BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
who can quote the best quote

this is a fun debate/game that my friend did (Sam). so this is how it works each person posts a quote. there will be do arguing of quotes. you do not have to name the author. it is optional. People will decide who has the best quotes in there opinion. This should be fun and anybody who likes this or knows of another fun one. feel free to e-mail me about even if it is a serious topic. Ok so lets begin. "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never Know what you are going to get." Forrest Gump
Standards of professional behavior ought to be valued above freedom of expression....

I would like to Cross Examine you first by asking, Define John Locke's Social Contract, Explain and elaborate on your first contention and here is my arguments to make it sort and sweet V- Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights C - Promoting freedom of expresion skyrockets teens confidence 1- Freedom of Speech 2- Tinker vs. Des Moines made this possible 3- Professional behavior is not for teens
iPhone vs android

The camera on the iPhone may bet better, however the iPhone does not have One issue the iPhone has is that it does not support flash, Android does. SO when you are going on the Internet on your iPhone half of what needs to load cannot because flash is not supported. The Android does support flash and allows for everything to load. "Web surfing on Android has the potential to be a total game changer. I now realize that I was totally brainwashed into thinking that not having Flash on my iPhone and iPad wasn't a big deal. Boy was I wrong. I can't tell you how many times I have been surfing the web on my iPad when I ran into a site that didn't load completely and I took out my Atrix to view the site. It's a huge difference." Source: http://articles.businessinsider.com...
iPhone vs android

Android may have had its issues in the past, but it is more reliable in other senses. We find that Android has a better navigation system. The iPhone has a lack of navigation-support in the UK on Apple's Siri. Even the co founder of Apple states that "this is extremely disappointing." Also the navigation system for Android comes free with the phone, where as on the iPhone you must buy the seemingly similar GPS product for 100$. In a test the iPhone 3Gs TomTom navigation system was placed against Androids Google maps navigation's system. In the test one result that was concluded to was that they came to run into errors with the iPhone, and not the Android device. " We encounter several GPS signal failures during our drive with the iPhone 3GS. These occurred mostly in narrow alleyways that obstructed our line-of-sight to the sky.The Droid, however, made no corresponding complaints about loss of signal at such points, and kept on navigating without interruption throughout our test." Source: http://www.knowyourmobile.com... http://www.pcworld.com...
iPhone vs android

Reliability. The Android is much more susceptible to freezing and lagging. Apple as done a great job in minimizing the errors and issues in the software. "While the more recent builds of Android have become a lot more stable and reliable, they still don't match iOS 4 or previous iPhone firmwares. The iPhone operating system is just so solid and stable and reliable. It very rarely crashes or freezes up and it's just straightforward. I find with Android that while it may be quicker at times, it tends to freeze up a lot more than the iPhone OS. Even with the most recent Froyo 2.2 edition of Android, it still freezes up on me and I know i'm not alone with this. Android also seems to be plagued with error messages of failed processes which Source: http://www.shoutmeloud.com...
iPhone vs android

Although the iPhone may have more selection of apps, the quality of apps is better in Android. For starters even the co founder of Apple, Steve Wozniak, believes that Android is better than iPhone. He himself owns one. Steve claims that the Google or Android operating system has that of an iPhone beat. Specifically in voice dictation, Wozniak believes that Android has better voice commands built into the phone. He says that "I have a lower success rate with Siri than I do with the voice built into the Android, and that bothers me." Source: http://www.knowyourmobile.com...
iPhone vs android

To Begin one reason the iphone is a better choice is the apps. According to an article by Wilson Rothman on MSNBC.com, "Apple has a commanding lead over all other smart phone platforms with 230,000 and counting in the App Store. But Google's Android platform now claims 70,000. " The amount of apps and the wide variety of apps available to the user is certainly advantageous. In this aspect, the iphone certainly takes the win.
Gay marriage should be legalized

