BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Electronic companies must take responsibilty of older and less useful outdated products

Pro conceded: Facts provided by my friend are unarguably correct. According to the law, there is no obligation on the company to provide the customer with perpetual upgrades.Rebuttal: Pro has dropped this argument.Pro remarked: "However laws remain beneficial when they are meant for the good of the society. For example change in laws by Obama government for the automotive industries for more fuel efficient and greener cars is a step towards goodwill for the society."Rebuttal: Incorrect. Laws do not remain beneficial when they are meant for the good of society. It would benefit my opponent to read the book:"The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice." [1] In this book, the author explains "how crusading legislators and unfair prosecutors are remaking American law into a weapon wielded by the government and how the erosion of the legal principles we hold dear–such as habeas corpus and the prohibition against self-incrimination–is destroying the presumption of innocence." Here is one example of a law hurting society, despite it's good intentions: A Michigan law was set in place to save consumers money, by reducing price tag demands on the supplier. The law was supposed to help, but instead it forced the stores to cut hours, reduce wages and frustrate customers. The 2:00 minute news clip can be seen here: http://www.fox47news.com... [2].Pro stated: "I want to make my friend understand this thing that a step in this new direction will definitely do good to us. I am asking my friend to think from consumer's point of view. This is something we want and we expect and the things happening in the market is actually the result of our collective attitude towards the same."Rebuttal: Speculation. Evidence points to the contrary. Innovation has radically failed. Obama spent 90 billion dollars on incentives to fund new, innovative, alternate energy solutions. The last company to receive 2 billion dollars in stimulus just filed for bankruptcy. The company is called A123; it's a Dutch company that was lured to Michigan to set up a subsidiary, using stimulus dollars from the Obama administration. The company filed for bankruptcy less than a week ago. [3] Conclusion: My opponent has radically failed his burden. He has provided no statistical evidence that innovation is beneficial. He has provided no examples of working business models in which the company takes perpetual responsibility for their product. In fact, this point he dropped entirely. My opponent should have created this topic as a forum, to test the idea before bringing to the debate floor.Without a shadow of a doubt, his burden is not met. I urge a vote for CON.http://www.amazon.com... [1]http://www.fox47news.com... [2]http://www.nytimes.com... [3]
Electronic companies must take responsibilty of older and less useful outdated products

Facts provided by my friend are unarguably correct. According to the law, there is no obligation on the company to provide the customer with perpetual upgrades. However laws remain beneficial when they are meant for the good of the society. For example change in laws by Obama government for the automotive industries for more fuel efficient and greener cars is a step towards goodwill for the society. I said, "companies who are being sticky to old rules and regulations and not trying out on something new and innovative are bearing the brunt of being ousted from the market." I want to make my friend understand this thing that a step in this new direction will definitely do good to us. I am asking my friend to think from consumer's point of view. This is something we want and we expect and the things happening in the market is actually the result of our collective attitude towards the same. I agree with my friend that sole motive of companies is to mint money. It is the reason behind their existence but it is we who are responsible for their existence. I believe that those companies must exist to provide goods and services which remain till the end in the best interest of consumers. The profit they are getting is an indication that we consumers are being satisfied, by how much I don't know, it varies from person to person. The i-phone craze I saw where people remained outside shops waiting for the sun to rise and shops to open stands testimony to the point I am trying to make. You just don't throw it away, you keep it, you use it and love to show you own it. I want to make this a point that companies interests should be in consumer's interests. Won't you feel cheated if the company performs everything that appears sound on paper, but still ......I hope you are understanding........
Electronic companies must take responsibilty of older and less useful outdated products

My opponent is correct by stating that companies should innovate to remain competitive. However, innovation does not change the Company's obligation to the customer. I can purchase a TV from Samsung that can be upgraded. This fact does not obligate the company to perpetually provide me with more upgrades. I am only entitled to the upgrades that are advertised and the upgrades are not free.Should the TV break, I have a legal right to demand repair or replacement, if the TV is covered by either: Manufacturer Warranty Store Warranty Pro said: "So, companies who are being sticky to old rules and regulations and not trying out on something new and innovative are bearing the brunt of being ousted from the market."Rebuttal: I agree. How does this relate to the burden? Pro said: "Why we have these companies running? It is, to make the planet a better place for us to live. These are solely for the purpose of serving us." Rebuttal: My opponent believes that Companies exist exclusively to serve humanity. I would argue that Companies exist to make as much money as possible. It is diametrically opposite of my opponent's premise. Companies do not serve humanity. It is the Consumer that serves the Company's interest. Any benefit the Consumer receives is irrelevant. In fact, the Company's goal is to provide a minimal amount of service for a maximal return.The average mark-up of in-house manufacturing for an electronics company is 450%. A device that costs the Company $ 1,000.00 USD to manufacture, is sold to the Consumer for $ 4,500.00 USD. The average cosmetics manufacturer increases the sales price by 5000%. [1]Pro said:" A good after-sales service is required from the company that's all coupled with other benefits like exchange offers and up-gradation. This is not all a herculean task and can be accomplished if positive steps from the company side are taken." Rebuttal: My opponent is stating his premise axiomatically. If the Company is required to furnish a "good after-sale service", "coupled with other benefits" then we should have a moral guideline which demands this.It would appear my opponent is making the classic error of mistaking "Liberty" and "License". He desires the service, therefore he feels entitled to it. Unfortunately, the Company has no obligation to fulfill his dreams. http://www.toptenz.net... [1]
Electronic companies must take responsibilty of older and less useful outdated products

