BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Android > iOS overall

<To quote http://www.shoutmeloud.com... "It seems that a 2 year old could pick up the iPhone and figure out how to unlock it and send a text message. The iPhone OS is just so easy to use and navigate, anyone can use it without having to learn. "> <iOS is so much more simplistic but beautiful. With great colors, and looks, Apple Iphones are way better than any Android.> <The Appstore has tons and tons of games, productivity, social, health, photography, and more apps! They are better quality than Android too.> <To quote http://blog.undolock.com... "Maybe someone will use all [Assistive] features of a mobile device for people with disabilities is not too important. But all the users who have poor hearing, vision and other functional disorders, should definitely consider it on iPhone." The iPhone has many features for people with disablities. Those help the thousands of people who cannot use other phones like Androids.> <According to an artical on shoutmeloud.com the writer says "When it comes to media, the iPhone OS wins hands down. It’s not only the brilliant music application, easy podcast and video management, it’s also because of the iTunes store. Android has no music store as such..." Apple has much better applications for all of the things listed above, they are cleaner looking, crash WAY less often then android and has better feauters.> <Apple's iCloud can sync many devices to 1 Account. Meaning you Iphone, Ipod, and Ipad can all have the exact same music, apps, contacts and much more. iPhones also sync to your computer MAC or not. Through the iOS system and iTunes all of your music can be on your phone and computer all the time, with one click you can sync these devices.> <Overall iOS is better for many reasons, big name apps in the APPSTORE, iTunes, iMessage, iCloud and a more beautiful, yet powerful design.> *Sources are in the statements*
Android > iOS overall

Hello Himoverthere, Thanks for making this deabte. I am happy to debate this subject. My family is an apple family, we have 3 Ipod touches, 2 nanos, a shuffle and an Ipad between the 4 of us. We use Itunes for all our music too, we also use Mac computers at work. Now on to the debating. <iOs and Apple has a much more sophisticated music program. Itunes is both a computer program and an Iphone/Ipad app. Music bought on the computer will sync to the computer through bluetooth or cord. It works the otherway too. 1 account can be put on up to 5 computers linking a family between work, home, school, and thier phones. > <Find my Iphone is an anti-theft program. It tracks your Iphone in case of theat.> <Iphones can be brought to any store that has Apple in it and it can be fixed where as android needs to be brought to manufacturor to be fixed, which is inconvient> <Ios and Apple have a much better and bigger app store, with large variteies of apps it is easy to download in a nice 'Beautiful' app store> <Apples is more userfirendly, when you open up your new Iphone, Ipod, or Ipad there is a 2 step insturctions; Turn on and charge. All instuctions are in phone is really esay to ues.> <With iOS if you swipe up from the bottom you get your controls, there is bluetooth, brightness, wi-fi, airplane mode, rot lock, air play/apple tv, Air Drop, camera, and flashlight, all avalible with 1 swipe.> Sources (I hope your okay with just links, if you need me to I can annotate them but that takes way to long ;) ) - http://www.apple.com... - http://www.gizmocrazed.com... - http://www.wired.com... - http://www.apple.com... - http://www.apple.com... - Varius TIME magazines
Edmund Burke's famous quote about your representative is valid.

Sorry I'll expand. The quote implies that someone should act in a particular code based on what? Everyone should act towards a common good,Group interest vs personal interest, bodily rights, marxism, populaism. By which are you judging it and can you support that it is right. I agree, that your statement has on its face, however what South vs north, individuals were acting on what they though was the basis of their best interest, and you had the civil war. currently Coal state with democrat are nay saying the Climate Act Obama just enacted, as there interest vs the country is at odds with each other (at least in the short term). Do you judge things based off time as well, crash encomium for a better tomorrow? I would disagree, with your statement as educated as Senator Bennett. An argument appealing to authority is not needed, if the argument is true in an of itself. Dont sell yourself or your fellows short. He may be right, but how do you know he is right. Show the math. 2 + 2 = 4 but why, 1 +3 = 4 is also. i would argue that a elected official is responciable is to eveyone, not just those he got elected by. Other wise, why set up relief or charity for others in other countries, which elected individuals may not approve or like or there concern . . His argumetn would also be a case NOT to go to war. . . .
Edmund Burke's famous quote about your representative is valid.

