BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social Security

This debate will be over Social Security and whether or not it is a good system that should continue to exist. I will be taking the con side, where I argue that it should not exist. My opponent will take the pro side, arguing that it is a good system and should continue to exist.Round 1 is for acceptance only. Round 2 is for arguments only, not rebuttals. The remaining rounds are for rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. I look forward to a productive debate.
Metropcs is for drug dealers

Whether Metro PCS requires a photo ID or not is irrelevant. I don't think that AT&T does either. .. .I don't remember being asked for it. BUt, as I stated before, drug dealers HAVE photo ID's, so what's the point my opponent is trying to make? The drug dealer doesn't care if he has to show a photo ID, he has to give all his other information to signup, pay the bill, and use the phone. Metro PCS, or any other phone company, doesn't run a background check on their customers. Unfortunately for my opponent, my argument has yet to require concrete proof, I don't have the burden of proving the resolution. As the PRO, my opponent has the burden of PROVING the resolution, if he can not, CON, wins. .. .that's me. Just FYI, I did post the Metro PCS website as evidence for some things that I referenced. My opponent stated that "AT&T, Sprint, Verizon which are the top three cellular providers require you to have established credit to buy a phone and plan from them", however, as I stated in the last round, this is ONLY true if you choose to sign a contract and opt for the subsidized phone. My opponent stated "Metro PCS' whole gig is highly enticing to a drug dealer". .. .again, they offer nothing more that entices a drug dealer than any other phone company. The drug dealer can choose not to take the cell phone contract at another company if he has no credit. Even if my opponents statement was true, however, this would not be evidence in support of the resolution. It states "Metropcs is for drug dealers", this would mean that Metro PCS was created for and currently markets towards drug dealers. .. .my opponent has provided no proof for this. .. .I, have offered proof that supports just the opposite, as I said before, on their website they clearly market low income people, not drug dealers walking around with thousands of dollars in their pocket from one day's "work". . http://www.metropcs.com... My opponent has not met his burden of PROVING that Metro PCS was created for and markets towards drug dealers. He has not proven that the majority of Metro's 6 million customers are drug dealers.
Metropcs is for drug dealers

-As for the part where Metro PCS does not require a photo I.D. My proof is personal experience of purchasing a Metro PCS plan. I truly apologize i didn't video tape this event. If you really want to see for yourself go to your local Metro store and ask if it is required to have a photo I.D. to purchase a plan. -As for the part of my opponent stating no proof. i admit i have no proof but you don't have proof of what amount are drug dealers are subscribed to Metro PCS so there are no factual based conclusions able to be made. -As for the part of buying the phone out right. What i meant by needing credit was that AT&T, Sprint, Verizon which are the top three cellular providers require you to have established credit to buy a phone and plan from them. -Metro PCS' whole gig is highly enticing to a drug dealer. My reasons for that have already been stated. I STRONGLY urge you to vote in the affirmation.
Metropcs is for drug dealers

The reason that Metro PCS doesn't require credit is that they don't use contracts like most other cell phone companies. The lack of contracts ties in with their thing, their gig, their statement (taken from their website), "Talk All You Want Unlimited local and long distance calling. No signed contracts. " Part of being unlimited is having the freedom to change phone company's when you'd like and not be tied and held hostage by a contract. I'd like to point out that other phone companies, such as AT&T, also do not require credit if you decide not to go with a contract and to buy your phone out-right instead of opting for one that is contractually subsidized by the company. That's the key. .. the phone is subsidized, so the company wants to check credit and make sure they are going to get their return on investment and your not going to disappear. If they don't subsidize it, they don't have to worry about that, you don't have to sign a contract, and they don't care about credit. As for the tidbit about the photo I. D. , I'm not sure why this makes a difference, drug dealers have photo I. D. 's. .. .and I'm not sure that Metro PCS doesn't ask for one, my opponent provided no proof for this. My opponent stated in his last post that "the majority or a significant amount of customers are drug dealers", but he offered no proof of this. I doubt he has seen Metro's customer records.
Metropcs is for drug dealers

