BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Buying a used car is smarter than buying a new car.

First I would like to defend the claim that I made the assumption, "that new cars do not break down. " I did not intend to make that assumption as of course that is not true, if it was, new cars would not have warranties to begin with. Only that new cars break down less then used cars. Car parts, unlike a good red wine, do not get better with age. A smart buyer can find a used car that is as close to new as possible, but any used car with 50,000 miles on it is going to be in a less reliable condition then if it had 0 miles on it. Smart buyer just happens to find the one that is as close to new quality as possible (while the not-so-smart buyer ends up with the one with the shiny paint, and cracked engine block). My opponent correctly states that you can shop around for different warranties to find the smartest deal, however a standard rule of thumb is that the lower the cost, the lower the coverage. As looking at the warranty coverage on his link [1] that they only have limited coverage (please note, this is the "optimum" coverage, not the "budget" coverage). I would like to end with saying that a smart buyer can truly find some good, safe, reliable used cars. But that if reliability and quality are of utmost concern, they can make the choice to pay extra for that new car, to get the most of both of those, for the money. That is their decision to weigh and make, and if they decide that is what is best for them, that does not mean that they are not smart for choosing a new car. And for my final summation, "If no one bought a new car, we'd have no used cars. " Regardless of the voting outcome, my opponent had a wonderful first debate and I look forward to many more. Thank you, [1] . http://www.warrantys.com...
Buying a used car is smarter than buying a new car.

I would also like to apologize for the small character space. While my opponent does make some good arguments, He does quite a bit of assuming. For example, he states, "For someone with a high paying job, where time is extremely important, like perhaps a salesman that needs individual accounts to make or break a year, a broken down car can completely ruin a career. " The assumption is that new cars do not break down. That is just not true. In fact it is the very reason why there are yearly reports on the most RELIABLE new vehicles. Many new vehicles have inherent problems. Also, I already established that with accurate reporting on the vehicle, and the fact that a SMART consumer will have the car inspected by a mechanic, he/she can be confident with there purchase of a used car. My opponent also gives an example of an extended warranty, and states, "I would like to say that these warranties can often be very expensive. " Again, these warranties can be found much cheaper by a SMART consumer. For example, there are sites where companies compete for the lowest price. A three year, 36 thousand mile warranty for that same truck can be purchased for $1699.00 from Preferred Warranty and financed at %0.0. I don't have to tell you the math in order to tell you it is less than $150 a month. This warranty also covers a rental car and lodging when outside of a 100 mile radius. That should alleviate the whole getting around problem. The smart move is purchasing a low mileage, pre-owned automobile. The first person already ate the immediate depreciation(thousands of dollars). My opponent already agrees that $10K is much more to some than others. Well, that's a lot to me just to throw away by driving off the lot. My final summation is, "EVERYONE drives a used car. " I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my first debate, and look forward to his final round. References: . http://www.carbuyingtips.com... . http://www.warrantys.com... . http://www.automotive.com...
Buying a used car is smarter than buying a new car.

This is my first debate here, so I am going to attempt to justify my position with as many facts as possible. Definitions: Smart-showing mental alertness and calculation and resourcefulness Smarter-the comparative form of "Smart" Used, in this case, means that at least one other individual has owned/leased/rented the vehicle. I look forward to hearing my opponents defense for new car buying, as this subject holds a lot of importance in everyday living. May the best debater win, and good luck.
Employers should be permitted to discriminate against the obese in the workplace

Alcoholism is an addiction.Obesity is a physical state.An alcoholic gets withdrawal symptoms like shaking. They would perform worse on a patient and risk his life hence failing their duty as a surgeon if they were to be a drunk doctor the whole time. Thus, ANYONE, alcoholic or not, should not be drinking when operating. Non-alcoholics have medical conditions such as Parkinson's that do not allows hands to stop shaking. Thus they cannot operate. Your analogy is thus ridiculous and I think it should be totally disregarded.Obesity is not an addiction. An addiction to 'food' is just as bad as alcoholism and hence barely any job lets you eat outside of 'breaks'. Thus, I think it's a matter of health and safety to stop anyone, EVEN ANOREXICS to eat in a work place. As is it necessary to stop a straight edge Buddhist monk who suddenly decides to give up his religion to not drink in the work place and fire him immediately.The truth is this: Employers should not, ever, in any way have any right whatsoever to discriminate against a worked who is obese. Ever.If a person who happens to be obese can do the job well, they get it if they can't they don't. It's like saying turning down a black man to play for a white guy's role in a movie is discrimination, no it's just they can't do the job. You suggest an almost religious disgust amongst employers to the obese being permitted whereby before you open your mouth at the interview they should have warrant to ask hey are you obese? Oh okay... You don't get the job sir. Well unless they are applying to be something like a model this is VERY IMMORAL and disgustingly unjust. If you can conceive any way in which that is 'okay' or 'permissible' then I'm sorry but you might be a psychopath (one who can't feel guilt).
Employers should be permitted to discriminate against the obese in the workplace

