BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Apple vs Samsung

.As to your point where the Samsung S3 and by extension the Samsung phone range is not based on the iPhone range, it is a basic fact that Samsung has copied obviously the design from iPhone. (Apple is al ready winning the favor of the judge in the current law suit between the Samsung s3 and the Apple iPhone 5. One of the easy identified features copied is the pointed bullets at the bottom of the app grid to show on which page of apps you are. There are many more examples but do go search them yourself if you would like. Do see the photo in the article at the link bellow, that shows how the design changed of Samsung after the release of the first iPhone in 2007 http://forums.macrumors.com...
Apple vs Samsung

"Apple products can have less processing power than a Samsung device and still have better performance. E reason for this is that the advanced software of Apple is smarter and more advanced than any other of those that Samsung use, and therefore it can perform better with less." You state no logical reason for anyone to believe that. I will be using the Galaxy S III and the iPhone 5 in my specs. Galaxy S III OS: Android 4.1 Jellybean CPU: 1.5 GHz dual core Display: 1280 x 720 Camera: 8 Megapixel Memory: 16GB, 2GB RAM Up to 64GB of external memory Battery: 3G: Up to 17 hours; 4G: Up to 15 hours (Usage Time)* Standby- 8-12 days Price: $149.99 _______________________________________________________________________ iPhone 5 OS: iOS 6 CPU: 1.3 dual-core Display: 1136x640 pixel Camera: 8 Megapixel Memory: 16GB-64GB Battery: Usage time- 8 hours Standby time- 225 hours Price: 16GB $199 32GB $299 64 GB $399 It seems that judging by the specs, you get a faster phone that can do more due to having an open source operating system for less than the iPhone by getting the the Galaxy S III. Also, the Galaxy looks completely different than the iPhone, as do most products that Samsung makes when compared to Apple. I see no way how Samsung could be trying to copy Apple. Sources used: http://www.redmondpie.com... http://www.samsung.com... http://www.apple.com...
is SAT required to get in a good college

where iam from you have to pay for it but anyways ok if you do have free waivers lets say if you are this smart person with a 3.9 GPA class presidents and all these clubs and you did bad on the first SAT then you have to take it again and you did good now come on that looks kind of fishy of you doing so horrible to so great i mean college may have suspision of you cheating or something because thats fishy right there and you dont want a college to get suspiscious of you also even if you did do so good on a SAT and you have that 3.9 GPA class presidents and also clubs then what was the whole point of taking that SAT there was no point because you alreayd knew you could do could on it so there is no point in taking it so not only did you just wwaste your money or if you got a free one then you wasted your time and the colleges wasted their time in looking at it
is SAT required to get in a good college

I never ever paid to take the SAT just to let you know, I always went to my schools college and career center and qualified for FEE WAIVERS. If students are in a financial bind they can qualify for fee waivers that can help them pay for the SAT. My schools College Career center offered me 4 SAT Fee Waivers so i took the SAT 2 times and the subject tests twice for free because my parents do not make a lot of money. Since your student just recently lost his mother I am sure there is no way a child of a single parent who struggle financially won't qualify for a fee waiver. Since this student would have to go to a college career center to sign up for scholarships or something that's similar to one he/she should know about the many opportunities that can help him with his academic career including these fee waivers. "Eligible students receive a total of four fee waivers during their academic career—two for the SAT and two for the SAT Subject Tests." http://professionals.collegeboard.com...
is SAT required to get in a good college

ok good point but what if they dont have enough money to take it that many times what if they only have enough money to take it one time and they are counting on scholarships to get in college and they have a lot of scholarship to get in a college ok and all they hvae is enough money for them to take it one time they could be on a tight budget or we can use the example about the mother dying since the mother died they have lost lots of money so they can only afford it one time and that was the time when the mother died so what is he gonna do now he did bad because is mother died when he knew he can do good and he also dont have the money to retake it again so then what he is messed up
is SAT required to get in a good college

The SAT is offered SEVEN times in a year and your telling me this student felt the pain of his mother's death the entire year and couldn't focus on any of the SEVEN opportunities he had to take the SAT? The SAT give many opportunities for a person to retake the test so even if that one in a million dilemmas were to happen a student can always retake the SAT. There is also an option that collegeboard gives the test taker which is a person has 3 days after the taken SAT to make the score not count to colleges, all they gotta do is notify them. The SAT proctor will mention this in the instructions so there is absolutely no reason why a good test taker and a smart student with a said GPA of 3.9 would do bad on a SAT he is ready for. If he is not ready because of set scenario make a call to collegeboard to void the test it's that simple, void the test and retake it when the said test taker is ready.
is SAT required to get in a good college