I will accept my opponents definition of a drug dealer. What I ment by Metro PCS is for drug dealers was that the majority or a significant amount of customers are drug dealers. To sign up for Metro PCS you do not need I.D. or any credit to purchase a phone and service plan, all you need is cash to pay for the plan and/or phone. This just makes it more enticing for the drug dealer. While there is no actual proof of what amount of drug dealers use Metro PCS. Why doesn't Metro PCS require a photo id? Why dont they require you to have any form of credit?.
Metropcs is for drug dealers

First, I will agree that Metro PCS is a cellphone company. Second, I would like to revise my opponents definition of a drug dealer from "dealers of drugs" to "people who sell illegal drugs to other people". Now, the topic states that "Metro PCS is for drug dealers", I take that to mean that Metro PCS, the company, was created to target drug dealers as their main market. However, after examining the company's website, I see no evidence of this. Instead, I see that they make it quite clear who they are targeting....low income people, not drug dealers walking around with thousands in their pocket from one day's "work". With the above said, Metro PCS is NOT FOR drug dealers. Also, Metro PCS says it has 6 million customers.....are they all drug dealers? http://www.metropcs.com...
the police shouldn't be allowed to randomly stop and search people with out any reports of a crime

While I agree that is is not ideal to be pulled aside by an officer for a random search, it prevents a lot of crime. In most public schools, police searches happen commonly at random times, when this happens it prevents drug / substance abuse in the classroom and generally in the building. If you pull people aside and acknowledge their rights, then you can prevent a lot of crime, and maybe even save someone from death. But with doing something like this, comes compromise: 1) The police can only random search in certain parts of the city or county and certain buildings. 2) The police official may not use brutal force on the individual, they must be gentle. 3) If an issue occurs during the search, the police cannot charge the man and arrest, they may only take them to the PD and have them stay there for emergency search. 4) If an illegal item such as a firearm or an illegal dose of drugs is found, the item will be confiscated and the individual would be put in the PD and kept there for further questioning. 5) It is not necessary to hold hearings in the court of the law for such results of random searches unless the individual requests so. I'm not saying police should pull over random people solely based on who they are or what they look like, but getting someone body searches (not frisks) set up would be nice. And while we're at it, police should also be on foot patrol more commonly than they do. Most of the time I see any sign of police it would be an empty police car. I wish that by doing this to prevent the rate of crime in most crime-infested counties.
The Oscar boycott by Will and Jada Pinkett Smith was shameful and counterproductive.

I agree with almost everything you said. But almost everything you said misses the point. Perhaps I did not explain the first point clearly. The Oscars of 2016 just HAPPENED to be virtually all-white, and so just HAPPENED to be a celebration of actors who were white. I certainly am not saying that that's the way it SHOULD be. With that clarification, I say again that if the Smiths would like whites (and others) to celebrate THEIR accomplishments and the accomplishments of blacks in general, then THEY better be in line to celebrate the accomplishments of whites, openly, enthusiastically. There are whites, I am sure, who might have been hurt by the fact that some of the most powerful players in Hollywood boycotted, who were black, stayed away when it came to celebrating the work of whites. Even worse, the Smiths, intentionally or not, detracted from that celebration, by calling attention to their boycott, and it would not have been completely wrong for those white actors to be insulted. White actors winning awards had nothing to do with the fact that there were no non-white actors nominated, and should not be made to pay any price for this absence. I'm glad to see that you agree with me that there is no basis for thinking that the Academy intentionally excluded people of color in their nominations. This implies that you assume that they were honest, or not dishonest. (By the way, I never said that the Smiths should be ashamed of themselves. They were wrong, I believe, but that is not a reason to be ashamed.) You say that the cause shouldn't have existed in the first place. I'm not sure what you might be trying to say with that. Life is ALL about problems, with a little pleasure thrown in for relief. Whites as much as blacks. There is no absence of obstacles, and if it's not one thing it's another. Causes and problems are what life is all about. The implication that blacks in the movies is an important issue is wrong and dangerous. But to get back to the actual issue, the Smiths are implying that an absence of blacks in movies is a reason to boycott! It may be desirable for blacks to be in the movies. It may be good. It may be wanted. But it simply does not follow that an absence of blacks in movies or at awards ceremonies is a bad or negative thing.
The Oscar boycott by Will and Jada Pinkett Smith was shameful and counterproductive.

