BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Who's better: Apple or Microsoft

Microsoft is better because more games can run on Microsoft computer than apple computer. Microsoft has better secure for files. here why first encrypt a file efs than encryption the file with one key encryption. after that efs encryption the one key with a public key. now only a person with a private key to that file may open. here the score Microsoft 1 for games. 1 for security. Microsoft have automatic update so do need to check for update does by itself. Apple your must check for update.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

That is the case, not every action will have a moral consequence. Just because that may be the case then, does not mean it is the case every time. Yes, she may have things going on that day, but what about when she does not? Not every action has a moral consequence. What if the waitress does not have anything going on, she does not have a child and she is single? The individual helping her would be solely doing that, helping her. The individual doing nothing, would do nothing but having her do her job, and the individual making a mess would make her life more difficult. We do not know what is going on in others lives, which is why we should take others into consideration. By taking others into consideration, we can make determinations on whether it can affect someone positively, negatively or be neutral. On your topic on the homeless person, sometimes actions have only moral consequences. In that specific case, we cannot determine what exactly is going on in that person"s life. We would not know if it is a moral consequence or not. Based on the Hedonistic Calculus, if the amount of people affected are more than just you then it may be morally consequential. Intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent have a big part in it. If we base our actions off these factors then we can determine whether or not something will have a moral impact on someone"s life. Something that will forever change their life in such a way that they will always remember that and affect more people. Therefore, not every action that we make has a moral consequential effect on someone else. Just because if may effect them in one way, does not mean that it is a morally right or wrong effect.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

I would not be neutral, and that is what I am arguing for, that even if you do nothing there will still be a moral consequence. It cannot not have an affect on someone. If the outcomes of the actions weigh more to pain than pleasure it still has an outcome. If someone sees a homeless person on the street and doesn't give them anything that has a outcome. If they see the homeless person and gives them something that has a outcome, and they can both be painful to that individual. The fact would be that it is still a moral consequence. Aside from the two people involved in the cause and effect those actions can have a moral consequence to someone else. Back to the waitress. If the individual decided not to help the waitress and continued on their way, it can still have a moral consequence, yes even for things that they had no idea about, but it still produced a moral consequence. Take for example if that waitress has to go pick he child up from day care, and the decision of that individual to help with the dishes would have made her get to her child that much sooner, it would be pleasurable than if that person decided to just eat and leave, and she is maybe late to getting her child because she had to clean up those dishes, possibly miss a train or something uncounted for, it would still be a moral consequence.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

Yes, you are absolutely right with that certain situation. Although, the argument is whether or not there are any type of actions that have no effect on someone else, not whether there are actions that do have an effect. We all know that every cause has an effect. It is extremely unfortunate that we live in a world in which some actions do have more of an effect on others than the other. As far as the government goes, as of right now you and I have no control over that. The people that are experiencing that are the ones that must act on what the government is doing, just as the people of Egypt and Turkey have done. Back to my prior example with the waitress, I had multiple options on what I could have done, I could have not only done nothing, but I could have made a mess and been a belligerent customer. What would have produced more pleasure, pain or made the waitress neutral? The decision of not doing anything would have made her neutral, as opposed to making her happy, or making her upset. Yes, we do need to weigh the seven circumstances, and in doing so, I have determined that by not producing a moral consequence in her life would be by not doing anything. Morality to me is doing good or bad. Is it bad for me not to do anything, or is it good? It is neutral and it is not going to affect her in that manner. If I do good, then she will benefit from it, if I do bad then she will suffer from it. If I do nothing, she will do her job and not be affected by my choice of doing something or nothing.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

Many times humans do things without keeping other in mind and only thinking or pain or pleasure. They weigh the pros and cons of their actions for them, but with that there is always someone else on the other side. Whether we take government actions, to community actions straight own to individual actions they have a moral consequence. Let"s take for example a governance of a certain nation decides to be a dictatorship that will have a moral consequence on the people of that nation for generations to come. Let"s take a look at the current events for a moment with the Trayvon Martin case and that community"s decision to have a community watchman group. The actions of that community played a part in the moral consequences of Zimmerman"s actions with Martin. There are moral than one consequences in this case. And an individuals decision to help a waitress with her dishes produces a moral consequence of pleasure for that waitress. If that individual chooses not to help that waitress with those dishes it would still have a moral consequence even if cleaning up those dishes was her job. In order to see that an action produces pain or pleasure, we need to weigh the seven circumstances I provided earlier in my round 1 argument. if the weight of the actions lean more to pain than pleasure, or less pleasurable than pleasurable it still is a moral consequence. Now that individuals decision to not help just left the situation at where it would be they just ate there food and left. Now it is not that persons job to worry about if this decision that they have just made will be pleasurable or painful, but none the less the action will have a moral consequence.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