The con topicality argument was let go in round 3 thus meaning he shouldnt have been able to bring it back up if we are following policy rules. However as i stated he accepted it as "topical" when he accepted the debate thus meaning he is not allowed to aregue that i am breaking rules. its like going to a bank after deliberating it and then complaining about it being unfair. He agrees with me that everyone is created equal thus meaning there shouldn't be discrimination. He has also let the religion arguments HE brought up drop. Silence is complience thus meaning it becomes the pro's. And with "Soverty"? im pretty sure you mean popular sovereignty which was used in the days of slavery and look where that led, To a civil WAR. We can't afford fighting ourselves right now. And his argument of gays not being able to reproduce there are plenty of children open for adoption. They can choose to adopt or they can use surrogates. There are plenty of options available. With this i can only see a pro vote. Note: Thank you all the debaters out there who took the time to read through all the arguments we have made on this topic. Please vote and/or leave a comment
Gay marriage should be legalized

1st of all I thought @ 1st the plan text was gays in military obvesly communication is not thing. 2nd NO PLAN TEXT means no topicality and with topicality being the most inportant item in debate that is flown to me. 3rd yes everyone is equal. 4th gays can't reporduce, its like tryin to stick 2 magnets together at same end they reject. 5th ever heard of soverty its when the people of the state choose the law well obvesely the people don't want gay marrage
Gay marriage should be legalized

In the last argument all he states is that it is not a purely legal debate and that not allowing gay marriage is not discrimination. However this in essence is not an argument he is floundering for things to use against this. He does not have any concrete arguments which is why he switches every single round. Throughout this debate i have carried the main ideas i have presented and refuted his arguments. I have not treated this as purely legal however. I have considered the extra legal options as well however their needs to be a law in place in order for this to be accepted by the court. States have legalized this in the past and it works. And as your definition is a union between a man and a woman then all that needs to be done is change it to a union between two people. With all this in mind i once again would like to recall you to the key points of this debate so far for each side: Pro: All people are created equal Everyone has the inherent right to marry who they love And responses to the topicality, Military, Religious, And legal arguments presented by the Con Con: Gays will rape soldiers in the military (has not argued since refuted) not topical because no plan text (has not argued since refuted) Religion prohibits (did not argue in last round) Not Legal With this it is plain the Pro wins the debate
Gay marriage should be legalized

Since this debate involves issues of what the law should be, a large part of this debate will necessarily involve the use of extra-legal arguments. This isn't to say that existing precedent and case law is irrelevant, only that it is fallible and not the final say. Pro seems to treat this as a purely legal debate. However, a debate on how the law should be will have to involve arguments of an extra-legal nature. This is why courts commonly solicit the testimony of expert witnesses and use amicus curiae briefs. Equal Protection and Due Process are Irrelevant Conclusion: "So, the state's granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is based on the nature of marriage and does not constitute unjust discrimination. The state grants a license to do X only to someone presumptively capable of doing X. It is no more unjust discrimination to deny marriage licenses to couples of the same sex than to twelve-year olds, to those already married, or to polyamorous groups of three or more sexual partners: in each case, the license is denied simply because the individuals in question are unable to form with each other the kind of union that marriage is." [7] This is because marriage, properly understood, is between one man and one woman. As I have argued, only the conjugal conception of marriage is able to justify the state's involvement in marriage. I eagerly await Pro's counterargument. Sources: http://www.debate.org......
Gay marriage should be legalized

"For this reason, I will simply say that yes, it is possible that Gay Marriage must be legalized in order to uphold some arbitrarily selected morality, but legalizing it would not uphold all morality." the con stated this in their last argument... he has given this to the pro in stating that it will uphold some morality, Is upholding 0% morality better than 2% morality? furthermore this is not a policy debate thus meaning topicality? this is not pertaining to this debate, even if it does he accepted it as being topical by accepting the challenge. Furthermore in response to all your bible arguments here is one for you Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Does not this mean you should not attempt to decide who gets to be punished based on the gifts they are bestowed with? We were given free will. It is not the place of humans to decide if it is wrong for us to believe that the one of our most primal instincts, love, is wrong if directed toward a member of the same sex. And your example of the KKK is not moral in any way shape or form. Is it our place to say that just because you are different we can string you up, beat you, light you on fire, and hang you from a tree? So who cares if the KKK's "morals" aren't upheld when there morals would set us back from our beliefs that EVERYONE is created equal
Gay marriage should be legalized

