BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Being gay is not a sin.

"Sin is wrongdoing. If the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, I'm certain that those are pretty much the same thing. The sinner does not always regret, mind you." You're 'pretty' sure those two things are the same thing. My point is, being gay was listed as an abomination. Many of the abominations I have listed have been ignored by Christians because they decide those weren't relevant anymore. Responding also to the comment, those are laws from the Old Testament, which Christian also follow. (Ten Commandments, etc.) So if Christians excuse other abominations, why not being gay an list it as a sin?
Android is better than iOS.

Android DOES have more features than iOS, that leads to more control and ability. iOS does not have multiple profiles, but Android does. If you want to buy an iOS tablet that you and someone else wanted to share, you would have to share one profile, or get multiple tablets. Also, it is only an urban legend that iOS is more stable than Android, as you will see in my first source. You are right, Android is not complete. Nor is iOS. Think about it like this: Both are not on their last version number, correct? Therefore they are both incomplete. Explain on how your device needs tweaking whenever you need to set a reminder in Android, while you don't tweak when you use reminders in iOS. Also, depending on which device you use, Android can be very speedy. Is it really that bad to tweak your Android for more features? Sources: http://phandroid.com...
Android is better than iOS.

Primarily, more features/customisability does not equal more control/ability. This is an important distinction frequently left out of such arguments. Android does, admittedly, allow considerably more alterations to the basic set up; but at what point does this truly equate to more features? iOS is, to be overly simplistic, a closed bubble - and in a similarly simplistic description, Android is incomplete but open to your choice of how to complete it. This however, bears little representation of ability. To judge an operating system, regardless of platform, by its customisability is simply misguided. I would sooner have an OS that allows me to do everything I require with ease, than one which allows the exact necessary interaction but requires tweaking every time I feel the need to add a reminder. Importantly, this possibly simplistic usability in iOS allows for little customisation, but instead for confidence and reliability. Anyone can use the device for its intended purpose and be safe in the knowledge that it will not run into the brick wall of untested errors that will result in a failure to perform. On the other hand, Android will allow you to create an alarm for an event that will connect to your coffee machine and your garage door, such that when you have an appointment it will almost finish your routine for you before you're even truly awake; but it is equally likely to fail to complete the desired task before it even begins without accurate testing and interaction from the user. I enjoy testing my programming and concepts, but when it comes down to a mobile operating system that keeps me on top of what I need and wish to do, reliability, ease-of-use and speed of interaction play the most important part. An android device plays an important part in playing with what can be done, but an iOS device works without any extra calibration or tweaking. Overall, reliability in function trumps customisability and redundant features, unless your sole purpose is to tweak and test without care for the upshot of errors.
US/Allies should authorized use of greater military force against Isis.

"We need to empower and equip the people who live there to control their own destiny."That was one of the problems, we would arm the Iraqi's and then they would abandon them and run away, giving those things to ISIS. As well, it is our destiny as well, as they do encourage and conduct terrorist actions against The US itself.In-action would inevitably allow ISIS to continue to grow. Now, what is one thing that all major terrorist have in common? Money!. The US Military would need to crush their oil supply."As ISIS fighters expand their control, it is in the border region, in villages like Besaslan, where the Islamic State group can make some of the money it needs to finance its wars. Oil-smuggling operations involving millions of barrels have recently been uncovered."[1]ISIS will continue to grow, and grow until they a daring enough to make a strong attack against one of allies, such as Israel, Turkey, Jordan, etc; in which case, we would be forced to protect our allies. Unless a world leader steps forward to put his foot down and say, 'We will not allow ISIS, a terrorist origination to continue to grow in wealth, and power."Terrorism is hard to deter by traditional means."No country can defeat terrorism, but they can at least try to minimize it; with serious terrorist threats, the US needs to do all possible to try to prevent that from coming into play. Our people are being killed by ISIS, and that should never be taken lightly.There is a difference from Terrorist person(s), and a military force. ISIS has both, and we need to focus on that military force. We obviously cannot trust Iraq to fight ISIS for us. We need to unite with Turkey, Egypt, and possibly Israel to fight against ISIS, before they get too strong. "Foreign Intervention caused the rise of ISIS."Our Politics in Iraq is what helped cause the rise of ISIS. We can no longer, or we should no longer resort to Politics in Iraq, but now military action against those who seek to destroy us. ISIS has tanks, planes, soldiers, abundant weapons, and money. If decide to just leave and not do anything to stop them... then they have the potential to grow much more, to become ever more powerful, and allow them to attack a nation and possibly take it over. That would be devastating. We cannot wait and allow them to grow more powerful, the longer we wait, the more military troops we would need to invest in them to stop them.Sources:http://www.cnn.com...The book: The Iraq Study Grouphttp://www.thedailybeast.com...
US/Allies should authorized use of greater military force against Isis.

Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening argumentsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Closing statements (No New Arguments)Argument: The United States should deepen its military action in fighting Isis.Lets make this a constructing arguement. I ask for no 'attitude', or foul language.Allies: Middle East allies, European allies.
Independent Prosecutors Should Be Hired In All Cases Involving Police Brutality

Seeing as my opponent has forfeited this round, I have no points to refute. And as my opponent may refute in his next speech, but may not lay any points on the table, he will not be able to meet his burden of proof. To be fair, if he wishes, Pro can post his arguments in the next round, and cannot refute my points though. Then this debate will be judged solely upon arguments instead of rebuttals. (What you think is most significant.) However, if Pro forfeits again, I believe that although there was probably a good explanation for it, Pro will have no arguments standing and I strongly urge a Con get on this debate. Thank you for your patience, and I hope my opponent chooses to post an argument as this topic would make for a good debate.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate!

Hello. I've been looking forward to this challenge. So, this round will function as close to a standard Lincoln-Douglas debate as I can make it. That being said, plans, counterplans, "kritiks," off-topic cases, presumption arguments, theory, and tautologies are prohibited. There is no need for solvency. Debaters will be expected to offer a value + criterion structure, and to defend it. For more rules, see the following PDF: http://www.nationalforensicleague.org... The Rounds will be structured as follows: Round One: Acceptance only. Round Two: Affirmative Case (10,000 character max) Round Two: Negative Case and 1st Rebuttal (10,000 character max) Round Three: Affirmative 1st Rebuttal (5,000 character max) Round Three: Negative 2nd Rebuttal (10,000 character max) Round Four: Affirmative 2nd Rebuttal (5,000 character max) Round Four: Negative will write "Thanks." Negative will not type anything else. There will be no cross-ex. By strictly adhering to character limits, we ensure that both Aff (Pro) and Neg (Con) will have 20,000 characters with which to make their case. Neg may not make new arguments in rebuttal to the AC in his 2NR; however, he can make new points in defense of the NC in his 2NR. Aff cannot make new points in the 2AR. You will have 3 days to post arguments. Voting will last one month. By accepting, cubyo agrees to all rules; if Con wishes to change any rules, Con can post a comment or message me. Topic: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. (Feel free to offer your own definitions or counterdefinitions.) Sides: bsh1 is Aff (Pro) and cubyo is Neg (Con). To Our Judges: Please cast your votes based on the rules and traditions of LD; for example, please use the winning criterion to evaluate the round. If you are unaware of how LD works, please refrain from voting or feel free to read up on it and then cast your vote. I sincerely thank you in advance! I look forward to a great LD debate! Over to my opponent.
The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument is Sound

Ill take the position of the godless souless heathen for this debateModal logic was shown false in the 1940s so the argument based on modal logic is false. "Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause."Give an explanation for everything in the universe! You dont know everything. "The universe is an existing thing."It could be an illusion. We don't really know"Therefore the explanation of the universe is God."were you there? So you can't really say this
Resolved: God Exists