Let's draw a parallel between obesity and alcoholism, both conditions are self-inflicted and, given sufficient will-power and support, can be overcome. Please review the following job interview scenario: Hospital Manager: Well, Doctor Tikka-Masala, you are certainly qualified for the vacancy we have for a brain surgeon but I do have one concern: I can't help noticing that your hands are shaking uncontrollably, and that may be an issue when performing delicate operations on a patient's cerebral organ. Doctor Tikka-Masala: The reason my hands shake is because I'm a chronic alcoholic, but don't worry, after a few stiff whiskies they're as steady as rocks and I always down half a bottle of Jack before I operate on a patient. Hospital Manager: I see. The problem is, the hospital has a policy that says that doctors can only perform surgery when they are sober, which means, in your case, that we can't offer you the job. Sorry. Doctor Tikka-Masala: But that's blatant discrimination against alcoholics! {Takes a large swig of whiskey from his hip flask} Just because I like a drink doesn't mean I can't do my job, you. .. you. .. drunkist bastard. You'll regret this pal {hic}, you'll fvcking regret this. .. remember, I know where you work, I know where you fvcking work, you. .. you. .. sanctimonious, drunk-hating tosspot. I think you will agree, having read that dialogue, that the Hospital Manager was right not to proceed with Dr Tikka-Masala's job application, even though he may have judged the candidate to be unsuitable solely upon his addiction to alcohol. . Now, with reference to my opponent's rebuttals, while I agree that some fat women are able to provide sexual services just as well as slim women (although I don't think many tricks would pay for an obese ho to sit on their face, especially not on a hot day) and that certain athletes such as rugby players and American footballers may be, by BMI measures, technically overweight, clearly there are some jobs where the indolence and gluttony of the obese, together with their size, will make them unsuitable for the vacancy and, therefore, employers should be able to discriminate against them. Thank you.
Employers should be permitted to discriminate against the obese in the workplace

If the resolution were named this "Employers should be permitted to discriminate against people who can't do their job efficiently" I would agree. It's the fact that it specifically identifies teh obese which I want to attack.Based on the resolution, if we were to take the slim, sexy Britney to be a pornstar but she couldn't last one minute before collapsing and the obese ugly Veronica but, if you zoomed in on her face and jus tshowed the man and his reactions, it would show just how amazing head she could give, we'd have to pick Britney. Not only would this negate that a fetish for BBW (big beautiful women) exists but also denying that being hot is only one aspect of being apornstar.There CAN be obese acrobats, all that matters is that the amount of muscle they have allows them to propel themselves better than the slim competitor for the same job role. In fact muscle weighs more than fat and many rugby players are officialy obese[1]. Obesity is not at all grounds to prevent people in physical lines of proffession, instead if one were to observe that a person who HAPPENS TO BE obese is unable to do the job as effectively as a slimmer individual this is good grounds to discriminate against the one who couldn't do the job but not because they are obese.I would like to let you know there are many slim unhealthy individuals wo are slim due to luck of metabolism. This is a perfect counter argument to any basis of discrimination against the obese.Additionally, I think that peopel should never discriminate against ANYONE for ANY REASON OTHER than their ability to do a job. If it HAPPENS TO BE that one's obesity is causing less efficiency to do a job the person should be unexmployed int hat professionon the sole basis of efficiency."Don't judge a book by its cover." -Ancient proverbBetter to have an obese ninja than a perfectly physiqued sports addicted narcissist working for you.Sources:[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk...;
Samsung VS. Apple

In a moral argument, yes that would be a bad thing. But when debating which corporation is better, you have to take into their revenue, marketing strategy, corporate structure, fan base, amongst many other variables. Apple has built a corporation that operates on social pressure and hype. Morally wrong, but a genius marketing strategy that is clearly working for them. Apple revolutionized the smartphone by essentially setting the standard for what smartphones look and feel like today. The vast majority of the population didn't own a smartphone until the iPhone came out. Con is debating the superiority of the corporations while taking into account all the listed variables above.
Samsung VS. Apple