You say that Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith should be ashamed because they opposed a celebration - as you purport - of "others (whites)." I argue that, if this was indeed the subject of the Oscars celebration, they had every right to boycott it. The Oscars webpage's About section reads: "We recognize and uphold excellence in the motion picture arts and sciences, inspire imagination, and connect the world through the medium of motion pictures." Nowhere in there does it read "of whites." It does, however, claim to "inspire imagination" and "connect the world." This is hardly possible when the awards ceremony itself chooses to exclude one group from its "celebrations" based solely on race. Personally, I doubt that the Oscars team consciously and purposefully excluded blacks and their work from its list of nominees this year. I do, however, understand why the Smiths and others have boycotted the Oscars. The industry has come a long way from having white folks smear on blackface for black roles. Great black actors of the past, ranging from Sidney Poitier to Denzel Washington, have gradually paved the way for African-Americans to be recognized for their film accomplishments. It's understandable that modern black actors would fear a regression from this path, given that there were even fewer black nominees at the 2016 Oscars than in each of the past five years, and by a somewhat drastic margin. So no, Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith should not have adopted the mindset: "Whites and Jews have given us what we have. We should just be thankful and let those who've taken care of us have their fun without us this year. I bet it'll be our turn next year, anyways!" First, what guarantee is there that there will come a future "time to celebrate the accomplishments of the Smiths and other minorities?" Who's to say that anyone BUT minorities are looking out for said minorities? For all we know, the likelihood of a similar exclusion at next year's awards would have been even greater, if not for the outrage and boycott this year. Second, as I mentioned above, blacks have come a long way - through their own hard work - to achieve what they have in the film industry. They've faced controversy and hatred, but persevered for the sake of the message. They admittedly achieved this partly due to the empathy of white businessmen who felt for their cause, but we are forgetting that the cause shouldn't have even existed in the first place. People should be treated based on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin (as a great man once said).
The Oscar boycott by Will and Jada Pinkett Smith was shameful and counterproductive.

Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith are super-rich, super-successful, respected and admired around the world. They have comfortable lives and live in comfortable, safe neighborhoods. All of this is a result of their careers in Hollywood. And Hollywood is a result of Caucasians and Jewish people. Yet, they are unhappy because they, as African Americans, feel that they are not "sufficiently" represented in the movies. But worse, they decided to boycott the Oscars. This was in fact a boycott of a celebration of the accomplishments of others (whites). The Smiths refused to celebrate the achievements of white actors. This might well have the result of making those others less enthusiastic when it comes time to celebrate the accomplishments of the Smiths and other minorities.
Apple iPhone 5 VS Samsung Galaxy Note II

