BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Why Apple is better than Samsung

What you said in Round 1 is true, the fact that "Apple has a thin and smooth exterior" does not mean it's better. However, a Supercomputer has absolutely nothing to do with this debate because nor Apple or Samsung owns one. Even if someone has one, it is impossible to carry it around with you because it is so big. You need to have a device that is fast (which Apple's products are), and it has to be somewhat big so that it doesn't strain your eyes (for example, the new Iphone 6 plus). And most adults these days use their phone for calling or to quickly search something. They are not going to use it to type an essay, they might send a quick message or write a quick email. Samsung barely has any small products, which is bad because most people prefer to carry something small and light. And the fact that you said that Apple makes about 3 models a phone, then makes a new phone every year, is not true because Apple only has the ipad, iphone, iwatch, and the Apple computers and laptops. They make a product a year only because they don't want to give the costumers a tough time, unlike the brand "Samsung". My point is that Apple is the easiest phone to handle and the speed is not crap. If it is about speed, getting a big phone from Samsung is not worth it. To increase the Apple Phones' speed, all the developers had to do was insert a small and fast processor.
Why Apple is better than Samsung

To counter your first statement, "Apple is better than Samsung because the style compared to Samsung is nothing. Apple has a thin and smooth exterior," I say, that although Apple's design is overall thinner, does that mean that it is better? No, because even in our modern era, technology that is bigger is usually better. The Titan Super Computer takes up over 4,352 sq. ft. and it is one of the best Super Computers in the world. And also, Apple makes about 3 models a phone, then makes a new phone every year, they are too slow to make new devices. Samsung on the other hand makes new models and phones a lot more often making it much easier to find a phone that meets your special criteria. And it doesn't matter if on Apple has a "No Hassle Contract" just go to Walmart, buy a phone their and get Straight Talk minutes, you go to Walmart every month and get minutes for the month, or buy it online.
Why Apple is better than Samsung

First of all, Apple is better than Samsung because the style compared to Samsung is nothing. Apple has a thin and smooth exterior, which comes in handy for showing off at parties. Unlike Samsung, Apple doesn't go overboard with their products. The make a couple of models for each product, and people enjoy them because it's easier to pick one. Samsung has so many models and products that it is almost impossible to pick one. If you want a no hassle contract, you should get and Apple device, like the new ipad mini or the iphone 6 S plus.
: When in conflict the United Nation should prioritize global poverty reduction over environmental p

The United Nations is an incompetent institution. Investments in poverty reduction from government entities, especially international government entities, because they have to spend money that otherwise would be used to create wealth, in effect do not "reduce" poverty at all-- they spread it around, and help more of it grow. This is not to say they should be taking environmental protection over poverty reduction either. The United Nations has no good reason to exist-- it consists of the least bad governments being guilt-twisted into giving concessions to the most bad. It's prioritization list should read like this: 1. Stop existing. Neither environmental production nor poverty reduction should appear on this list, and therefore neither can be prioritized "over" the other.
Evolution

This definitely is a subject I'll have to look into more before I could ever continue to debate the topic honestly. As of right now, my position is still the same: that constructal law isn't necessarily as important as it's hyped up to be, though maybe to a lesser degree after reading your argument. This is just my position after seeing the three videos as well as some criticism of his book on Amazon and the only places I see it being shown as a foundation shaking law is in popular media (Huffington Post and Forbes) but not any science media. However, I have seen some responses from Bejan to people who are misunderstanding his law (and maybe I am among that group as well), and what he's saying when he explains himself and corrects the other party does make sense. I apologize for the extremely late and brief reply, I'm not well-versed enough in the topic of constructal law to make any rebuttals. This was still a very intriguing discussion, and I would like to continue it. Feel free to message me after this debate is over and we can trade some contact info and talk about all of this sometime. Have a happy holiday!
Evolution

Thank you, I have completed my first semester of college thus far and enjoyed it a lot. It's strange being in a much more culturally diverse place than even I'm from but it only makes the environment ever more exciting. Anyway, on with the show then. I should mention I had never heard of Constructal Law before now but at the same time it seems as if I'd been learning about it all along. The concepts are familiar and it seems to be a build on Thermodynamics itself (in how it describes flow from systems and such) as well as tying into inheritance somewhat. I would contend, however, that it does not seem to be as significant as you say it is after reading up on it and watching videos of Bejan explain the law as well as impressions from students learning it. It definitely reinforces ideas in terms of the application of Thermodynamics to Evolution. I can also see it being applied to a new mathematical concept by Jeremy England that may explain the origin of life, which is actually quite exciting itself. https://youtu.be... - 'Constructal Law Explained' https://youtu.be... - 'Constructal Law Examples' Both videos have Bejan presenting his law. https://youtu.be... - 'Constructal Law Student Impressions' And, in case it peaked your interest, this is the link to Jeremy England's Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org... Have a good day, and I hope your holiday is going good too.
Evolution