"Apple makes cheap products and marks up the price to maximize profit" -I have to agree with that, but did isn't that a bad thing that gives profit only for the Apple company? If they make their product cheap but makes it expensive, they're giving out products that are no better than Samsung's but making the price more than the normal price of a decent smartphone. So if that's true, I have to say that Apple's kind of evil. I have to agree that Apple is lucrative, but I got confused again when you said "The iPhone revolutionized the smartphone...". Umm, what are you talking about? Have you not listened to my previous argument? Ever since the very first smartphone came out from Samsung, Samsung always made the best smartphones in the world! You can watch a YouTube video, a review site, or anywhere comparing the iPhone to a Samsung and you will clearly see that Samsung always had the best specifications. For example, Samsung Galaxy phones supported 1080p contents since the Galaxy s3 came out at May 29, 2012, while Apple phones only supported 720p until the iPhone 6 came out, and not just a normal iPhone 6, you have to have iPhone 6+ to support 1080p. Have you even read what I wrote on my previous argument?
Samsung VS. Apple

First of all, Apple and bunch of other companies copied Samsung's pioneering of the "smartphone" that we know today. The kind that we can download apps, listen to music, browse the internet, make a call, take photos, etc... If you don't believe that, you should believe this. Apple and bunch of other companies, again, copied Samsung's S-Watch. I'm talking about a smartwatch that can listen to music, make a call, email on your watch, etc... After that, Apple and many others used that idea to make their own smart watches. Another flaw in Apple is that Samsung actually makes Apple's processor chips. You can search it up and then you'll find millions of proofs about it. Second, the quality. I have to admit that Apple's simple design is beautiful and magnificent while keeping it simple, but you can't ignore Samsung too. Samsung uses reinforced plastic, which might sound cheap and low quality, but it's much more scratch and crack resistant than Apple's glass screens. Now, you might be saying, "HA! The new Samsung Galaxy phones use freaking GLASS for the back and the front!!!" Yes, they do, but guess what? Samsung heats up the glass before production to make it more hard and durable and make it sexy at the same time. If you look at many YouTube videos, Samsung's Galaxy s6's glass back and the front is stronger than the iPhone 6's glass! Third, the performance. Samsung uses dual processors, so Samsung's performance and speed is way faster than iPhone 6's. Not just because it has two processors, but because Samsung's processors always been faster than iPhone's in the past years. Not just that, Samsung has much better camera that the iPhone 6. Samsung Galaxy s6 has a 16-megapixel camera while iPhone 6 has only 8-megapixel camera. Ever since Samsung release the Galaxy s3, Samsung's devices supported 1080p video and photo sizes, while iPhones only had 720p until the iPhone 6+ was released. That's all what I'm going to say right now, since I have to go somewhere.
Is it morally acceptable to hit a woman if she hits you first

I agree with you completely. Woman whine and whine about "Equality" And then when they f***ing swing at a man and get hit back they sniffle and cry about it and play the victim card. Woman are dumbasses. Woman are scientifically proven to put emotion over logic so when I hear the words "Woman Power." I f***ing cringe so hard I fold inside of myself.
Wylted 100th Debate: The United States should implement caning as a punishment for criminals.

This debate won't be started for at least another 2 weeks. Between then and now, I'll work on the resolution. Any advice on that part is welcome. The debate should be impossible to accept and I will be nominating judges and doing a choose winner option. Judges are yet to be determined and any suggestions by potential opponents will be considered. I'll be arguing that criminals should have the option of being caned it going to prison, should they receive a jail/prison sentence. Yes, even murderers. Edit: Definitions that might come in handy; Caning- "Caning is a form of corporal punishment consisting of a number of hits (known as "strokes" or "cuts") with a single cane usually made of rattan, generally applied to the offender's bare or clothed buttocks. " http://en.m.wikipedia.org... I propose judicial caning as an alternative to sentencing as a punishment for criminal convictions. It will be optional for criminals who are not a grave an imminent threat to society, which is the case for many murderers. The caning will take place in front of an appropriately trained medical professional to insure the caning doesn't cause irreversible damage or death to the criminal. Edit: only people with an ELO of 2500 and up can vote on the debate.
The story of the flood and Noah's ark is a fairy tale.

Of course myth is a myth. So we should not literally believe 'The story of the flood and Noah's ark' in the bible. But, I can show you this story is based on real big flood in the past time. Everyone(include bfitz1307), if you read this book named 'The Long Summer : How Climate Changed Civilization' by Brian Fagan(I refer to Korean version and I show you this link : http://www.islandnet.com...), you can find The great flood(B.C. 10000 ~ B. C. 4000) in the contents of a book. Next, if you open the page 155 ~ 190(Caution! : I refer to Korean version. So if you refer to these book, you should predict the page in the original version is little different than my introduction.) Frankly, I don't know how to explain this great flood because this translation from Korean to English too hard to work. I show you detail explanation next round. Of course, This great flood was not big as the description of the Bible, but the water in the Mediterranean Sea had flooded so the Black Sea made by rising 150m. In addition, this flood continue 2 years. In the past time, people are much less than current time and people live together near sea and water, the people could easily think the great flood are disaster from god. I have an idea how oppose your opinion in my brain, but I cannot show you detail yet..................(cite from : 'The Long Summer : How Climate Changed Civilization' page 166 ~176, refer to Korean version) I'll promise you I show you detail explain and powerful oppose next round!
The story of the flood and Noah's ark is a fairy tale.