You didn't say I couldn't so I'll start arguing now.Let's get the facts out of the way:Note 2 has 2 GB RAM, an 8 MP camera, 16 GB of ROM, and a quad core processor. There is a removable battery and space for a Micro SD drive. The screen is 5.5 inches.iPhone 5 has 1 GB RAM, an 8 MP camera, up to 64 GB ROM, and a dual core processor with quad core graphics. There is no removable battery, no Micro SD drive, and a 4 inch screen.Just from that, logic would tell you that the Note 2 is slightly better in some areas with ties in other areas. I disagree with that.Flaw 1: Screen The screen on a Note II is acceptable at best for the majority of cell phone users. A screen of that size is unwieldy, unlikely to fit in pockets, and downright ridiculous for a device that has the main purpose of operating as a communication device. In addition to this, the majority of consumers declare the screen is the worst asset of the phone, because it scratches so easily in comparison to that of the iPhone 5. An iPhone in comparison has a reasonably sized screen that is less likely to scratch or shatter. A shattered iPhone 5 can still be used, by the way. A shattered Note II usually needs to be replaced.Flaw 2: CasesThe selection of readily available cases for the iPhone easily trumps that of any other phone due to its unique shape. Usually, the only case a person can find while purchasing a Note II is the crappy flip case that does nothing to protect the phone if dropped. A case can always be bought online, but that would either lengthen the time between now and buying a new smartphone, or would bring the risk that one might drop the phone before the case arrives. Again, iPhone emerges the winner.Flaw 3: App StorageSamsung doesn't allow you to save apps to SD card anymore. The Note II to my knowledge does not come in 64 GB, so by buying a Note, you foreit some app storage that you would get easily with an iPhone 5.Flaw 4: Personal assistant sucks'Sucks' is not very academic language, and for that, I apologize, but sucks is the only way to adequately describe the assistant you get with Note II. Siri is superior in both functionality and voice recognition. I believe CNET actually said in their review of the S3 that S Voice disappointed as a con of the S3, and S3 and Note II have the same personal assistant. A very evident flaw.Flaw 5: Google PlayGoogle Play is littered with malware. The App Store is perfectly clean. That peace of mind is priceless. And even if you are careful, you have to accept the fact that the App store get all the cool apps first.Flaw 6: UpdatesUpdates are not dependent on carrier for the iPhone 5, and you can update the same phone a bunch of times without the need to buy a new phone. Android phones are lucky if they get from 4.0 to 4.1. Flaw 7: Price16GB iPhone 5: $199 16GB Note II: $299In the light of these obvious flaws with the Note II, I believe that the additional 1 GB of RAM and removable batteryis not worth the above. The iPhone 5 is a better buy for the majority of the public, and they should go with Apple over Samsung for their next smartphone.
Apple iPhone 5 VS Samsung Galaxy Note II

1. I never said anything to the contrary of the Note II not being only 16GB in America, where I live.2. An iPhone can handle more things at once because of its software. Yes, most apps are not that intensive, but I can run far more things at once on an iPhone than a Note II, just from personal experience.3. I'm right.4. The video doesn't show the phone with a case on. Show me someone who can use NFC with an Otterbox Defender on, and I'll be satisfied.5. Not available in USA6. Dead heat here, It is nice to be able to customize, but ease of use will matter more for the majority of users.7. Good point, but it is better a recognizing speech than the S Voice App, which is the real comparison here.8. I just can't justify the S Pen being worth an additional 100 dollars.
Apple iPhone 5 VS Samsung Galaxy Note II

1. Currently, the Note 2 only has 16 GB from all carriers, but Samsung has said repeatedly that the Note is going to come out with 32 GB and 64 GB, which would match the iPhone 5's capacities, along with the microSD card function. Also, the Note 2 64 GB actually is released in South Korea: http://www.youtube.com.... So, that statement is completely false. 2. You said that the multitasking is "constructed in such a fashion that running two apps at once is pretty much the maximum if the activities are memory intensive." This, however, isn't true, because majority of the time the apps won't be so hardcore. If this is the case, then wouldn't it be the same on the iPhone 5? 3. Yes, Google Maps is on iOS 6, I just realized that... 4. About your NFC statement, that is false. It is used alot by most Android users. See this: 5. Hopefully you saw the video with the Korean guy showing how he got the Note 2 in 64 GB. 6. I agree that the iPhone screen is easier to use, but the new Jellybean on the Note 2 is MUCH more customizable! You can even change the sizes of the widgets! 7. The iPhone 5 uses "Siri" as it's personal assistant. Most of the time, it gives stupid answers, or no answer at all. It is very hard to use Siri if you are a foreign person (meaning that it's useful for Americans only). Check this out: http://www.youtube.com... and http://www.youtube.com.... Also, Android has something similar to this on Google Play called Iris and also SkyVi. 8. The S Pen is a pretty nice feature, as it combines the tablet with the smartphone... As you said earlier about the size of the phone, you should read this: http://news.cnet.com... As you can see from all of my info and reasoning, I strongly believe the Note 2 is more enjoyable and better than Apple's iPhone 5.
Apple iPhone 5 VS Samsung Galaxy Note II