Nathan, First of all, why isn't this quote moral? The people cannot be trusted to make big decisions. Several of my classmates and even senator Michael Bennett agree with me about this. They agree with me for different reasons of course, because my classmates aren't as educated about politics as senator Bennett. Also, civics is absolutely relevant in this debate. Edmund Burke said this when our government was debating between the Articles of Confederation, or our current government. In conclusion, I believe that Burke was very right about the government. Also, I apologize for bringing up the 2000 election. It wasn't totally relevant.
Edmund Burke's famous quote about your representative is valid.

Dear texans14 Please feel free for Nathan in future it"s my first name. Thank you for the debate as well. i think this argument comes down to definitions and wishful thinking. "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." Before we get to the actual debate, you stated something I find inaccurate, in definition and in fact. 1)First by definition the US is hardly a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly, not by necessarily popular vote, you can have a popular vote system based on a majority or super majority. You (I"m a Canadian) have a republic, and not even a true republic; with Red Lining, money matters into public debate, a constitution and constitutional law, SCOTA ext . . . ext . . This actually has nothing to do with the argument. US is a socialistic hybrid of a republic. Your founding father were afraid of True democracy and its inability to maintain stability and a set of checks and balances. Either way, civic lessons aside, this has nothing to do with your statement. 2)As to who actually won, GORE or BUSH, is actually still open for debate, While I think Bush the horrible should be in jail, I would not argue that It is a fact he in fact won/lost. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." This is a principle of intent, a statement of wishful thinking. It"s what ought to be, one individual opinion with no context, rather then what is since you can point to your own government as an example. You can also exchange "owe to" "your representative owes it to future generations, not the current generation, be his judgement". or any other declaration statement. In addition, this could be taken, if it suits us better then others let take resources via war or deceit. I still do not see any proof that this statement is accurate, or even moral, or just, its just what someone think should be done. First you would need to establish a moral or ethical code to judge it by, as well. This is like arguing coke vs Pepsie without saying the parameters. Also since, your own admonition this does not happen, its false in reality.
Edmund Burke's famous quote about your representative is valid.

This is a very controversial quote, and one can certainly see both sides. I agree obviously with the fact that the quote is true. One may argue that this quote is to say that the United States isn't a democracy. Well, that is not accurate. There is a reason that we, the people elect representatives to Congress. To do what is best for us. The average person couldn't make that decision on their own. A full democracy is not a good idea. The people should be represented in the vote, but not actually decide fully. That's what our government is today. We, the people may vote in elections, but we don't always get the outcome the majority of us desire. Look at the 2000 election. Gore won the popular, but the people that know best voted for Bush. Congress is up there in Washington making the calls for a reason. This system is the best system of democracy there is. The only flaw to a democratic government is that the people are represented too much. Like I said, the average person doesn't always make the right decision. Our system is the best form of government in the world today. Edmund Burke was certainly right about the way our government plays out. I am anxious to hearing your response in the debate, texans14
scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

bottom line: con has not, and apparently cannot, fulfill the burden of proof. showing something that would be called a miracle due to its scientifically inexplicable nature, that appears supernatural, happening to atheists. the best he got was comparing apples with oranges. when something by chance happens like not getting into an airplane that crashes, that is indisputably hands down scientifically explicable. when cures to apparently incurable illnesses occur, they are by definition scientifically inexplicable. the magician analogy was just to make a point. how much will it take to establish the supernatural? if you define by definition that supernatural cannot occur, then you are defining yourself into a box, and apparently (and very possibily) denying reality. at a certain point, it would be to deny what true and plainly evident to just live your life as if this stuff isn't true, or even to act as if you dont want to take a position on it. like an ostrich with his head in the sand. again, bottom line, though is that con has failed miserably in fulfilling his burden of proof.
scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