ok I agree with you the SAT is a test to see if you are ready for college well lets say if you are not a bad test taker lets say if you have to take the SAT on a saturday and your mom died that morning you still have to take that test well you know that is gonna be on your mind all morning you will not be able to focus on anything and look you do bad when you are actually a good test taker but something happan that morning that nobody knew would happan and when that college see's hey he has a 3.9 GPA he is smart he is in many clubs class presidents OOOPPPPP look he did bad on his SAT score when you can not say why you did bad they just see that test score and then you work hard all high school for this college and that unexpected thing hapopan and you did bad on your SAT and boooommmm ur dream collapse that college did not take you and your whole dream and what you work for is destroyed
is SAT required to get in a good college

First of all the SAT is a test to see if prospective students are ready for college. My opponent has used the very popular I'm a "bad test taker" excuse to say the colleges judgment of a students admission is unfair. Well I just got to say in college a vast majority of your grade will be on the Mid Term, and Final not homework or participation so if you are a "Bad test taker" you won't survive very long in college to begin with. Having a 3.9 GPA does not necessarily prove anything because there are a lot of different scenarios colleges must consider like maybe your school is full of teachers who do not grade very hard on tests, which would explain why a student would have such a bad SAT score but a high GPA. A student with a high GPA could easily have just gone to a very low difficulty high school like a high school trying really hard to seem like they have high GPA average. I have seen these schools first hand, in my freshman year of high school I attended one of San Francisco's lower high schools and they gave us a grade for homeroom just to raise our GPA. The SAT is a reasoning test taken by every college hopeful and it compares their reasoning ability with the rest of the country who have also taken the same difficulty test so the college system can tell who really is intelligent and who's piggy backing on a easy school system. It would be common sense that a student with a high GPA would have a high SAT score but when a student with a high GPA gets a very low SAT score their high GPA loses all merits because their skills have not been proven.
is SAT required to get in a good college

It's not fishy or suspicious many students are like that, the first time is always the hardest because some people do not know what to expect from the SAT. So the second time they take it, they know how the time limits works, how to formulate a strategy to answer questions faster, they become more efficient the 2nd time because the test has become familiar to them. It is not easy to cheat on the SAT they check your ID, a proctor is supposed to walk around the room checking the desks, and nobody knows what is exactly going to be on the test so they can't acquire the answers before anyone else. Colleges look at your highest scoring SAT because the only time your SAT loses merit is i heard after the 3rd try. With all the tools students have to increase their SAT scores whats so suspicious maybe the second time their parents signed them up for SAT prep courses like none of us on this site has never been to one. There are many books as well with prep questions and practice test to better prepare someone, so that their SAT score can improve. To add to that a student could have cheated their entire way through high school, a class president is just a popularity contest and joining clubs is not exactly hard. Nobody is there to watch your every move through the 4 years of high school and it is a lot easier to cheat in high school on tests, homework, projects, etc. Since the SAT is the same test taken by everyone colleges can tell who really knows the material and who dosen't as well as who probably cheats in high school to get a good GPA.
Homeschooling is better than public school

Homeschooling (N.): The education of children at home by their parents.In America today, there are more than a million homeschooled children. Admittedly, homeschooling is not for everyone, but it is certainly better than public school. Homeschooling is better than public school for three reasons:1. More Academic Success2. Better Socially3. Increased Parental Bonds1. More Academic Success: Homeschoolers are fairly well known to be gifted in the area of academics. Why? Because they are better. In 1997, there was a study released of 5,402 homeschooling students' standardized testing grades. The study was called "Strengths of Their Own: Home Schoolers Across America." In that study, it was found that Homeschoolers outscored public schoolers by 30-37 points in every subject. Homeschoolers usually ranked in the 86th to 92nd percentile if they had homeschooled for two or more years. Big difference. That could be the difference between an Ivy League school or the community college down the street. Homeschoolers simply do better academically. It could be the one-on-one teaching with the parent(s). Maybe it is the ability to choose which curriculum to use. No matter how, homeschoolers have more academic success then public schoolers.2. Better Socially: I know exactly what you are thinking. "Whoa, whoa whoa... better socially. No, I think you're getting this backwards. Homeschoolers are socially awkward and aren't well adjusted." Ehhh... no. According to a study done by the Discovery Institute in Seattle conducted by Dr. Patricia Line, homeschoolers are actually better adjusted for society than public schoolers. They had behavioral analysts watch a mix of homeschooled and public schooled kids play together not knowing who was who. Their finding? Homeschoolers almost always were better adjusted through every test than public schooled kids. Is that wild or what? Homeschoolers have good social lives and friends. They simply have to work harder to have friends and appreciate the ones that they have more.3. Increased Parental Bond: Almost all homeschoolers come from a two parent home. Studies have shown over and over that children that have close relationships with their parents are less likely to commit crimes, get into alcohol and drugs, and to become pregnant as a teen. They are also more likely to be successful in school, have a good understanding of the world, and to go onto good colleges. Obviously, if your child is at home with you or doing things with you a lot, you are going to have a better bond with them.Summary:1. Homeschooled children are much better than Public Schoolers academically.2. Homeschooled students are better socially than Public School students3. Homeschooled students are less likely to get into crime and more likely to be successful in life.Sources:http://www.hslda.org...http://school.familyeducation.com... https://www.google.com...http://www.essentialparenting.com...http://aspe.hhs.gov...http://www.modernmom.com...http://www.livestrong.com...http://www.blog.montessoriforeveryone.com...http://www.webmd.com...http://www.fatherhood.org...http://nces.ed.gov...
Homeschooling is better than public school

