BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pc's are better than macs

Refutes: 1) ///If you want to run Mac OS X, you can only run it on an overpriced Mac. If you want to run Windows, you can run it on any computer you like/// This is my point, this shows that Mac computers are more compatible! A PC CANNOT RUN MAC OSX! On the other hand a macintosh computer CAN run windows! This point is mine. 2) ///If I wanted a Mac and a PC that both had similar specs, I'd probably end up spending several hundred dollars for the Mac. /// Yes this is because macs are built with quality parts. Look at the computer you're using right now. It's made out of flimsy plastic, while a Mac is made out of high quality metal! You get what you pay for, so obviously, a PC is lower quality. 3) Yes a Mac comes with garageband, if you wanted to buy the Microsoft equivilant, which is 100-200 dollars, then you're pretty much spending the money you "save". 4)///Windows allows you to easily get programs for email (Windows Live Mail), messaging (Windows Live Messenger), web browsing (Internet Explorer), TV recording (Windows Media Center), music playing (Windows Media Player, Windows Media Center, or Zune), photo editing and organization (Windows Live Photo Gallery), a drawing tool (paint), and movie editing (Windows Live Movie Maker), as well as countless others, including games. How well do Macs compare to that? /// mac comes with Mail for email, Ichat for messaging, safari for internet, quicktime 7 for tv recording, itunes, quicktime for music playing, preview and iphoto for photo editing and organization, paintbrush is drawing tool, movie editing is Imovie and Idvd, as well as countless others including games such as marble blast gold, nanosaur, and island racer. ----------Points 1. Macs are higher quality As I have stated before mac are made out of metal, unlike the plasticy windows PC, not only is this easily breakable, but worse for the enviroment! 2. Macs have dashboard. When on a Mac you always have the option of opening the dashboard (F12) You can download games, music players, widgets, news providers, and countless others! Can a Windows machine do this? NO! They have the ones you can have on your desktop such as the speedometer that measures CPU usage and other things, but they are lower quality and slow down the machine. I will expand on my points next round.
Pc's are better than macs

Firstly I would like to start by thanking the judge(s), and my opponent Rockylightning. Here is my first point: compatibility. If you want to run Mac OS X, you can only run it on an overpriced Mac. If you want to run Windows, you can run it on any computer you like. And far more programs are available for Windows than for Mac. Now my opponents may argue that you can always run Windows using Bootcamp, but that basically means that there wasn't a version of that program for the Mac, thus making it less convenient for the end user. And here is my second point: cost. If I wanted a Mac and a PC that both had similar specs, I'd probably end up spending several hundred dollars for the Mac. My opponent may also argue that the Mac comes with more programs such as GarageBand, but how many people actually use it anyway? So in the end, it is a waste. Windows allows you to easily get programs for email (Windows Live Mail), messaging (Windows Live Messenger), web browsing (Internet Explorer), TV recording (Windows Media Center), music playing (Windows Media Player, Windows Media Center, or Zune), photo editing and organization (Windows Live Photo Gallery), a drawing tool (paint), and movie editing (Windows Live Movie Maker), as well as countless others, including games. How well do Macs compare to that? So for all these reasons and many more, PCs are CLEARLY better than Macs.
should moms have facebooks ??? and what are soutions to stop them from getting them

Since Pro has forfeited this round, I will keep my response brief, to allow him to back his claim. Now, first let me explain that Facebook isn't a necessity, and certainly not something that everyone uses. 1: " moms are great at making our food and doing our laundry, but they can't do any of that online." Pro starts by making a generalization about mothers, which is completely untrue. Some mothers are terrible at laundry, and also rely on the Father to do the laundry and cook. 2: "when your mom finally gets a facebook you can now kiss your privacy dignity and respect away" This is certainly not true, as your social life isn't dependent on Facebook, and if it is, you may want to get some help. Facebook has a decent privacy filter that can block people from looking at your profile and sending you friend requests. You can simply change this so that no outside viewer can see your profile except the people on your friends list. I don't see how you lose any respect with your mom on facebook, but if your social life is centered around it, I wouldn't think you have any respect in the first place. 3: "okay, here's the problem she will track your every move, from who you are friends with to where you are at all times of the day." This is easily refuted with the privacy options, as you can block them from your profile. 4: ."she will embarrass by posting those oh so very bad pictures of you going through your ugly stage" This, indeed, can happen. She can post photos of you onto her Facebook, but if they involve something you are in, such as a photo of you when you were a child, you can flag the image and report them, and Facebook will take the photo down. 5: "and once she finds your crush that you have been secretly hiding from all these years she will tell them how much you are in love with them and your social life is definitely over ." I don't think your stealthiness is very keen if your mom can find out your crush from Facebook. In the end, Everyone has just as much right to own a Facebook as you do, and personal issues are strictly that, personal. There are no solutions to getting rid of mothers on Facebook, as there is no need to. The internet is a human right, and that means no-one can discriminate against sex or gender, so anyone can use Facebook. http://www.gcflearnfree.org...
should moms have facebooks ??? and what are soutions to stop them from getting them