"con basically is just arguing that by definition supernatural things can't occur cause we live in a natural world. how much evidence will it take, though, to show that something perhaps isn't?" Well if the supernatural is utterly incoherent then there can't be any evidence. It's like saying hey how much evidence will it take to prove a square circle exists or a married bachelor exist? It's an incoherent idea. "at what point can we say the magician is actually using magic? it would be to deny what true and plainly evident to just live your life as if he isn't, or even to act as if you dont want to take a position on it." Magicians merely demonstrate illusory, everyone knows that. If you are trying to build a case for the supernatural, but comparing it to magic, you are contradicting and undermining your position. "that you have to resort to something absurd like mere chance, Seth MacFarlane not getting on a plane that crashed, then you are essentially conceding the debate." "the common objection of atheists and skeptics is that things just happen to occur by probability" So it's fine for you to say something is chance, but not for atheists? Contradictions and hypocrisy. Some theists might not think it was chance, some might say god made them late. My grandmother was in a car wreck and she thought god saved her, but to me it was probability. I know an atheist who got in a car wreck, but he thought it was not a miracle that he survived, but my grandmother did. You can't cherry pick when you want to use chance. So everything can be up to chance. There is naturally an infinite set of infinite sets of probabilities and event can take, to say it must be supernatural is ridiculous. " it looks like we have blatant happenings that go against natural law " Well no one knows everything about the natural universe so how can you say its against natural law? Also given that you haven't even demonstrated the coherence of the supernatural, how can anything be supernatural? If there is only the natural universe then you can't say something is not happening according to natural laws. That's like saying hey here's this square but it doesn't have four sides.
scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists

con basically is just arguing that by definition supernatural things can't occur cause we live in a natural world. how much evidence will it take, though, to show that something perhaps isn't? if you see a magician who waves his wand and makes cats turn into dogs, you could argue a natural explanation is possible, and perhaps even argue that it is preferable. but, the most direct observation is that violations of natural laws have occurred. we are just calling a spade a spade. after every known scientific attempts at understanding, at what point can we say the magician is actually using magic? it would be to deny what true and plainly evident to just live your life as if he isn't, or even to act as if you dont want to take a position on it. the fact that these things don't happen to atheists, firmly cements the findings. that you have to resort to something absurd like mere chance, Seth MacFarlane not getting on a plane that crashed, then you are essentially conceding the debate. you can't fulfill the burden of proof required in this debate. like most others who take this debate, you pretty much ignore the point so you can go on rants about how you view these so called 'miracles' "If you manage to make the supernatural and miracles coherent then I will provide a plethora of examples and explanations of events happening to non-theists that would constitute miracles to theists." if you can, why don't you? that's pretty much the point of the debate. me thinks it's because you can't. i admit, there sometimes is a fuzzy line between natural cures and so called supernatural. cancer can sometimes naturally go into remission, no one disputes this. surely within history there have been natural healings that later had natural explanations to them. but without question, those cases do not cover all the healings i've listed. does that just mean we don't know the answer? well, it looks like we have blatant happenings that go against natural law and everything we know to be true. it's something else that those who get them, have God connected with them. when you add to the mix that we can't find similar happenings to atheists, what else can we conclude, other than what seems most straightforward?
Military Service for all between 16 and 21

My opponent makes a terrible assumtion that all Military men and women are quote aggressive, cold-hearted, misunderstanding. .. That is a oppinionated statement which his following arguements tend to follow. He has shown no proof, refrencing movies and videogames as his source of logic. He assumes that all milatary men ar cold-hearted people. If he ever met someone from the military he would have known that there are many charismatic and entertaining indeviduals. My opponent also is misleading due to the fact that he is insinuating that the only thing the military does is engage in wars intentionally. One can join the military and may never experience war. Also if military service was compulsery for ages 16 up one would have to assume that he would not be fit for physical combat until he completed at least 1-2 years of training. That would mean that the young indevidual would not be effective for a combatative situation until he was 18 years of age. This is the age that one is allowed to choose to join the military and they are considered an adult. Compulsery military service is without a doubt an effective startagy to teach the morals based above. My opponent also insinuates that it is not ok for anyone the ages under 21 to lose a limb saying 16 year olds, being the youngest in the concerned age group, how can they manage it? Many soldiers have to live with life-long physical injuries, don't they? But implies that losing a limb over the age of 21 is ok? This is obvioulsy flawed logic and should be considered a pointless arguement. Lastly my opponent implies that ALL military service is a corprate back facade to create cash. This is untrue in most of the world where countries enfore Military service as basic protection against other countries and regemes that would prefer to invade and destroy thier country. Basic military knolage helps comunities, states and countries defend them selves. It makes it harder for a country to enslave and supress its own population with its permenant military, when Its own citizens have not only the numerical advantage, but also have the military knolage and capabilites to fight against supressiive regimes. In closing my opponent has failed to show facts or reasoning supporting his arguement, showing that his view points are not only flawwed but also are limited to a small ammount of countries where this could be applicable. He ignores the countries that create a military for self defense and insinuates a lot of things that are untrue.
Military Service for all between 16 and 21