Your profile updates say that you have been in for the past hour. You don't need to lie to forfeit a debate:http://www.debate.org... lannan13 posted to a forum topic: The United States of DDO - 2 26 seconds ago lannan13 posted to a forum topic: Midnighters Mafia DP 21 minute ago lannan13 posted to a forum topic: The United States of DDO - 2 17 minutes ago lannan13 posted to a forum topic: Midnighters Mafia DP2 23 minutes ago lannan13 is now friends with My-Self. 34 minutes ago lannan13 posted to a forum topic: Midnighters Mafia DP2 45 minutes ago lannan13 posted to a forum topic: Midnighters Mafia DP2 53 minutes ago lannan13 posted to a forum topic: Midnighters Mafia DP2 1 hour ago
Homeschooling is better than public school

1. Accademics vs. Aging SocietyMy opponent brings up that Homeschoolars are smarter, but what he fails to realize is that we are living in an aging society and that technology is advancing way to fast. I are your parents good with a computer? The aging society is good with technology because it is advancing way to fast for them. Have you ever heard, "You can't teach an old dog new trick." This is what I mean, so sure they maybe smarter, but when it comes to the technolocial area where we have technology these kids are slacking. http://www.patheos.com... as you can see that as fast as technology is advancing that study is falling appart. (not only that but it's from 1997, 16 years ago) Children that are homeschooled are actually falling behind, why you may ask? It's because of the parenents/ teachers. As the kids education grows their parenent's are running out of things to teach. Not only that but it drives parenents crazy to be around their kids 24/7! It also takes away time and hurts the family budget. http://www.homeschool-curriculum-savings.com... I mean here is that you are only going to have one parenent working while the other is a stay at home teacher and thus not making any income and having to rely on their husband's/ wife's income to support everything, from groceries, car payment, house payment, gas, heating, etc... Thus it forces people into poverty hurting America! http://www.patheos.com...To be even more alarming kids in homeschools aren't taught enough about the outdoor world, as kids in school are taught just say no to drugs and say yes to rollar skatting. http://www.youtube.com... get sucked into the bad life and offend get kidnapped or commit crimes http://www.patheos.com...;2. Better SocialyHomeschoolars themselves say that they aren't socialy integrated. Take me for instance being at a private school I was the most hated person, then after I made it to high school after being one year removed from being homeschooled I was and still am the most hated person here. You may say that's bull because you see that I'm really active on this website, but that's saddly because I honnestly trust people on here more then some of my family members, not only that but I am accepted into the society that is debate.org even if I have a few oditities. You might say eh, you're just one kids so you don't count. But if you take a look here on this very site homeschoolars are even admitting this http://www.debate.org... only that but Homeschoolars don't get special social oppertunities like the school sports team and school clubs.3. Increased Parental BondI addressed this earlier. It actual drives families appart. It makes things annoying and tends to give families Cabin Fever and people like to get away from each other.
The optional age restriction.