1st you have no plan text so the neg wins on topicality, so therefor noone should trust your agruement T is apriori. The Bible speaks out against being Gay: Romans 1:26-32, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. " Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. " An abomination is anything that is disgusting to God. Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. " When speaking of something so highly subjective as morals, I believe that it is impossible to objectively classify one system of morality better than the other, as it is said in Latin "De gustibus non disputandum est". For this reason, I will simply say that yes, it is possible that Gay Marriage must be legalized in order to uphold some arbitrarily selected morality, but legalizing it would not uphold all morality. To prove this, I present the KKK. Their morality would not be upheld through the legalization of Gay Marriage. Therefore, I conclude whilst Gay Marriage might uphold some morality through legalization, it would only uphold a single morality, not morality in general. Gay marriage doesn't need to be legalized in order to uphold morality. Even though it might uphold some thoughts of morality, some standards of morality can be held up without it, meaning that is needn't be legalized to uphold morality. Morality can't be definitively proved, so I think I win.
Gay marriage should be legalized

when did the military come into this? This debate is over whether or not the institution of marriage should be extended to the gay populace. In response to your argument that they could rape other soldiers there are women in the military too. everyone stands a chance of being raped but the mojority of people are not because of the fact that most people have morals. Further more the Bible NEVER says all homosexuals will go to hell. That is a myth based primarily on the NIV mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 plus the modern Christian mis-interpretation of Revelation 22:15. Those are the most often used verses to teach that homosexuals will go to hell. Fortunately for saved homosexuals and unfortunately for those who use those verses against us, the verses do not teach or imply that homosexuals will go to hell. Every homosexual - gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people - will go to heaven IF they trust Jesus Christ as their Savior. I Cor 6:9 and Rev 22:15 describe pagan worshipers of the fertility goddess, not born again gay men or lesbian women or bisexuals or transsexuals. Teaching that homosexuals will go to hell based on 1 Corinthians 6:9 occurs because many Christians misunderstand the Greek word, arsenokoitai. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai)," 1 Cor 6:9, KJV "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai)" 1 Cor 6:9, NIV So no where does it specifically say that being gay is a sin. And once again, think about it. Do you not want your descendants to be able to marry who they love? Sources: http://www.gaychristian101.com... and pure common logic
Gay marriage should be legalized

In this debate sources may be cited however it is not a requirment unless you are stateing facts. All other statements may be pure logic. My argument is as follows The United states constitution declares all men are created equal. This statement has been branched to include men of different race and women as well. However One major group has been left out. The gays and bisexuals. When you have children and they grow up don't you want what is best for them? don't you want them to marry who they love? They can't if they are gay because their is no law in place for it. With this I propose we legalize gay marriage so that all men are created equal as is stated in the constitution. About 3% of males and 2% of women are gay in the U.S. the total population is about 312,701,764. 5% of that is about 15,635,089. Thats 15,635,089 people who can't get married. Thats a staggering statistic if you ask me.
The President Should Be Able To Be Removed By Popular Opinion

Ok, I"m gonna stop you right there. This is not just an argument about Trump. This is an argument about all presidents past and future. Say if when Obama passed the gay marriage laws he got over half of the population to oppose him. Then they could impeach him for supporting civil rights. Same with ending segregation in the 60"s. When you focus on one isolated incident an impeachment vote seems preferable, but you have to look at the full story. Refuting one of your arguments, we can also reform voting to allow all people to vote. Also, I support less power to the President, but an impeachment vote is NOT the way to do it. This takes too much power away from the President. This turns the office of President into a puppet for the majority. If the majority wants to strip rights away from the minority, the President will be forced to do that. And THAT is why we cannot allow the impeachment vote. It strips the rights away from the minority, and nobody wants that. Did there reasons, we cannot allow the impeachment vote.
The President Should Be Able To Be Removed By Popular Opinion