I'm looking forward for a good and constructive “discussion” on said subject. Also, congratulations on the transitioning into your “big move for college. ” Your definition of “Evolution” is lacking a relatively new scientific discovery known as the physical constructal law. This law includes your narrow focus on evolution, but to have a discussion on evolution we must include the physics of this design in nature, a fundamental foundation for evolution both animate and inanimate. We are a product of the physical laws of nature and stuck within the matrix of these laws there are no exceptions. We are a way for nature to see and experience itself. The subject of this debate is “Evolution” and therefore, my focus or contribution to this discussion is, as I will debate, no conversation about evolution is complete unless it starts with the foundation of evolution. And on that note, please allow me to introduce Adrian Bejan, the scientist who discovered the constructal law. What Einstein did to Newton, Bejan has done to Darwin; the evolution of understanding evolution. The following journal article illustrates the simplicity of flow resulting in the evolution of configuration: . http://www.tandfonline.com...
Evolution

I'm opening this debate for matters not only of debate but of discussion as well. This is also to make up for my last debate, as I was unable to finish it due to me transitioning into my big move for college. First round will just be me listing out the necessary terms required for one to understand the science behind evolution as well as clear up any possible misconceptions that may arise during the debate, and then con will accept and produce any arguments or objections he may want to make. Proceeding rounds will just be rebuttals of arguments made. Please stay on topic; this debate is solely on Evolution, not other fields of science, religion, or politics. Evolution - the process through which organisms change over time Evolution is a biological science and has nothing to do with the Big Bang and is not an explanation of the *origin of life* either (that is abiogenesis) but the diversity of life. Species - a group of organisms that can reproduce fertile offspring (the fertile offspring part is important). Organisms are classified in a binomial system called Taxonomy, where organisms are named in the format of [Genus] [species] [subspecies] (e.g. Homo is the genus name that comprises of all humans, sapiens is the species name that comprises of a human species that arose around 200 kya, and sapiens is the subspecies name that specifically refers to anatomically modern humans). Cladistics is also used to look at direct common ancestry within groups called 'clades'. For dating ranges, for the sake of simplicity and saving space, I will be using the xya format. Kya means 'thousands years ago', mya means 'million years ago', bya means 'billion years ago'. Vestigial trait - a trait of an organism from an ancestor that has either lost its use or has a different/reduced use (e.g. the legs found in snakes and whales, the fingernails of a manatee, the arm/wing of an emu, etc.). Theory - a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of nature Hypothesis - a proposed explanation that is required to be testable (in terms of the scientific method) Natural selection - differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype One must understand when debating this topic that this theory is as much "Darwin's theory", as the Big Bang is Georges Lemaitre's or Edwin Hubble's theory. It has, pardon the pun, evolved since Darwin's time. While he and his publications are not a bad reference for the debate, I do not suggest using him as a main source. My suggestion is to refer to more updated/modern sources of information regarding Evolution (such as the Tree of Life project, an online searchable phylogenetic tree). Also, be careful with how you quote your sources. I will not respect quote mining to purposely remove context or add context that isn't there, and, depending on the source cited, I will not hesitate to contact the source of the quote directly if need be (I had to do this for my last debate). Good luck to my opponent, whoever they may be.
Black People Need To Grow Up And Join The Rest Of Society

Im going to go one by one on each of the statements made, first BLM is a terrorist organization clearly demonstrated by their anti trump "speeches" and actions such as in Ferguson like destruction of property and vandalism. Sure it"s very possible that the black community can still be discriminated against and if you can list some instances I"ll gladly say "wow that"s messed up, let"s do something about that" but, in our modern America many of the real problems get over looked for superficial ones Ex: in Palm Springs they are trying to remove "racist trees" on a golf course and this in turn undoubtedly removes all validity left of arguments made with just intentions. Not getting hired is not a sole reason for doing crime and that idea is a bit misguided, the vast majority of young black people are raised idolizing thugs and taught to fear and hate the police all their lives (https://m.youtube.com...) this is further perpetuated by rap music influences ( "ugh he just bashed rap he is an old man ugh"). Jim Crow not a thing anymore irrelevant, just an appeal to emotion. Yes racism is a very big thing in other countries but don"t act like western countries are racist because you can move to lets say Israel and see how that goes. Blacks have many many opportunities to get involved with society, affirmative action for example ( which only serves to hurt them because in the long run they got admitted into something they weren"t necessarily prepared for based on their skin color over a possibly better candidate , "kinda racist" ) and many black only scholarships, white people have 0 white only scholarships. I should make a distinction because I"ve been generalizing there is a difference between black people (hard working average joe kinda people) and domestic hooligan leeches. The hard working portion of the black community is the ones who will honestly suffer the most from BLM and other affiliated groups, it tells real racist people "look at these black people always breaking stuff, they should all be removed" instead of "huh look at them being upstanding citizens maybe they aren"t so bad after all" and overall makes the black community more dangerous by driving away cops like in Ferguson making crime shoot up and people literally in fear to leave their homes begging for police back. The best solution is to provide more funding to schools in majority black areas so that their ability to teach effectively increases, actively discourage anti-police sentiments and no more idolization of gang culture.
Black People Need To Grow Up And Join The Rest Of Society