My opponent brings up several points which I shall, in turn, negate. 1. Age Restrictions "suck" 2. Older debaters are frequently as immature if not more immature than younger debaters 3. In order to avoid immature debaters the rank option is sufficient. A. Age restriction on this debate site is to allow other debaters the choice of what category of debaters they would like to debate. The age restriction is not mandatory, it simply provides debaters with another choice. B. 1. I agree with my opponent that older debaters can also be as mature as younger debaters, however the age restriction focuses more on experience rather than maturity. I know my opponents argument would be that some younger debaters are more experienced than older debaters, however in many points this is not the case. Yes there are exceptions and that is why the age restriction is optional, not mandatory. Also if the person being restricted from debating were to send the person offering the debate a personal message, than in most cases I'm sure the debater being challenged would extend another debate from the debater that is being restricted age-wise. If in some cases the debater were to ignore the challenge than it should be obvious that its the debaters choice not to debate this person. 2. Also a humans brain is not fully developed with rational decision making skills until the person reaches the age of 23. Therefore it is understandable that debaters with the fully developed brain capacity would not want to have an unfair advantage. C. In most cases this statement would be correct, however: 1. Experience on this site may not be relevant if a person has a majority of outside experience. Although there are some exceptions, for the most part, the older you are the more experience you have debating. In these cases you are more likely to find a more experienced debater and avoid younger inexperienced ones by implementing an age restriction. 2. Also if it is shown that a debater has much experience but cannot debate a member simply due to age, a personal message requesting to debate the person will in most cases obtain your admittance, if it doesn't than the person in question would obviously not want to debate the younger opponent. 3. Additionally factoring in the more recent developments of this site, it is understandable that one would not want to debate an opponent who is involved in immature practices. Although not wanting to bring in outside personal issues, I think it only relevant to the "maturity" issue of this debate to note that some of its younger members have been involved in immature practices none of which I care to go into detail about. I would like to thank my opponent for his rousing debate subject and would like to send him my warmest regards. I eagerly await his response to my primary rebuttal and hope that we can steer this debate away from any snide personal comments and keep this debate as factual and as clean as possible.
The optional age restriction.

Okay, so a few days ago, I checked the comments section, and lo and behold, I saw just the debate I was looking for. I quickly clicked on the hyperlink, only to discover that, to my dismay, I was too young to debate this topic. Now, pondered changing my profile age to 100, but I felt that would be dishonest, and against the wishes of the instigator, so I didn't. But, it taught me an important lesson: Age restrictions suck. Obviously the intent, that is, to prevent immature debaters from accepting (aguaunodostres) is certainly beneficial, but it prevents other debaters who are mature, and who won't triple forfeit from accepting. I believe the debate started was started by one brittwaller, a very good debater, and we could have had a very exciting debate. However, as I was too young we did not have that debate. Furthermore, many "adult" debaters on this site could be more mature in their argumentation. I am not mentioning any names, nor am I implying that I have that opinion of anybody here, but often even the older debaters get immature. The rank option is probably sufficient if one wishes to avoid immature debaters, and could possibly be extended to include anyone ranked higher, or ranked no more than x ranks below you.
The optional age restriction.

1. Is my opponent suggesting that it is impossible for member who were actively involved in debates throughout high school and college, to continue debating online and in other formal arenas? One does not "lose the ability to debate" it is similar to riding a bicycle. You may get rusty, however most of the older debaters on this site have since "got back into shape" so to speak. 2. I never stated that it applied to everyone. However it is logically obvious that a majority will be. 3. Taking personal offense from having to send a message is only opinionated and includes no logic. 4. My statement was only a simple inference through logic, not a generalization. So Far I would like to sum up the debate in context for the voters: 1. My opponent never posted a specific resolution for me to refute. By this measure alone you should vote PRO. My opponent has conceded Below I will post the points my opponent has conceded and under those points I will post his quotations affirming the conceded points. 2. Up until the age of 23 the human mind is not fully developed, and therefore a debater over the age of 23 would have an unfair advantage over a child at the age of 15. "I agree, that the brain does not finish developing until 23. " 3. Sending a message in most cases will resolve the age problem "Ah, yes, that is true. " 4. The ability to choose who you debate based off your "own criteria" is a positive quality of this site and indirectly that the age restriction which is also optional, is a positive measure "If one is concerned about getting a quality, mature partner, one can simply challenge a member that meets their criteria. " Since my opponent has made no clear resolution in any of his rounds, and since the points he made in his primary post and in additional points have all been refuted by me and conceded by opponent. I urge you to vote Pro. I would like to ask the voters on this debate to vote for who had the better arguments and who won in terms of the debate and not for outside reasons like agreeing with my opponents viewpoint before reading the debate. I would like to end by thanking my opponent for his clever arguments and good manners.
.9999999 bar does not = 1

"how does the fact that there are infinite 8's make it that the results will be the same?"The results are the same because the lack of one decimal point is irrelevant when dealing with an infinite number of decimal points, regardless of whether or not "inf. - 1 - inf. = -1"Simply put, 9.999... - 0.999... = 98.888... - 0.888... = 89.999... - 0.999... ≠ 8.999...Multiplying 0.888..., or any decimal by 10 moves the decimal point one place to the right, exactly the same as 0.999... but, as we can see with the previous example, the movement of the decimal point has no impact on the result. In short, having "one fewer decimal place" does not change the result.