Hey listen we have a big problem here! what is up with our moms getting on social media, is anyone else creeped out? moms are great at making our food and doing our laundry, but they can't do any of that online.when your mom finally gets a facebook you can now kiss your privacy dignity and respect away .okay, here's the problem she will track your every move, from who you are friends with to where you are at all times of the day .she will embarrass by posting those oh so very bad pictures of you going through your ugly stage,and once she finds your crush that you have been secretly hiding from all these years she will tell them how much you are in love with them and your social life is definitely over . now do we have a solution?
Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible.

Thank you Valtin, for posting this debate. I gladly accept your offer. I accept your conditions. For this debate I am going to use various online resources, the Bible, the Qu'ran, and any Hadiths (only sahih) if necessary. Also, a few questions that I would like for you to answer in the first round: Will Wikipedia be considered a legitimate source? Will I be required to use "pbuh" after the names of any major Qu'ranic figures as a sign of good conduct?
You are not a real person and are only trying to make Islam look bad

Sometimes you have to question a person's intelligence...1) I never claimed the picture was of me. I am not allowed to display myself on the internet, and I wouldn't want to. While other people are allowed, they should not post pictures of them on the internet.2) This site is about diversity. We cannot all have the same views, but persecuting me for believing differently than you with regard to my stances on issues is unnecessary and rude.3)"'Should Western Powers intervene Militarily in Iran' - she is the con"I went pro on that case. Look again. You've insulted my true beliefs, and now you are misrepresenting others to insult. That is insulting, and is not proper conduct on a debate site.4) I have quoted Islamic texts several times in my speeches. My views are genuine; do not insult them like an intolerant bigot.5) "The Con is using a false profile picture of a woman from the Middle East as his/her profile picture"How many other people on this site use pictuers that are not of themselves? The majority. You have proven nothing, and you have just insulted me more while others are probably displeased with your accusation.Do not impune my veracity or my identity again. I want to be a productive member of this site, but you and others are making it very difficult for me. Can you please just stay out of my business? Let me debate people. That's what this site is about, not cyberbullying me like you're an over-aggressive corpulent drunkard. LEAVE ME ALONE.
I think you should let our soldiers on the battlefield decide if they want to use torture

Yes My Brother told me about the interrogations. He told of stripping prisoners naked, tying them up and dousing them with ice cold water. I enjoyed hearing these horror stories. Only several years later, I was myself arrested by a criminal Bosnian Muslim gang, and they showed me the hell of being electrocuted, hanging naked and wet and cold from my handcuffs tied up in the ceiling. UH the pain and humiliation!
I think you should let our soldiers on the battlefield decide if they want to use torture

No, from my understanding, you just watched and held him down?God should be ashamed with youYour family should be ashamed with youYou should be ashamed of you.People like you are exactly whats wrong with society. You are wicked to the very essense, and people should view you lower then dirt. I would reccomend you start questioning what you stand for, because right now, you don't stand for $hit.
I think you should let our soldiers on the battlefield decide if they want to use torture

first your arguments: 1. Torture is rarely carried out to force confessions. The primary reason to torture is to punish, hurt and harm the soldiers of the enemy. His body and mind. 2. I am fine with the soldiers choosing to torture every-single-one of their prisoners. 3. Wars are crimes. 4. I believe that the best results are had when torture is applied widely. The general gets his masculinity trashed in the rape room, while the private has his balls pulled and squeezed by several angry and aggressive soldiers, who joke that they are destroying his manhood. The result: Terror! A: Torture is fun for the soldiers, makes them proud to be masculine while they enjoy the power rush of being tortures :D
I think you should let our soldiers on the battlefield decide if they want to use torture

I gotta stop accepting his 15 minute debates.Argument 1: Torture should not exist in the first place Torture wields little results, and either causes long term mental or physical harm. People will only say the quickest thing to make it stop, and even though it sometimes works, 9 times out of 10 it wont. http://www.cbsnews.com...Argument 2: We can not trust Soldiers to be tactical about an action which leads to serious repercussions. Serious repercussions exist when someone is tortured. Political and Strategical. Trusting every soldier to take that risk, and to handle it humanely is stupid. " I'm sourcing my own common sense"Argument 3: Torture is a war crime.Almost every form of torture violates the geneva convention. People who go any farther then waterboarding can be tried as a war criminal. Do we want to create a military society of war criminals, just so they can release some stress (sarcasm)?http://www.un-documents.net...Argument 4: Unnesecary, as only high profile targets get tortured.Onl;y high profile targets get tortured, and how does the average soldier deem who is high profile? The decision should be left up to the Beauracrats.http://www.youtube.com...
Societal stability is superior to societal morality.