Black lives matter Firstly, look at the discrimination that some of them are STILL facing, it's not that they don't want to work or get a job, it's just that some of them don't get employed or involved within the society due to their skin colour. That is why they do all these crimes and illegal activities and don't wish to work hard. Remember the old Jim Crow Law back then and how the blacks were mistreated and had no freedom or voice? Yes, that law no longer exists but there is still racism that exists in America and other parts of the world. And the blacks are making a move what are you on about, how many protests have they done about how their lives matter and how they deserve being treated equally; they're not just sitting there doing nothing. They are making a move. And there are many blacks in America who are working hard, who are sticking to their work and doing it well, and today they aren't complaining as much as they used to, as the spread of racism in the United States has mostly stopped.
Black People Need To Grow Up And Join The Rest Of Society

Today Black people don"t wish to work hard they would rather act like victims instead of sticking to their work and doing it well. Believe me I get it, where you are born definitely affects what options you have to start but that does not give you the right to say "oh look at me I have it hard so I"m gonna complain about "White Privilege"". Racial privilege does not exist, economic privilege definitely does though. I"m white, my parents were drug addict alcoholics who beat me, I was lucky to be adopted. Don"t act like victim hood gives you a special status, it doesn"t. I was raised that if you want something more than someone else you work harder and longer and don"t complain if you don"t get it, you just didn"t work hard enough that"s your fault not society"s. Nowadays a large majority of black People wish to cling to "Thug" culture glorify illegal activity and hating the police, they are not Americans they are a state allowed pestilence. If most black people wish to move up in the world they need to pull their saggy pants up; Stop glorifying criminals, not be belligerent to the police and not be perpetual victims. Then they would get shot less than they already are( police brutality not a thing ) and over all be safer and happier.
Re: 'Up' is Not a Good Children's Movie

To Begin: Up is, of course, a children's movie (directed at 6-7 year olds and older, given the PG rating). This was obviously the intended demographic. With that out of the way, this debate hinges on how "good" of a children's movie 'Up' is. Now, according to my opponent's definition, I may choose to demonstrate that 'Up' is either: "satisfactory" (which bears no relation to its suitability for children, but instead, its quality), or "standard" (which merely requires that I demonstrate it to be 'above average', in terms of serving its target audience). In order to win the debate, I must demonstrate only one of these statements to be true, as they both fall under my opponent's definition. "Satisfactory" 'Up' is a good movie. Its popularity indicates this, as it grossed nearly 300 million dollars within the U.S., and nearly 400 million worldwide. http://www.boxofficemojo.com... It has been praised by hordes of movie critics. The famed Roger Ebert granted it 4 stars. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com... A popular movie review site, Rotten Tomatoes, awarded 'Up' an incredible 97% rating. http://www.rottentomatoes.com... These figures indicate that 'Up' is indeed a movie of quality, and therefore, quite satisfactory. "Standard" Children's movies are characterized by appropriateness, as well as humor. 'Up' displays both. It is appropriate. Its recommended demographic, by Common Sense Media, is 6 years old and over. http://www.commonsensemedia.org... It is also humorous. Hollywood Reporter describes it as a "joyously buoyant lift". http://www.hollywoodreporter.com... Clearly, 'Up' seems to be a fairly typical children's movie, and an excellent one at that. 1. Many popular children's movies such as Bambi contain scenes of sorrow and death. Much of the enjoyment from the film results from the change in emotional tone, from depressed to gay. 2. This contention is entirely based on my opponent's sense of humor. I, along with several friends, and a number of movie critics noted in previous links, found the movie to be light-hearted and amusing. 3. My opponent, once again, uses his own personal views to formulate a contention. The degree of stress is subjective, and again, relief from said stress produces enjoyment. My opponent concedes that these climatic moments are common.
Re: 'Up' is Not a Good Children's Movie