If we utilize pain and pleasure as our guides, then we will do whatever will make us happy. If what makes us happy will bring us pleasure then we will do that. If what makes us happy is through a temporary pain then we will do that as well. I am not saying that we should not take others into consideration and recklessly do whatever we want, but if we take others into consideration, an action that I conduct may not have a moral consequence on someone else. For example, if I go to eat at a restaurant and decide to help the waitress out with her dishes, it would be beneficial for her, and she would appreciate it. On the other hand, if I did not do anything to help her out, it would not matter because that is her job and she is used to doing things of that nature. My action of not doing anything has no moral consequence on her. What is a moral consequence? Is it solely when someone feels pain/pleasure through action? What is pain? A moral consequence to me would be similar to making an impact on someone that will be long lasting in such a manner that will either make someone a happier person or more upset. You are right, every action does have an effect on someone else, but it does not mean that it is a moral effect. So, due to the fact that I choose to not take action in helping the waitress, she is not harmed and there is no moral consequence in my action because she was already going to do her job. If I did decide to help her, she would be happy that someone took their time to be nice.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

I thank you for accepting Disagree that there are actions that do not have any moral consequences. If we continue with the principle of utility, actions are considered moral through pain and pleasure. If some one has an effect of either pain or pleasure it is still moral. I do not argue that of the Jainism, but that every action has an effect and it is moral. Whether that action is big or small it affects someone, in a good or bad way. That is just how action works, the Good and bad, and cause and effect. So I argue no actions are without moral consequence
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

I accept your challenge and argue for the con; there are human actions which have no moral consequences. Using the principle of utility, I will show how certain actions do not have moral consequences and that sometimes we must endure pain to receive pleasure. I will argue for con through the following premises: We utilize pain and pleasure as guides to make us happy. Not all of our actions affect those around us. In order to be happy we should take others into consideration. So, if someone conducts an action that makes them happy and that action does not affect someone else in anyway, then it will not be a moral consequence. Morality does not necessarily have to be included in someone"s actions. The hedonistic calculus shows how some actions do not have moral consequences. Pain can bring pleasure. Therefore, not every action has a moral consequence. I am not denying the fact that there are actions that may be seemingly small that will possibly effect someone in the future, but whether that action produces will always produce a moral consequence is what I will be arguing against. To every cause there will be an effect.
There is no possibility of a human action without moral consequence

I argue that there is no possibility of a human action that has no moral consequence. I conclude that actions all have moral consequences, even if they are not known or seen immediately. As the principle of utility states all actions are controlled through pain and pleasure and if the action is not causing pleasure to someone then it must be pain. I argue the moral consequence of actions through the following: 1.We make decisions on our actions through pain and pleasure. 2.Our actions affect those around us through these same measures. 3.Men are disturbed by the ideas and notions that they form around things or actions. 4.Therefore, no matter how simple an action may be, once someone has formulated and idea about that action it produces a moral consequence. 5.Moral meaning pain and pleasure 6.Pain and pleasure have seven circumstances, its intensity, its duration, its certainty or uncertainty, its propinquity or remoteness, its fecundity, its purity, and its extent. 7.If by the slightest that one out weights the other, that action will have served as painful or pleasant. 8. Therefore, there is always moral consequence to any action. In sum, even though an action may be seemingly small, it still has an effect on someone.
Power is not a means, it is an end.