Normality itself should be stability, as that is the best goal to strive for. It is better to have stable immorality than unstable morality. Morality cannot attain stability, because morality provides that all individuals within the society have a right to free thought, which includes the thought of striving for stability at all costs. These individuals are more strong willed than individuals that prefer a lack of one will, which would eventually cause stability to result, even though the society originally promoted morality.. Societal stability and oppression could still coincide with societal development in things other than morality, things that could further guarantee the happiness of the society. An immoral and stable society can in fact be happy a lot more easily than a moral society, as it does not have to counter the threat of the clashing of morals, which is the cause of all human suffering.
XBOX is better than Playstation!

Well, even though that the Playstation2 had the first online gaming, it had many flaws. Having worked with it myself, I would say it was a noble attempt by Sony to have online gaming. And even though that the XBOX has problems with hackers, it has a more secure firewall for its users. In 2012, Playstation itself was hacked, shutting down the entire system for months. After it's resolve with the problem, many users stopped using their accounts.
XBOX is better than Playstation!

The PlayStation 2 was also the first console to provide Online multiplayer gaming, a year before the Xbox existed. Xbox online gaming has a notable flaw: - The possibility of an Xbox console being banned off of online gameplay This can be exploited by hackers to wrongfully ban another console. This is why on the PlayStation, only individual accounts can be banned. Considering this, I do not see how gamers could be 'more satisfied' with the Xbox than the PlayStation.
XBOX is better than Playstation!

The Playstation was originally a team project headed by Nintendo and Sony beginning in 1988 as a CD-ROM-compatible version of the Super Famicom before Nintendo opted out of its partnership with Sony in favor of a partnership with Phillips, allowing Sony to release the PlayStation in 1994. 9 years and 6 months later, the PlayStation became the all-time best-selling gaming system at 102.49 million units sold. This would be surpassed by its successor, the PlayStation 2, with 155 million units sold.
XBOX is better than Playstation!

Ok, so, XBOX is a gaming system made by a Korean developer that was taken up by Microsoft. At first, the regular XBOX was terrible, then they came out with the XBOX 360, that revolutionized the gaming world as it is today. The Playstation 3 followed in the XBOX footsteps. Now with the new systems out. The XBOX one is losing in sales because of the new technology it contains. The Playstation 4 is just a redesigned Playstation 3.
The incident of 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation(s).

While the wording of the resolution is indeed vague about the degree of planning it intends, this much is at least true: Whether it be planned in part or planned entirely, if planning for the 9/11 attacks took place in failed nations then it cannot said that they were not planned there. Thus, in showing that this did indeed happen I have affirmed the resolution, and merely countering that planning happened in stable nations as well is not sufficient to warrant a negative vote.
The incident of 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation(s).

My opponent is debating over semantics. He argues that I must prove that in no way was 9/11 planned inside a failed nation(s). However, it is the PRO's burden to fully uphold the resolution "The incident of 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation(s)." The resolution does not state "The incident of 9/11 was SOMEWHAT planned inside a failed nation(s)." As of now, this whole debate focuses soley on wether or not this is the case. It is known that the PRO must uphold the resolution. That the incident of 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation(s). All the NEG needs to do is refute that resolution in some way, wether it be refuting is fully, or refuting it to where just part of it is false. I have chosen the later and therefore NEG deserved the vote. Because I have proved that some training MUST have been done in a STABLE NATION I do not need to refute my opponent's case, only the criterion in which this debate should be judged. Thank-you and I urge a NEG vote.
The incident of 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation(s).

I will keep my case short and sweet. All NEG has to do to win is show that any part of the planning of 9/11 was outside of the United States. If I cannot show that, then AFF deserves the win. Because I am keeping this short and sweet I will argue off the top of my head and with common sense. These terrorists used public transportation aircraft from the United States. Weapons training and push-ups, as terrorists in Failed Nations do, would have had no effect on the training of the 9/11 attacks. These terrorists would have had to gain control of a PASSENGER AIRCRAFT, mainly because the controls and devices for one such one is radically different than ones of MILITARY AIRCRAFT. As far as I'm concerned, terrorists in FAILED NATIONS do not have possession of any form of passenger aircraft. Additionally, there have been intelligence reports that these terrorists used these specified aircraft in countries such as Germany and western parts of Spain. Using this knowledge I believe I have shown that in some form the planning of 9/11 was partly conceived in a stable nation, therefore, based on the criterion, a NEG ballot should be casted.
The incident of 9/11 was planned inside a failed nation(s).