It is my belief that the story of the great flood, and of Noah and his ark is a myth. I will be arguing against a literal understanding of the story. My argument is as follows: 1. The ark could not have been built and made sea worthy 2. The animals could not have been gathered nor survived on the ark 3. He could not have cared for them; fed, watered, sanitation, exercise 4. Where did the water come from? Where did it go? 5. The bible says the water covered the highest peak with 15 cubits of water, Everest is 29,029 feet but the animals and Noah couldn't have survived at that altitude for that long 6. No evidence of the flood, other civilizations were around at the time and apparently survived it 7. How did plants survive 8. How did disease survive the flood 9. What did animals eat after they left the ark 10. How did humans repopulate the earth so quickly 11. Why didn't this devastating flood destroy ancient Egyptian pyramids I believe this is sufficient, for now. I will anxiously be awaiting a fellow debater.
Impromptu Video Debate

I accept. RESOLVED: Luna is the Superior Alicorn Princess. 1. Do you generally live your life during the day or during the night? 2. Which Alicorn Princesses betrayed her world in an attempt to rule over all the land?3. Why is Luna a more pivotal character than Twilight Sparkle?4. What makes Luna superior to Cadence?5. In general, which Alicorn Princess would you prefer to be?
Impromptu Video Debate

Con may not post arguments, framework, explanations, definitions or anything else. Just the resolution and his or her first five questions. If anything else is posted it will constitute a full forfeiture of all seven points of the debate. I repeat, Con should only post the resolution and his or her first five questions in his or her first round. = Rules = 1. No video in the first round. 2. All videos have a maximum time limit of 5 minutes for speeches. The video itself can be slightly longer, so long as the actual speech doesn't exceed 5 minutes. 3. Keep debate jargon to a minimum. If the jargon can be understood in the context of an argument then it's acceptable, but don't use debate lingo in place of actually explaining an argument. 4. The BOP is shared between the Pro and the Con. Con may not simply refute Pro's arguments, he or she must provide their own arguments as well. 5. In the event that Con presents an abusively skewed resolution, Pro reserves the right to present a different resolution entirely. This does not mean that Pro gets to change the resolution just because he dislikes it, it must be legitimately abusive. A warrant of abuse will be provided in Pro's round 2 if this turns out to be the case. 6. Pro and Con may also post up to 5 questions each round in the text portion of the debate. Con will post his or her first five questions in the first round, and will not post any questions in the final round. Pro will post his final set of questions in round five. This way each debater gets the chance to ask 20 questions and have them answered. 7. Answers to questions may be provided in either the video or the text portion of the debate.
The right to life ought carry greater legal weight than the right to free exercise of religion

"Abstain from what is strangled and from blood" is not the actual writings it's "abstain ... from the meat of strangled animals and from blood" and it's about not eating animals that were killed inhumanely - it has nothing to do with this argument. Religion can give one hope to live when they consider suicide. Religion has sparked the greatest civilisations of the world. Religion gives people faith to fight death. All of the major religions prohibit death in most cases with exceptions (7 cardinal sins in christianity etc.) Faith healing is deemed by major religions as a fraud by those who claim to be 'faith healers' and prayer doesn't ensure but only contributes to well being major religions hold the right to life very high only religious fanatics (which are rare) kill their children for their religion. JC
The right to life ought carry greater legal weight than the right to free exercise of religion

In so far as human rights recognise the sanctity of human life, my opponent has a point: most of society shares the belief that a human life is the most valuable of all commodities. Ironically, it is only psychopaths and religious extremists that do not share the belief that human life is of paramount importance. Devoutly religious people have always placed faith and obedience above the right to life, and human sacrifice was common feature of the ancient pagan religions ofEurope, the religion of the Mayan civilisation and other primitive religions around the world. Indeed, ritual killings are still common in sub-SaharanAfricato this day. (1) Furthermore, many adherents of certain faiths are willing to kill in defence of their religion, most notably: Muslim fundamentalists; Zionist Jews and Hindu extremists such as members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh organisation. In the past, Christians have also killed in the name of their religion: the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition are a couple of notable examples; but these days the governments in most Christian-dominated countries have outlawed causing death in the name of religion; except where it comes to the "right" of parents to deny their children life-saving medical treatment, and it is this anomaly that I argue to needs to be addressed. Thank you. (1) http://hrbrief.org...