*This debate is closed. Please leave a message in the comments to apply.*IntroductionThis debate is about the existence of a monotheistic God. If you wish to accept this debate, please leave a message in the comments section. If anyone somehow accepts this debate without leaving a message, they immediately forfeit the seven points. DefinitionsGod - an omnipotent, omniscient, sentient, benevolent being who is the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authorityOmnipotent - able to perform any action, natural or supernaturalOmniscient - having definite knowledge of everythingSentient - can feel or perceive subjectivelyExist - is actual in objective reality Format48 hrs, 5 rounds, max. 10,000 characters/roundRound 1Con - rules, definitionsPro - argumentsRound 2Con - arguments, rebuttalsPro - arguments, rebuttalsRound 3Con - arguments, rebuttalsPro - arguments, rebuttalsRound 4Con - arguments, rebuttalsPro - arguments, rebuttalsRound 5Con - arguments, rebuttalsPro - waives this round Rules1. Appropriate conduct must be maintained - no profanity, trolling, or insulting other members.2. Burden of Proof (BoP) is with Pro.3. Logic must not be ignored [for example, by saying God is beyond human logic]; it must be accepted or rebutted. 4. All arguments must pertain to the definitions and rules. Any deviation from the established rules/definitions will result in the violating argument to be declared void. A second violation will result in the violator's complete forfeiture of the 7 points.
Ultron ( pro) vs Vision (con) movie version

Vision's powers shown in Avengers;AOU is limited as he has much more future in the Marvel Universe ( ATQ movies). But Ultron doesn't. Ultron's story ended with Avengers : AOU . Therefore, there has been a real effort to show and magnify the powers of Ultron, whereas Vision's powers might be revealed in Captain America : Civil War and perhaps in Avengers: Infinity War. So you cannot say that the movie version of Ultron is better than Vision. But I concede that in this particular movie, Ultron is stronger. That is only because the writers didn't feel the need to reveal all of Vision's powers. I guess I seem a bit naive here but any Avengers' powers have been taken from the comic, so I believe it would be better to have this debate after the two movie I have mentioned have released. But since there are no more rounds, I guess you win only because Vision's powers have not yet truly been revealed.
Ultron ( pro) vs Vision (con) movie version

Conclusion- Ultron's boss model (vibranium, giant size) is stronger than Vision as Ultrron is still a robot but Vision chose a human form. Plus the debate title says 'movie version and some of your facts weren't showcased- 1) Strength- Vision was flung away by Ultron. Ultron is metal and Vision is organic. Plus the massive size ability hasn't been used in the movie and nor is spoken about, therefore one can assume you are talking about the comics. 2) Anticipation- This should be able to work both ways, as Ultron is also from the same code. Plus the artificial intellligence alters (Ultron wanted no avengers at first, then chose to destroy the world) so Vision will not be able to predict much with his own code mutating and evolving due to learning gained from experience. 3) Internet- Vision had to touch Ultron skull with both his hands to close the wifi off. Ultron wouldn't taken aback this time as he wasted time on rhetoric, and plus he could add more metal layers to make Vision's power ineffective. 4) Beams and lasers- Vision and Ultron have nearly the same power of lasers as Vision's infinity stone may be overloaded and explode if too much is utilized. 5) Super-strength- Altough Vision can pick up Thor's hammer, Ultron can survive a beating from it even being not worthy. Playing around with Captain America's shield, Ultron is bulkier than Vision and has a reasonable speed for hand-to-hand combat. Therefore, Ultron's movie version is much more powerful than Vision, for Vision is mixed with J.A.R.V.I.S. AI and unfortunately is human and can feel damage and fatigue. Ultron won't feel much from his torso unless he really loses too many parts. Ultron is basically a overpowered model of Iron man, and Vision can't beat this suit.
Ultron ( pro) vs Vision (con) movie version