WE all have an idea about the number of companies on Earth. There are many companies producing same kind of products, now that is what we call redundancy. Why we have these companies running? It is, to make the planet a better place for us to live. These are solely for the purpose of serving us. That's what we are paying for. Only those will get the share which will serve us better. We favor those companies which provide us with competitive goods. Let me cite an example of Samsung electronics. Samsung electronics is a leader in smartphones and smart TVs. See link: (http://en.wikipedia.org... ) All this because it spends a whooping amount on R&D activities obvious from previous year news. See link: (http://www.phonearena.com...) This year Samsung unveiled television that can be upgraded for cost of new television thus finishing off the need to buy a new television. See link: (http://newsthump.com...) So, companies who are being sticky to old rules and regulations and not trying out on something new and innovative are bearing the brunt of being ousted from the market. All the conditionary statements on the company's manuals etc. appear so mean say like, "Company shall not be held responsible.....blah blah blah...", when the consumer is having difficult time with the product. As an organisation it has certain duty towards the society and it should try to keep up with changing times and demands. A good after-sales service is required from the company that's all coupled with other benefits like exchange offers and up-gradation. This is not all a herculean task and can be accomplished if positive steps from the company side are taken.
Electronic companies must take responsibilty of older and less useful outdated products

My opponent provided the resolution and bears the burden of proof. My opponent will attempt to convince the voter that designers, manufacturers and distributors of "old, less useful and outdated" electronics should maintain, repair and offer warranty style service including but not limited to: Repair Upgrade Refurbishment Customer Service Support I will be arguing that the manufacturer is only responsible for manufacturing defects or operational malfunction reported within the time frame of the subjective factory warranty or quality assurance agreement. Any further services and customer support is not legally required, nor morally obligatory. Should other services be made available, the customer is responsible for "at will" maintenance and incurs the full cost for parts and labor.This premise is based on the reasonable expectation of time, use and abuse related failure of any manufactured device. Once the merchandise exceeds the reasonable expectation of time, use and abuse, the customer takes full responsibility for the cost of repair and upkeep. Should the Company have ceased production of the device, and a reasonable time frame of post-production maintenance has expired, the customer will need to seek 3rd party, unauthorized or authorized repair centers for service, which may or may not be affiliated with the manufacturer. Example: The NJOY electronic Cigarette Manufacturer's warranty
Electronic companies must take responsibilty of older and less useful outdated products

I buy a new laptop or a new mobile this year and after the next one or two years all appears crap. Hardware configurations doubles, newer designs, latest craze keeping you out of your mind until you get hold of the new specs. Now what about our old gadgets. Gaining dirt on our shelves and waiting to get dumped until we find it one day totally," phew!!! What is That???". And then with all the crap things that needs to be dumped, it gets dumped. This is not just about me. This story is about many millions of people like me, a common policy that gets followed up without getting noticed. The only time these less-useful stuff make to news, when big synthetic mountains of e-waste gets formed and a big ruckus is created of the matter. Today companies claim they have gone greener, they are better than their counterparts because they produce goods by doing less damage to the environment. They also ask their consumers to give feedback and advice. Well as a conscious consumer I would like to advise them to take care of dumped products of their company. We will be depositing those products at outlets provided and they can recycle them so we can reuse. See the process is quite simple. Handling e-waste is not a big deal after all.
Woman on Debate.org are stupid and don't have a clue what they are doing.