To me, power is an end. The point of power is to revel in power. If power is used as a means, then the end of the means (wealth, political sucess etc.) will be pointless. All ends besides power seem meanngless to me, all ends except power die and fade away. Power is eternal, and even after someone dies there power will be remembered, were they weak? Were they strong? Eventually all other knowledge of a person fades away into the background and eventually all that is left is their power. For example, take Any leader who conquered and dominated other lands. Their power is what most people remember of them, no one rememebers what their personality was or who they truly were. This shows that power is immortal in comparison to other ends. This has a distinct advantage over power being a means. Power is meant to be reveled in, the power over other things or other beings. Now i will discuss why the other ends are meaningless. The reason is because in everybody, power is the only thing people desire. Power over others, over life, over death. Take greed for wealth for instance. What does money get? The answer is power. Money is a temporary form of course, because it is man made. But money still gives power. Lust for another is created by the need to procreate, which gives children, ensuring immortality for your genes, ensuring power over your descendants psyche. Gluttony stems from a desire to consume, which in turn fulfills a need for survival, which in turn lets man continue to aquire more power.No matter how lofty a goal, how lofty an end seems it is only for power. How about doing a good deed? This comes from the want for attention, which comes from the want of love, which comes from the want to control people with their love for you. How about causing a revolution for freedom? The revolutionaries soon become dictators, and the need for power contiues. Lofty goals are lies, the only reason they are used is the continued aquisition of power.Power as a means, of course, is useful. It is easier to obtain more power when one already has power is it not? But the other ends as i have shown above are useless to strive for, aside from the aquisition of more power. Which means no matter what power is used to gain power. Powes inevitable to be an end.
Fast food is bad

I apologize for being unclear. When I said fast food is a cause for many deaths, what I meant was that if not eaten in moderation, it can cause obesity, which can lead to heart disease or diabetes, which can eventually lead to death [1]. I said that some people really do not have a choice when eating fast food, and you said that this statement was unclear. I disagree. I said in round one that healthy food is generally more expensive to eat than unhealthy food [2], which is why many people naturally turn to a place like McDonalds with its high-fat, yet extremely cheep, diet. I do not know how to elaborate on that. Basically, people today are poor, so they have to buy food that is cheep. "...it is not hard to eat healthy at a fast food place. For example, McDonalds has many low calorie options for no more than a regular meal..." This may be true. McDonalds and similar fast food restaurants carry dishes like salads or even kids menu items like apple fries that are healthier to eat than its other, fattier foods, but that does not make the fattier foods any better. Just because one can go to McDonalds only to eat a salad and still be healthy does not make the burger that his friend is eating any healthier. That is just ignoring the fact that all but two or three items on the menu is bad for you. It says at [3] that McDonalds' Big Breakfast with Hotcakes is 1090 calories a tray. That is over half of an average persons' calorie intake a day, all in just one meal! Unhealthy. You know what else it is? Cheep. The Big Breakfast costs $2.39. In, conclusion, while the fast food restaurant may carry SOME healthy choices, for the most part, their dishes are fatty and unhealthy with little to no nutritional value, and the only upside to it is that it cost you a dollar to eat. Just eating salad the whole time is not the solution to fast food restaurants being okay to eat at. The solution is either to stop eating there or for the fast food restaurant to make healthier food. Thank you for allowing me to join this debate. 'Twas interesting! Have a great holiday! 1. http://www.nih.gov... 2. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... 3. http://www.esquire.com... 4. http://www.jacksonlocal.com...
Fast food is bad

Thank you, I apologize for my unresponsiveness it will not happen again. Definitions: "Pink slime"- A controversial ingredient made of cow by-products.[1] Fast food- Of, relating to, or specializing in food that can be prepared and served quickly.[2] Contentions: I would first like to point out that while pro lacks ANY citation whatsoever. Now on with the debate, "Fast food is a known cause for many deaths.". I would like to ask my opponent what proof he has to verify this statement as well as the following one: "Have you ever heard of the pink slime used in fast food burgers? At first, pink slime was not approved for human consumption.". While this may be true, many fast food chains have stopped using "pink slime" entirely.[3] "some people really do not have a choice. ", this statement is unclear. Are you saying that they don't have a choice in restaurants? Or that they don't have a choice to eat healthy? Because these are completely different, and it is not hard to eat healthy at a fast food place. For example, Mcdonalds has many low calorie options for no more than a regular meal[4] as I'm sure most if not all other fast food franchises do too. And finally, my opponent stated that "People do abuse fast food restaurants, but those restaurants abuse their customers right back.". While you are agreeing with me on my statement that customers do abuse the restaurants, how exactly do restaurants abuse their customers? Id like you to provide specifics as well as sources to back it all up. Closing statement: Fast food is not evil, or even that bad. there is just no way that you can say that the restaurants cause any sort of serious health risk. Even if someone is unable to eat anywhere else, there are still multiple healthy options for them to choose from, therefor not eating healthy at such a place is the fault of the customer and NOT the restaurants. Citations: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.wavy.com... [4] http://pbdietitian.hubpages.com...
Fast food is bad

