can't here the wind's whistle, or the rushing sound of a waterfall, or what is a beach if you can't hear the waves? There might be few books translated into braille - however the people knowing sign language are not many. So I'd take conversations with people over a book any time. Plus, audio books are very popular know, and you can get those in several languages as well. And when it comes to seeing your family and friends, what is the point if you can't communicate with them? I mean, sure the family will probably learn sign language, but do you expect your friends to do that? A blind person is still a part of society, even though he is more handicapped he can still hear everything around him, he can still be with his family, talk to them and feel their faces.
I'd rather be blind than be deaf

To only be deaf would still allow you to take in colors of the beautiful world around you. It would allow you to read any book instead of only the book that have been translated into Braille. To not be blind would let you see your family friends, and again any book you want to read. It is easier to teach a deaf person how to read than to teach a blind person what an animal noun means. I would prefer my sense of sight over my sense of sound.
religion deserves respect

We need to realise that if groups have to demand that you respect their beliefs, rather than letting their beliefs speak for themselves, this is automatically a mark against them. If their beliefs and claims were true and just, they wouldn't need to demand that we respect or tolerate them, we would adopt them as our own. Far better that one adopts the beliefs of science which doesn't demand respect or tolerance. On the contrary, it demands critical inquiry, debate and rejection of theories if the evidence doesn't support them. Religion should demand no less. One of the greatest failings of religion is that it makes religious faith a positive attribute. Religion is the one area of our discourse where it is considered noble to pretend to be certian about things no human being could possibly be certian about, and then demand respect for that certianty. Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don't have all the answers to think that they do. People need to realize that the solace and comfort that religion brings comes at a terrible price. Religion has power to divert man to destructive courses, and the world could actually come to an end. Religion and Faith are in a symbiotic relationship, without faith religion would die and religion must die for mankind to survive. Remember to question everything and thanks for reading, have a nice day.
religion deserves respect

The first amendment to the bill of rights reads; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech. This does not give religion a right to respect, in fact it gives all of us the right to say what we think. The law gives you the right to believe what you want, and the right to practice those beliefs (providing those practices do not infringe on an other's rights), but the law does not give you the right to automatic respect. To grant some idea respect out of fear of conflict would be wrong. Respect is something you have to earn, you cannot force it on others to respect your belief. Although beliefs must earn respect and should not receive automatic respect, the same is not true of people. Every human being deserves some basic minimum of respect right from the beginning, regardless of what they believe. Their actions and beliefs may lead to greater respect over time, or they may strain your ability to maintain that minimum. A person is not the same as what that person believes; respect or lack thereof for one should not lead to the exact same for the other. Respecting the differences you have with other people, whether they be religious or non-religious, means accepting that people will disagree with you, respecting their right to differ from you, and respecting that as human beings they are being honest even if mistaken.
religion deserves respect

I accept the definitions. Rebuttal i "We all have a right to believe" A right to believe being respected in many places, notably the U.S.A. in the bill of rights, the first amendment including the freedom of religion. This right is respected and thus, no law will prohibit the practice of any religion and everyone regards this amendment as a way to respect people's beliefs. The freedom of religion does include the practices of no religion and respects it as well, thus religion is already regarded as "respected" by con's definition being "feeling/understanding that something is important". "...religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (1) Argument i CONFLICTS Religion deserves respect because without religious tolerance and the respect of religions, conflict will surely break out. History has proven that the lack of religious tolerance will lead to conflicts, notably the war against Catholics and Protestants. One half of Germany supported and enforced Protestantism while the other half enforced and supported Catholicism. Since neither side respected the other's beliefs, a war broke out. Thus, one can assume, without the respect of religion and tolerance of it, conflicts will rise up. Sources: (1) http://www.archives.gov...
religion deserves respect

"We need to realise that if groups have to demand that you respect their beliefs, rather than letting their beliefs speak for themselves, this is automatically a mark against them." Not every religious group demands that people respect their beliefs; this is not "automatically a mark against them" which is a logical fallacy and thus, the argument is incorrect. "One of the greatest failings of religion is that it makes religious faith a positive attribute. " Faith can be a positive attribute and has positively affected people's lives. One notable example is people's health. Yes, good health can come from being a religious person. "Studies show that religion and faith can help to promote good health and fight disease by: offering additional social supports, such as religious outreach groups improving coping skills through prayer and a philosophy that all things have a purpose" [http://kidshealth.org...] Good health is a good thing, and since good health can come from being spiritual or religious, it deserves respect instead of being attacked. " Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking" Based on con's assumption here, ALL religious faiths have not been thought out and have been winging it from the beginning. This is another logical fallacy on con, stating that every religious person does not think. If this were the case, explain Galileo Galilei, Leonardo Da vinci, Rene Descartes, Nicholas Copernicus, Robert Boyle and Michael Faraday. ALL Christians.