Many people believe that woman on Debate.org are uneducated woman that are just passing time. through my research I have read 407 debates included one male and one woman. the male has abused his rights to address one woman with a topic that he old never understand. she then later spoke out on twitter using his saying what he had done. from their this man has abused this post by saying that she was going crazy and she was not educated and didn't understand Debate.org. I will stick up for the fact that woman have boundaries that when one crosses will begin to attack.
Evolution (Pro) vs Creationism (Con)

Arguments: Since Evolution is all about since and such, I will give you some scientific example about how God exists. "On the human gene PYGB, Phosporomylase Glycogen, a non-coding transposon, holds a linguistic sequence that translates as "At first break of day, God formed sky and land." This bears a stunning similarity to Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Gene Bmp3 has a Retrotransposon sequence which translates to the well-known 1 Cor 6:19 "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own." This is repeated over and over throughout the entire sequence of human DNA: embedded equivalent genetic code of ancient Aramaic that seems to translate as the word of god to his people."[1] Wow!! Now how are you going to rebuttal that? To add on to that, Matthew Boulder, chief linguist said and I quote "As for the evidence- it is there and it is, to my view, undeniable. The very word of God, elegantly weaved in and out of our very bodies and souls, as plain as day. And the beauty of it, that God would lay down the words of truth in our very beings, shows his love and The Miracle." Now, I believe that you will have no rebuttals to the written word of God. How could you even doubt God, when in his written word he says : Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. If you would like to look it up, the verse is John 14:6 Now, since we all know that we are going to die one day, and when we die,we will be judged by the almighty God. Not knowing your personal religion, but since you are down this debate, I can only guess that you are atheist, but who am I to judge. Now, to add onto the dying part, would you like to hear this: ""Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?" 23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" Matthew 7:21-23 Or would you rather hear this : His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master." It's your choice, not mine. Un-faithful servant or Faithful servant!
Resolution: Faith should not be considered a virtue.

"A virtue is a behavior which exhibits high moral standards." Doesn't faith already give a high moral standard? Faith is not the belief in God so much as it is the belief in the values which that "God" has engrained into our society. With every different religion comes a different general culture. Islam is the religion that has been created by the Arab World, thanks to Islam Arabic is a known language throughout all of the Muslim world. You can hear Arabic in almost every part from Nigeria all the way to Afghanistan. Prayers are all in Arabic and Arabic Culture is present in every part of it. As for Islam, Christianity is the religion for the general European culture that we see in the United States. While protestant languages are German,English,Swedish,Finnish and Norwegian, Catholicism presents more romantic languages such as Spanish,Italian,French and Portuguese. What faith does is proves to the predominant culture of the USA, Christianity, that he or she believes in the same values as most people. Without faith how can we believe that they are truly in sync with our traditions such as Christmas and Easter. Most countries in the world understand this which is why they tend to invest their trust in the leader who is the most faithful. Israel will always have a Jewish Prime Minister while the Saudi King shall always be a sunni muslim. Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, is himself a self proclaimed believer in the Russian Orthodox Church. Though what needs to be looked at is when a country loses it's faith and begins to elect secular leaders.Look at the country with the second highest rate of Suicide, North Korea, (http://list25.com...) which is an Atheist state and every leader since Kim Il Sung has been an Atheist. Clearly you can say that they have no faith in any religion and yet the whole country believes the Leader of North Korea does not defecate.(http://www.theguardian.com...) Clearly this shows that without faith in a theistic ideology, the people will just find something else to believe in, something even more ridiculous. People in general have a herd like mentality and sometimes a theistic belief is probably a lot better then turning a human into a God.
Resolution: Faith should not be considered a virtue.

The point I make about Guyana is not that religion is necessarily Causing the country's problems, but rather the point I make is that one cannot look to the evidence you presented and draw the conclusion that secularism lead to a higher degree of suicide in these countries. The data is not there. In the first paragraph round two argument, you made this point no longer an issue...Or so I thought. In response to Sweden's rape statistics. Once again, rape is not a result of secularism. For better or worse, the point you make seems to be that secularism drives political correctness, which leads to a blind eye turned to rape crimes committed by Muslim men. First, political correctness is not ingrained in secularism. All one need do is take to the Internet to see that secularists as a whole give no person a free pass. Furthermore, the statistics you show are based on Reported rape. Countries that have better human rights records often move away from religious taboo regarding rape victimization. If one is not worried that the faith of one's family will result in a honor killing, one is more likely to report rape. However, THIS IS BESIDE THE POINT. By garnering the respect of Faith as a virtue, it becomes taboo to criticize faith based beliefs and this is a problem when, as I have shown Faith can justify anything. If this is still held in doubt question, investigate what justification is given for suicide bombing, genital mutilation, discrimination against homosexuals, and women sexual health? Aren't these USUALLY objected to on the basis of faith statements? If these abhorrent practices can be justified by faith, then what cannot? If faith is not a virtue then what is the role of faith? Faith, not just religious faith, should be invoked only when one cannot know the answer, not merely when one refuses to hear the evidence. Faith ought not to be considered good in itself. Rather, faith ought to be considered a necessary and temporary state that one should strive to overcome. Friend, you defend faith amicably, but when justifying moral claims Faith just won't do. Thank you. I hope that the community will read our arguments thoroughly.
soda is bad for you