First of all, I hope I'm putting all the right facts. Secondly, the Vision's powers you may have overlooked. i) His strength;- Vision has strength which exceeds the Hulk or any other human being. ii) His forward thinking;- Vision can anticipate any move made by Ultron. As Ultron and Vision are from the same source code. iii) Vision can become extraordinarily massive, He can time travel, shapeshift etc. So even if he is on his own, he is after all an AI ( with human feelings and emotions). So he can shut out Ultron from the internet and keep him out, as he can anticipate Ultron's every move. As for the Vibranium, a small crush of the hand by Vision is his massive state will destroy it. Even if that doesn't work, he can emit micro radiation beams which could destroy Ultron. If Pro wants to specify which version of Ultron and Vision are fighting, I can give several other arguments. If I have made some mistake, please enlighten.
Ultron ( pro) vs Vision (con) movie version

No, Vision didn't beat Ultron, Iron man and Thor helped him. And I am talking about a one-on-one combat scenario where Vision and Ultron are cut off from reinforcements. There are 6 infinity stones, and Vision has the one called the Mind Stone. If Ultron's boss model of Vibranium fights with Vision, Vision would be impacted harder as his body is human, enhanced but still human, and therefore would feel more damage and fatigue than a robot. Although Vision can shut Ultron out from the internet, he had to make contact with his skull, and Ultron wouldn't allow that this time unless he is given rhetoric lines again. So, if somehow the indestructible Vibranium gets destroyed, Ultron can just hop on to the internet, find a factory and manipulate metal in it to make another robot. Ultron and Vision have their own lasers that are equally matched, as if Vision pushes his power to more lengths the Mind Stone would explode and kill him, and Ultron would win. Even Ultron wins in hand-to-hand combat, for if he can throw Captain America's shield as if they were playing tennis then Vision's human moves would be no match to the metal. Both can fly, so that is a draw. However, Ultron can theoretically reach space, while Vision needs oxygen. If there is any power of Vision I overlooked in the movie, I await Con to remind me.
Personal Space in Korea

My opponent makes a good point when she says that people who want to live in Korea should learn more about he culture before being offended at something they do. However in their original argument, they did not speak on immigrants, but on foreigners; meaning those who where visiting, with no intent to call Korea their home. And even beyond that, it still doesn't negate the fact that people cannot help what they are offended at any more than they can help what they are disgusted, or even attracted to. It is a natural reaction based on how they where raised. And as my opponent indicates through her own arguments, cultural differences ought to be respected; not condemned. Therefore in conclusion, while it is a sad inconvenience that so many foreigners are offended by lack of personal space in Korea, it is one cannot be changed.
Personal Space in Korea

Your point is reasonable. What I mean is that many foreigners judge Koreans rude by being too close to them. In other words, most Koreans are not even conscioius about those concepts. Once I read an article, a French woman was very offended by an old-aged Korean woman because she pet her daughter's head with hand. She seemed to judge Koreans as rude people. But it's a cultural difference. It's ofen in Koren olders show concern to youngs. When someone can't control one's emotion, it could result to wrong judgement. Therefore if someone who wants to live in Korea, don't misunderstand them by increasing the knowledge about Korean culture.
Personal Space in Korea

My opponent claims that foreigners should not feel offended by small amounts personal space in Korea, however I refute this and claim that there is nothing wrong with being offended being offended by small amounts of personal space in another country. First of, simply being in another country does not mean you must sacrifice your personal beliefs. The phrase "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" means that when one is put in a specific culture or society, they should adapt to their ways. It does not however mean they should forfeit the right to dislike, speak out against, or even be offended by it. For instance, if a Korean person came to America; they may be offended by America's pop-culture, or our greasy fried food, or our music. And while they would have to just deal with it at the time (Doing as the Americans do) they still have every right to be offended. Second, foreigners cannot help it if they feel offended; any more than they can help it if they feel pleased.
Smoking should be made illegal