Box-Office Gross: "There are other possible reasons for the film making so much money; after all, it was a very well- advertised film." Nearly all films nowadays are well advertised. A high gross is almost always an indication of popularity. The highest grossing films of all time are all very popular. http://en.wikipedia.org... Ebert's Opinion: Ebert's 4 star rating indicates that 'Up' is a quality film. Note that by proving that 'Up' is a film of quality, I fulfill the terms of the resolution. Other Reviews: "Movie reviews do not determine whether or not a movie is good. There have been many reviews which give a high rating to poor films." High movie reviews typically indicate a quality movie. This point is rather self-evident. Light-Hearted Nature: "You forget that children's movies are also characterized by a light-hearted nature. That is a fundamental aspect of what we expect when going to a kid's film. We don't go there to be depressed about some aspect of life; we want to come out of the film feeling GOOD." 'Up' does not cause a feeling of depression, but rather a relief from stress. You are essentially weighing your personal opinion on this point. Ratings for Children: "Typical children's movies don't deal with things like infertility, death, depression, bloody cane-bashing, court summons, eviction, and negligent parents, among other things." This completely fails to counter the applicable ratings and reviews which I have provided. Relief: My opponent makes unwarranted claims against my statement. There is certainly a good deal of relief generated by the movie's events. Humor: Again, my opponent uses only personal experience, and a single, non-functional link, to counter my esteemed and popular reviews. Stress: And yet again, my opponent presents examples which barely qualify as warrants. It is clear from the numerous positive reviews, despite my opponent's poor experience, that the movie 'Up' is a movie of quality, affirming the resolution. Further, it is shown that the movie is humorous, and appropriate, once again affirming the resolution. Thanks for reading, vote Con. Humor:
Illegal immigrants should be granted the rights of legal citizenship

Illegal immigrants should mot be granted the rights of legal citizenship. And why should they? They come into the United States and want to be treated like a citizen, but they are not. If they come to America searching for a better life, than wouldn't it be better for them to become a legal citizen anyway? If they come here illegally, than why do they deserve the rights of legal citizens? Yes, they do deserve human rights, but not the benefits of being a citizen of the United States. They do not pay taxes, they do not deserve the benefits of our educational systems, our roads, our public buildings, anything payed for with taxes. I invite anybody to agree or refute this.
abortion should be illegal

I accept you feel this way. It's also very humble of you to accepted that it's not illegal. There is no singular 1st round, as this is also the last round. For something to be considered 1st , something must follow. Your reasons for abortion to be classed as illegal are none. If you have no reason for it to be illegal. Let's leave it. The reason I believe it should not be illegal are . Geese fly south for the winter. If you think this fact will not be affected. I would be happy to agree with u
A business should not be forced to pay for maternity leave because pregnancies should be planned.

Pregnancy can be avoided 100% through birth control or abstinence. It's not an injury -- a pregnant person didn't accidentally fall on someone's penis. Therefore, it's an irresponsible act that puts the company at risk by having to hire another person to replace the mother during their leave. Why should the company pay twice? The employee *had* job security until they decided to have irresponsible sex. You still have yet to address this fact. And regarding social services and taxes, why is paying for a new mother's welfare any different than cheaper universities and hospital beds? Universities are for creating more intelligent people and hospitals are for creating healthier people. The keyword here is "people". You want taxes to go towards people but don't want to them to help pregnant mothers? Why not? They aren't people? Again, the issue here is not the pregnant person's source of income, it's the burden of generating income. The burden should not be on a business since the sole purpose of a business is to make money and they can't if they're spending it on someone who is doing nothing for the business in return. That is how business works: you work, you get paid for it. It's the pregnant person's burden to find another source during their pregnancy if the business does not offer paid leave.
A business should not be forced to pay for maternity leave because pregnancies should be planned.

The point does not stand. How a pregnant person receives an income is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the burden should be on the employer. I don't believe it's fair to put that burden on the employer. A person is hired to perform a task, that is why they receive an income from the employer. If they're not performing the task anymore, the business cannot be run. Not only does this hurt the business but it's literally a breach of the original employment contract in the first place. If the person were to plan the pregnancy from the beginning, they could discuss a paid maternity leave option ahead of time and avoid the whole problem to begin with. An accidental pregnancy, on the other hand, is (as I stated before) irresponsible behavior occuring in the employee's private life which has nothing to do with the business. Why should the business have to pay for that? It's a mistake that the employee will have to figure out how to live with. Perhaps a solution is having the government step in and provide an income, and in fact that is what many people use welfare and unemployment checks for. I'm not sure it's the best solution, but I know that it's simply irrational and unfair to ask an employer to pay for the employee's mistake.