I am actually of neutral opinion on this subject, but for this debate I shall play devil's advocate. Fast food is a known cause for many deaths. Have you ever heard of the pink slime used in fast food burgers? At first, pink slime was not approved for human consumption. It was previously used in pet food, and was eventually allowed in fast food because it was a cheep filler that saved more money than buying actual, quality beef. It was exposed to ammonia gas and other gasses, and ended up getting a lot of people sick. Food editor J.M. Hirsh described pink slime as highly mealy with bits and studs of cartilage-like matter. Yummy good. It is true that many people abuse the availability of the fast food restaurant, but some people really do not have a choice. Healthy food is generally more expensive than unhealthy food, so ordering McDonalds half the week is the easy way out of figuring whether a week's groceries or a week's heating is more important. People do abuse fast food restaurants, but those restaurants abuse their customers right back.
The Remaining Nazi War Criminals Should Be Prosecuted

Okay, so my opponent has clearly done his homework. The points I have brought forth so far were not the best. I know I'm losing this debate so far, but I think can still get my point across. I have done some researching and I think I have a solid point to get across. I know it's sort of cheap to bring up these points now that Pro can't respond and I apologise for that, but I think with these statements I can have a chance at winning.The Nazi We Prosecute TodayToday, there are almost no real high-ranking Nazi on the lose. Most of them have ether died or have been prosecuted in previous years. The sane person would look at this and say mission accomplished, but there are still people today who are still hunting Nazis. The Nazis we see prosecuted today are low ranking and have put their past behind them. You have to understand Germany was brainwashed into thinking the Jews were responsable for their misfortune. These low ranking soldiers and policemen that Pro wants to prosecute were decived into thinking the Jews were responsable. Now who do you think we should go after, the decived or the decivers? And now that the decivers are mostly all dead, why do we think it is now okay to go after the decived?Most German Soldier Have Already Recived Their PunishmentWhy should we punish Nazi soldiers twice for the same crime? When the nazi surrendered, the soldiers were sent to POW camps for years before being allowed to go home. Now tell me, is it far to be punish them a second time? I hope your answer to this question is no.ConclusionThough I agree that the Nazi did horrible things, I don't think it is fair or justifiable to prosecute them now. We are generations removed from this war and the people who fought are now old and tired. I think this is a great time to bury the hatchet, but let us not forget what happened. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. It has been fun debating with you Pro.
The Remaining Nazi War Criminals Should Be Prosecuted

"Should we also prosecute the people who were involved with the camps in the United States? If you study WWII you would know that we had camps for the Japanese-Americans during WWII. We are also guilty. We might not have out right killed the Japanese, but still. Why don't we go after these guys? I don't see a reason not to. Do you think we should prosecute the Americans who wrongly imprisoned the Japanese? " The Japanese-American population was detained during the Second World War because many people feared that many Japanese-Americans were loyal to the land of their descent (Japan) over their new homeland (the United States of America), and as such many Japanese-Americans would sabotage the war effort. Now, I will admit that this was ultimately pointless. . http://www.densho.org... However, US Officials had no way of knowing this, and many people with Anti-Japanese views held power within the Government. This Anti-Japanese sentiment was encouraged by propaganda like this: . http://en.wikipedia.org... But as my opponent has admitted, the Japanese were put in prison camps, not death camps. And even if the crimes of the US were as bad as those of Germany, that still wouldn't remove the guilt from the shoulders of most (if not all) Nazi officials. I await my opponent's response.
The Remaining Nazi War Criminals Should Be Prosecuted

Should we also prosecute the people who were involved with the camps in the United States? If you study WWII you would know that we had camps for the Japanese-Americans during WWII. We are also guilty. We might not have out right killed the Japanese, but still. Why don't we go after these guys? I don't see a reason not to. Do you think we should prosecute the Americans who wrongly imprisoned the Japanese?
The Remaining Nazi War Criminals Should Be Prosecuted

"A Nazi soldier should not be prosecuted. No one should be prosecuted for fighting a war they do not understand. I think if anyone, the government officials should pay, not the people just following orders. Same goes for policemen." My opponent just used what is referred to as the "Nuremburg Defense." http://en.wikipedia.org... However, they weren't just following orders. If you study history carefully, you'll find that many of them beat Jews and other groups, often to death, just for the fun of it. They hated the people who they were guarding, and killing them was a form of entertainment for the Nazi guards. Few, if any of them, were completely innocent.