1. Video: Screen is too large, again. The Note has inferior pixel density too. 2. Multitasking: With an iPhone, multiple programs can run at the same time without slowing you down. With a Note, the software is constructed in such a fashion that running two apps at once is pretty much the maximum if the activities are memory intensive. This is a matter of opinion, but running one app on screen at a time, plus seven other apps offscreen outdoes running two apps on screen at once.3. Maps: Apple Maps is getting better, and your claim that Google Maps is not released yet as a standalone is utterly untrue: http://www.tampabay.com...4. NFC doesn't work half the damn time, especially with a (very necessary) case on. Passport comes pre-installed on iPhone 5, and works better the majority of the time, especially because it uses the screen rather than a burried chip.5. I literally have never seen a Note larger than 16GB on Sprint, so that really sucks for Sprint users. iPhones come in 64GB on all networks. The Cloud is superior to Micro SD by the way, in terms of storage capacity and in functionality. 6. Home screen: This is pure preference, but most people find an iPhone easier to use.7. Voice to text software is superior on an iPhone, so if you don't like the keyboard, you can just dictate. This is not an advantage for the Note II.8. I consede that the S Pen is unmatched in the iPhone, but the consumer must decide if that feature is worth $100. I don't believe it is.Good luck,
Tom Brady is a better quarterback than Peyton Manning

"Manning may have better stats BUT Brady puts more heart into the game. " My opponent has conceded that Manning does have better stats than Brady. Being that stats are a major part of deciding who is the better player, Manning already has a huge advantage over Tom Brady. How can my opponent say that Brady puts more heart into the game? Manning has never missed a single game in the regular season. Brady has missed over ten, and excluding his season-ending injury last season, he has still missed more regular season games. My opponent has not given any proof or evidence to show that Brady puts more heart into the game, so his point holds no water. "If Manning is so good, then why can't he win at least 2 Super Bowl's? WHY? " Winning Super Bowls is not solely based on the quarterback. It is based on the efforts of the whole team, so this point is slightly irrelevant to this debate. However, I must say that Manning has never lost a Super Bowl game. Tom Brady has. Brady led his team to a perfect season, and then completely lost it in the Super Bowl. Manning has a 100% win ratio in the Super Bowl, while Brady only has a 75% win ratio. May I ask my opponent, if Brady is so good, how could he lose the Super Bowl after leading his team to a perfect season? "He has had Harrison & Wayne for the longest time and he still can't bring them to the Super Bowl, never mind WIN. Brady has put so much hard work into his football career and he has managed to take them to the AFC Championship almost every year and he has 3 rings that he obtained with who? .. . Those C+ wide receivers? C'mon. " Once again, Manning has been into the Super Bowl and won. Super Bowls test the ability of an entire team, not just a quarterback. if that was so, your Tom Brady would have won the Super Bowl after his perfect season! Manning has also put a ton of work into his football career. Once again, Brady and the rest of the Patriots have continuously been one of the best defensive and offensive teams for several years. Brady is not the sole reason the Patriots made it to the AFC frequently. Those C+ receivers? Randy Moss and Wes Welker? Brady had a lot of help. Manning is statistically better, along with having a better Super Bowl win ratio. "Manning may have better stats because of his great offense but when it comes down to the Red Zone, BRADY, ALL DAY! " My opponent once again states that Manning has better stats, which is one of the top things that determines who the better player is. My opponent has said that Brady has it all day when it comes to the Red Zone, but he has not provided an argument or even evidence as to why this is significant. "Just remember, you could give Belicheck a toddler and Brady would make it rain with him. Brady can do it all day every day with anyone. " This is completely opinionated and has no logic or evidence. If he could do it any day, then why didn't he do it during the Super Bowl that he lost? Exactly. I thank my opponent and the readers for the chance to debate. My opponent has conceded my point about stats and has not met his burden of proof. I heavily urge a Con vote.