ArgumentI believe my opponent missed my point. He says "their [sic] is no such thing as soda being good for you. " While I still disagree with even this statement, I want to point out that I am not arguing the position that soda is good for you, but rather that soda is not "bad for you. " by showing that through not all sodas have the unhealthy ingredients you mention, not all sodas are bad in this sense. First, my opponent mentions the effects of sugar. Not all sodas have sugar (Diet Coca-Cola, Diet Pepsi, Diet Rite, etc. ). This, combined with the fact that not all sodas have caffeine (for instance, Caffeine-Free Diet Coca-Cola), demonstrates that not all sodas are "bad for you" in this sense. My opponent secondly goes on to state the effects of caffeine. However, this is almost completely irrelevant. I have already shown that not all sodas contain caffeine, therefore not all sodas are "bad for you" in this sense either. Again, we must remember that you generalized "soda is bad for you" with no conditions; therefore, if not all soda is "bad for you" in the ways you mention, you cannot simply state soda is unhealthy without adding conditions. My opponent then erroneously states that every soda contains "at least sugar, caffiene, or some other leathal [sic] chemical. " However, this is simply not true -- in two regards. First, there are some sodas that do not contain sugar or caffeine; for instance, Diet Caffeine-Free Coca-Cola does not contain caffeine or sugar, but rather a sugar substitute. However, even with the caffeine and sugar, a Coca-Cola does not contain a lethal (lethal: of, pertaining to, or causing death[1]) amount of either. This argument does not stand on any point. Not only are there sodas that do not contain either, but even if they did, they would not be lethal. My opponent then states that artificial sweeteners "can cause serious health problems such as cancer. " However, not all sodas contain artificial sweeteners, for instance, Zevia does not contain artificial sweeteners. [2]ConclusionI have again shown that not all soda is unhealthy. Because not all soda is unhealthy, it is incorrect to state "soda is bad for you" without making conditions, such as "caffeinated soda is bad for you," or "sugary soda is bad for you. " Because soda manufacturers have found a market in health-minded consumers, not all soda is bad for you. I would also like to remind voters that by definition -- "a carbonated liquid beverage that does not contain alcohol" -- soda is not "bad for you. "Sources1. . http://dictionary.reference.com...;2. . http://www.zevia.com...;
soda is bad for you

very good argument. sugar in soda is one thing i did not see stated in your argument. sugar (in high intake) is harmful to the body. "If sugar were to be put on the market for the first time today, it would probably be difficult to get it past the FDA." Kathleen DesMaisons Potatoes not Prozac. Lethbridge Undergraduate Research Journal ISSN 1718-8482. sugar can have the similar effects to drug abuse. the other effects include cavities, weight gain, mood swings, diabetes, circulatory abnormalities, silent heart attacks, and heart disease. caffeine in general is a dangerous stimulant. addiction causes some side effects. which include nervousness, headache, increased heart rate, anxiety, upset stomach, irregular heartbeat, irritability, GI irritation, elevated blood pressure, agitation, heartburn, increased cholesterol, tremors, diarrhea, nutritional deficiencies, insomnia, fatigue, poor concentration, depression, dizziness, bed wetting. caffeine withdrawl includes headache, constipation, runny nose, craving, constipation, anxiety, nausea, irritability, nervousness, vomiting, insomnia, shakiness, cramps, fatigue, dizziness, ringing in the ears, depression, drowsiness, feeling hot and cold, apathy, inability to concentrate. caffeine (in high amounts) can cause heart problems. caffeine increases your heart beat almost double of a resting heart beat. if you take that and add a vigerous activity your chance of heart attack or stroke increase tenfold. And to add from your argument. their is no such thing as soda being good for you. every soda contains at least sugar, caffiene, or some other leathal chemical. for your diet sodas that contain artificial sweeteners such as Acesulfame potassium (Sunett, Sweet One), Aspartame (Equal, NutraSweet), Neotame, Saccharin (SugarTwin, Sweet'N Low), Sucralose (Splenda). are all curently approved by the FDA. but as harmless as they seem they can cause serious health problems such as cancer. thank you for reading that is all.