I know many responsible parents out there who will ONLY smoke when their children are not around them. They should completely be allowed to smoke in ways that will not harm their children. Parents should always ensure that their children are inside their house while they smoke on their lawn; so therefore, second-hand smoke will not be a problem. I believe the government should create more commercials and advertisements, telling other parents the risks they put on their children when they smoke AROUND their children. As long as parents take measures to prevent second-hand smoke, it will not be a problem. Minor things like smoke on clothing can be taken care of by responsible parents. We believe parents are able to handle these things, because ultimately; these are THEIR children, and they will likely to do everything it takes to take good care of them. I do understand that there are also negligent and reckless parents out there, but the Child, Family, and Community service Act (that I mentioned earlier) and Children's Protective Service should take care of that. They will take custody of those children who are being neglected. My opponent said," So what, non smokers can't go into those rooms? Or even those buildings? Or hang out with patrons of those buildings? " Non-smokers can definitely enter these rooms, but they are fully aware of the harms that can be done to them; there are signs everywhere stating smoking is permitted. If they do not want to have any contact with smokers, they can simply go somewhere else. Cigarette products produce about 48 million dollars income for the government. We can use this money effectively and efficiently by establishing rehabilitation centers for smokers who want to quit, and help those who are ill and sick. We do not want to live in a police state, where the government has a role to make everything, that harms us, illegal. If we ban cigarettes, we might as well ban high fat and sugary food, because they also harm us in many ways. Food is also something that is really addictive (similar to cigarettes), resulting in obesity. "Nearly one third of American adults are obese, and a study suggests that one in four overweight children is already showing early signs of type II diabetes, while 60% have a risk factor for heart disease. An estimated 300,000 deaths per year are attributable to obesity. Obese individuals have a 50% to 100% increased risk of death from all causes, compared with normal-weight individuals. " These statistics are from . http://www.liposuction-costs.com... Sugary and high-calories-foods are also very dangerous to children, teenagers, and seniors. If we ban cigarettes, we should also ban junk foods. I would also like to thank abard124 for such an interesting debate. I am looking forward to debate with you on other issues. May the best man win!
Smoking should be made illegal

Good argument! Okay, I do understand that smoking outside would help the problem. There is no denying that. However, I recently did some research, and I found out that there is no safe level of second hand smoke, especially for children. This includes: If the child steps outside; the smoke on you clothes; and other minor things. It's still dangerous to more people than smokers. And don't forget about pregnant women. Rarely do I post an argument and think I did everything right. This is one of the things I did wrong. Obviously the police shouldn't give up if someone is breaking the law, I think I was just trying to get the point across that only banning smoking inside the house wouldn't be terribly effective. Your story is very good. I wish more people were like you. Unfortunately, statistics show that you are in the minority. I strongly suggest that you, as well as the voters, read this article: . http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... That article really gets the point across that it affects kids in ways beyond asthma and bronchitis issues. It does acknowledge that there are people, like you, who are not affected by their parents smoking, but there is a definite correlation. Your last paragraph is true. .. in some places, that is. I live in Oregon. Smoking is banned in all enclosed public places, with the exception of tobacconists, cigar bars, and no more than 25% of all hotel rooms. There are similar laws in other states already. "It seems unjust for us to ban these groups from doing something they love to do that is not harming anyone else. " So what, non smokers can't go into those rooms? Or even those buildings? Or hang out with patrons of those buildings? I understand that many people enjoy smoking. People also enjoy smoking weed. People also enjoy smoking crack. Some people enjoy the effects brought on by Meth. Does that mean they should be legal? of course not. Same goes for smoked tobacco. If you are reading this and are a smoker yourself, I strongly encourage you to quit, or at least understand the side effects, both on yourself and others. If you are a non smoker, you should understand the direct effects of secondhand smoke upon yourself and let your friends and elected officials know.