Sorry I missed Round 2, I totally forgot about this:p True, you might say that the military would teach them discipline, respect and loyalty, but what about the bad qualities that they adapt to? You would become aggressive, cold-hearted, misunderstanding... it could all be the cause of the military (especially since young people are more vulnerable) Fighting in video games might look easy,but real life is always harder. 16 year olds, being the youngest in the concerned age group, how can they manage it? Many soldiers have to live with life-long physical injuries, don't they? The loss of a limb or two is the most obvious example. Soldiers can also face lifelong mental difficulties. The constant stress of being in the military, watching their friends die for their country's sake, is too much to bear. Even most veterans commit suicide because they can't deal with it. (Like Tommy Lee Jones character in Heaven and Earth) Troops serving are risking their life and limb for corporate profits, not for freedom, democracy or protection of their country. They must all know this since it's so obvious to anyone, right? As David Icke once said, "When you join the military you are not serving your country. You are serving an evil cabal that wants to enslave you. Also, Henry Kissinger said, "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy" So why would they agree to give up their life and limb to serve greedy corrupt corporations? No sane person would do that. especially since the elites and politicians that sent them to war refuse to send their own sons to fight in it. Don't the troops care about hypocrisy? What's ridiculous is that if a private citizen committed murder, he/she would go to jail or get the death penalty. But f the government murders thousands or millions of innocent people, the no one responsible goes to jail or receives capital punishment for murdering thousands. This is based on the principle that government= justice, so anything it does (including murdering many innocent people for profit and conquest) must be right and moral, since might makes right.
Military Service for all between 16 and 21

Yes, I agree that the ages of 14-21 are when an adult is most resourceful, unfortunately that resourcefulness is wasted in that time. During this time, adolescence on a majority instead of using there resourcefulness on advancing themselves into the future, use there intellect to do very stupid thing. It is proven adolescence are very intuitive, much higher susceptible to developing addictions and have a higher rate of mental instability. This is normal as if one remembers, being a young adult is a time of uncertainty and instability. Unfortunately, many fail in creating a stable environment for themselves and fall into a numerous types of problems that will impact their development there entire lives. The military solves many of these problems by teaching adolescence core principles that are very rare to find in everyday life. It teaches them discipline, respect, honor loyalty, in a way that no other institution, experience or environment can provide. These are traits many teens fail to learn in there early lives and the lack of them continues to plague them later in their lives. It is necessary to teach them these values in the hopes that a society that is full of these values is created.
Military Service for all between 16 and 21

I mean of course joining the military is a noble tribute towards your country, but why at such a young age? 16-21 is quite young, in fact, just considered young adults. It was scientifically proven by the university of Wales, that between the age of 14-21, we have more resourceful minds than anyone else. So why not be allowed to put this to sue,m for something else? Everyone has their own freedom of choice, so no one should be forced to join the military just because their told to dos o. They have to have the time to enjoy their young adulthood and after all, most of them wouldn't want to join the military because of that.
Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed

First debate, very excited! OK here I go: Everyone has the right to live, no ones life should be ended because someone decided that they should. The saying two wrongs don't make a right goes a very long way when it comes to topics like this. Human life is so valuable, that even murderers shouldn't be deprived of their life, even if they have killed someone. The death penalty is something that you can't take back, it is irreversible! Imagine killing someone and later on finding out that they are innocent. Texas man Cameron Todd Willingham, for example, was found innocent after his 2004 execution. Lastly, using the death penalty doesn't deter criminals, evidence says it does the complete opposite! Twenty seven years after abolishing the death penalty, Canada saw a 44 per cent drop in murders across the country. And it wasn't alone.
Capital Punishment Should Be Allowed

It is important to note they the state does not execute people for the benefit of the family. However, I don't see how the extended process prior to the executions are agonizing since they are serving the rest of their life in prison until execution, and if there was no execution then they would just stay in prison. Christianity is accepting of capital punishment most notably mentioned in Genesis 9:6 [1]. Even if they are mentally ill they still committed a capital crime such as murder or treason and should be punished. Further, people can plead insanity, and also it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally retarded [2]. The death penalty should be allowed because it does save lives, it gives proper retribution, and it serves justice. Sources [1] http://biblehub.com... [2] http://www.oyez.org...