I contend to show that the bombing of the twin towers in Manhattan, New York was not planned in a failed nation, or failed nations. By PLANNED I mean trained for and prepared for. Judges should keep this term in mind as the debate progresses. 9/11 is short for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States. For this debate FAILED NATIONS will follow the list provided by the Fund For Peace's Failed States Index. The only countries that will be considered Failed are the ones in the RED or ALERT sections. I have provided a few defintions and will ask my opponent to essentially begin.
Morality is subjective

Let me begin by defining sociopath-"a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience." (from dictionary.com) 1. Morality "The examples of psychopaths and sociopaths fall into the Con case, for they do have their own moral compass- simply, a very backwards one." This implies that their moral code is opposite ours. This is not true. Sociopaths literally have no moral consciousness. They are neutral about every judgement of an action on its morality. They don't just think bad thing are good and good things are bad, they don't think that way. They only do things because it brings them pleasure of some kind. They do not understand right and wrong. 2. Moral Inconsistency "R1) Society attempts to achieve morality (from P1)"- This is too broad a statement. I would say that the lawmakers will at the very least try to seem as if they are catering to the most common moral beliefs of the society. "R2) Society can sometimes achieve the exact opposite of morality (from P3 and R1)"- This is again all up to interpretation. Some people may think the society is mostly very moral and others may think that it is very immoral. "R3) Different societies have different perceptions of the same morality, even though they are polar opposites (from P1 and R2)"- What are they interpreting? You are speaking as if they are interpreting a bible or something. Morality is merely the name we give to the code each of us tries to live by based upon our experiences and beliefs. We call this right and wrong based on this code we each developed differently. I have seen no evidence of a some kind of communal morality we all share. Alright, to prove my point about (4), I will address your example. Contradictions and irrationalities lie within paradoxes. Questioning is a way to find a paradox. INNOCENT PEOPLE OUGHT NOT BE KILLED GRATUITOUSLY 1. How can any person be considered innocent? How would you ever know if they are innocent? Neither of these can ever be answered absolutely. 2. Also, what if killing people gratuitously brings you great pleasure? Isn't bringing yourself pleasure rational? Yet, people would say doing this is irrational. I would say if it brings you great pleasure it is not irrational. (I do not think it is right though) Though I cannot pick apart every possibility, I bet that you can see that we could find these questions in anything. Everything is all up to interpretation since humans created the concepts and meanings.
Morality is subjective

Thanks again, and I hope you've enjoyed the holidays. Down the list... 1. Morality The examples of psychopaths and sociopaths fall into the Con case, for they do have their own moral compass- simply, a very backwards one. OJ Simpson was a sociopath; I'm sure my opponent would agree that he understands, in some cases, what's right and what's wrong. Just to address the issue more holistically, anyways, Allah (in Islam) is the God that most people would expect to be "God". If you are born with a mental handicap, no matter how severe, you are guaranteed entry into heaven. At the very least, MY world has no problems in this sense. 2. Moral Inconsistency I got exactly what I wanted. I'll put it into a syllogism. P1) Societies attempt to reach their own best ends, or interests P2) Societies write their own laws P3) Societies can write bad laws .:. R1) Society attempts to achieve morality (from P1) R2) Society can sometimes achieve the exact opposite of morality (from P3 and R1) R3) Different societies have different perceptions of the same morality, even though they are polar opposites (from P1 and R2) .:. C) There are different "perceptions" of morality; at the same time, all "perceptions" of morality are looking for the same end- the best interest for society at hand. 3. The CImp To address my opponent's opening remark, this conceptualization of a universal moral code alludes to an objective morality as demonstrated by the syllogism above regarding moral inconsistencies throughout society. Further, my opponent's objection to (4) of the universalisability test fails under light scrutiny. She claims, "Every action, thought decision, will be irrational and rational and have a contradiction." She fails to provide an example; even if she did, she could not address the infinite examples of "actions, thoughts, and decisions". Her only bailout could be mathematical induction, but I doubt that it contains any degree of relevancy when it comes to morality. I'll give an example of a universalisable categorical imperative, and the dish the rock back to Pro. +++***---(((<< >>)))---***+++ Good luck, Rogue, and thanks, everyone, for your time.