Alright first off lets get one thing straight forget the president most people thought he was going to do the right things the things he said he would do but guess what he"s a lying piece of shid didnt he say he was gonna build a wall? Yea wonder when thats gonna happen its been a year already 1/4 of his presidency term is already over and half of his prpmises he made are still in the gutter im still searching for when they are going to come true this isnt a scooby doo mystery this is America the people have the right the people have freedom the people deserve to be heard its not the fault of the people that they were gullible enough to believe in Trumps crap but now that they see hes a lying wise guy they should have the right to get him impeached for his shid the people to deserve to have the right to have the proper official in office not one whos gonna "TRY" and make a press conference regarding the school shooting in Florida. NO! You are the president its ur job to address the nation immediately not try calling off a golf game for it no step up and be a leader its the peoples right and choice to chose the president during election and they made an honest mistake he may have helped the nation in many ways but overrall he only appeals to the minimum amount of people not the majority of people because the majority of people in the US dont vote because they cant and people dont see that. Either way if u were taught properly in school ud know the people dont even have a voice because the votes that matter are only those of the selected people chosen to research the canidated and pick the best fit for office and those people can be bribed and we wouldnt know. The real citizens of the US deserve to have a voice and if they feel the president isnt fit to be in office then we should be able to have him removed by popular vote because we want a true leader who isnt gonna make more problems with other nations or start bullshid in our own land we want a true leader who is going to take charge and action the right way
The President Should Be Able To Be Removed By Popular Opinion

I am against the idea of impeaching the President via a vote due to the simple facts that the impeachment vote could be easily gerrymandered for political gain, even more than so now, that the people cannot be trusted with this much power, and that the voters will be largely influenced by partisan bias. First, according to Politics and Policy, voting districts are redrawn every ten years, but by the majority party, allowing them to use this power for political gain. This is called gerrymandering. The New York Times claims that North Carolina recently was ordered to redraw their voting districts because of abuse of this power. However, that was illegal racial gerrymandering, unfortunately, partisan gerrymandering is still legal. his proves politicians have both the ability and the drive to gerrymander. Imagine what gerrymandering could do with this much power! Second, Americans are so stupid that they cannot be trusted with this power. Radical ideologies like Flat Earth, anti-vaccine, anti-evolution, and anti-climate change are all based primarily in the U.S., and online, I met someone who said Judaism wasn't a religion and evolution was! The Pew Research Center recorded that only U31; of American adults believe in evolution via natural selection, and Gallup proves that only 23% of American adults could locate the U.S. on an unmarked map of North America. When the U.S. was colored in, respondents answered with locations ranging from "Iraq" to "The Shire." Imagine how bad they scored on European and Asian maps! Only U37; of Americans can locate Ukraine on a map, showing incompetence when it comes to important and potentially dangerous situations such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine. All in all, Americans are incredibly incompetent and cannot be trusted with this much power. Finally, political bias is so rampant that an impeachment election would be easily decided and unnecessary. Nearly all supporters of popular impeachment put the line for impeachment at U32; for the removal of the President, much too high for a biased society like ours. According to the Pew Research Center, only 33% of registered voters are not affiliated with a political party. This means Democrats (38%) would need to sway nearly every Independent (nearly impossible as my next piece of evidence will show), and Republicans (25%) would not have a chance! But wait, there's more! Vox reports that politically extreme channels like MSNBC and FOX sway voters. Without FOX, Vox claims that John McCain would have lost 6% of the popular vote in 2008, and Trump would have lost without the assistance of FOX. All of this shows that our population is riddled with political bias and an impeachment vote would just waste more of taxpayers dollars. To summarize, an impeachment vote is completely unnecessary, biased, bureaucratic, gerrymanderable, and gives too much power to the people.
should museums be free

I wanted a quick debate anyways. The title states "should museums be free." However in your round one, it says you think it should be free to YOUNG people which is kind of contradictory saying that only people under 18 should go there free as you defined young people as anyone under 18. Here are my points why I think no.Point 1: How would they make money? If museums were free how would they pay their employees and pay the bills? The government? Where does the givernment get money? Taxpayers. Why waste perfectly good taxpayers money in a capitalist country where private agencies own most businesses. Private agencies ussually don't care unless it would be a good investment so they aren't going to give money to the museums unless there is a big sign outsides flashing neon orange saying "Kept up and running by Mr. Almighty Inc".Point 2: It should be only for 13 and under.I've been in many places where there is a certain age before you have to pay. I have not seen one place where it is free for under 18. Usually under 3, sometimes under 7, even less under 13, but never once under 18. When I go someplaces I end up paying an adult ticket because I'm over 13. By your teenage years a lot of that "free" kind of blows away.Point 3: Let the museums decide.If it is a privatly owned museum, let them decide how old you are until you have to pay. Imagine if you are a museum owner struggling to make a meager profit and now you ldon't get money you get from people between the ages 3-17. To you!