BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Androids are better than iPhones.

Mobile is one of the best products of Science which are not only cheap but also useful. So the one who owns it should get best out of it. IPhone cannot give that much benefit as Android mobiles can. I would like to tell first that I am not an "Apple OR iPhone hater" but I find Androids better than iPhones. Firstly, the iPhones have a high price at its launch. It is too easy to find a product with better features at a very cheap price. For Example:- In India iPhone 6 Plus has a price around Rs. 50,000 whereas Samsung Galaxy S4 has better features and costs around Rs. 20,000. The second major thing is that iPhones don't have an extendable memory,i.e, they don't support Micro SD card whereas almost all Androids have the feature of extendable memory. When you buy an iPhone, you're stuck with as much storage as you decided to buy at the get-go. Most Android phones, however, have a micro-SD card slot, so you can easily and cheaply buy more storage space. IPhones don't offer choice. Every year a mobile is launched and you can choose only between them whereas there are many products with Android. Almost all apps of iPhones are paid and are priced high. These apps are very important and are of daily use. So a man owning iPhone needs to spend much money to buy these apps. Androids, in comparison, have mostly free apps and one need not waste much money on apps. Android doesn't care where your music comes from. Apple and iOS 8, however, require iTunes if you want to load your iPhone up with songs, and you need iPhoto if you ever want to get your photos onto your computer. If your battery starts sucking in Android phone, you can usually remove it and replace it with a new one. You can't do that with an iPhone. Generally, Android's visible file system is amazing. When you plug your Android phone into your computer, you can see a file system just like the one you'd work with if you were searching for something on your computer. It's as easy as drag-and-drop. Apple doesn't give you that kind of access to all your files. When you have an Android phone, your notifications are always shown at the top of your screen, which makes easier to remember what you need to check and respond to. Now its all to my opponent. Thank You. Waiting for my opponent's reply. If anyone is in my favour, do vote for me.
Androids are better than iPhones.

Androids are better than iPhone. Anyone who thinks the opposite can debate on the topic with me. And all those who find Androids better may vote for me. The first person to accept the debate can debate with me. Waiting for a better opponent but the world knows Android is better than iPhone. :) :) :) :) There would be 4 rounds. Round 1 is just the introduction round. The true debate starts from Round 2 and lasts till Round 4.
IAmNotMe of BlogTV is a hot chick

>We cannot exactly see her weight in the 1 video leading to her, in which she is making obscene noises and exaggerated movements with her mouth. Of course, I believe it is an exaggerated expression. > in which she is making obscene noises and exaggerated movements with her mouth. >obscene noises >exaggerated movements with her mouth. O.o' From what I heard, she sings the 'ABC' song upto the letter 'G' or so then starts screaming and moving her mouth in weird manner to the right. Not very charismatic nor obsene in my opinion.... But... what the hell, dude? Do you find her "hot" or is this a bad joke? That's F'ed up man. I insist you click on the link in the above round. For the greater good of the all the little girls in the United States, click it noaw!! Thank you. The girl has my condolences.
IAmNotMe of BlogTV is a hot chick

I am not attracted to her sexually, and, for obvious reasons, this is but a joke debate. I should have said it earlier, I apologize. I did not click the link, however I assume it leads to something illegal. We cannot exactly see her weight in the 1 video leading to her, in which she is making obscene noises and exaggerated movements with her mouth. Of course, I believe it is an exaggerated expression. For debate purposes, I will explain the term "hot" and "chick" as intended. Hot - adjective, an attractive person/object. Chick - noun, a term for a woman in her youth, possibly into middle-age, and rarely old age. Once reviewing the website you added, [http://thomas.loc.gov...;] I did not see anything pertaining acting upon "feelings", however that is simply a summary. ~ I apologize for any flaws in the argument, and I hope that you may post your rebuttal soon.
IAmNotMe of BlogTV is a hot chick

Ty I accept. IAmNotMe video; http://www.blogtv.com... photo; http://www.debate.org... >Equal symmetry of the face, exact not needed; - Ideal symmetrical shape as a commentable quility... not really. It appears her zygomaticus mustles are a tad unequal (see her smile approx 00:18), she also has a fringe. >thin nose wanted but button nose is good; - Yes >pale skin; - Well, if you mean white, Yes >dark brown eyes; - Cannot be seen. >skinny; - No Not uncommonly lean. http://www.google.co.uk... -> 'Hot chick' - moaryouknow hot - sexually excited or exciting - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... chick - informal term for a (young) woman - http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... The way you termed the debate title infers you (or one ought to) become 'sexually excited' when you see 'IAmNotMe'. Just so you know, acting on any feelings you may have towards her is void of US law under Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 1974 [http://thomas.loc.gov...;]. If you still do wish to act on these feelings see this: http://imagefap.com... (DON'T DO IT, SERIOUSLY, DO NOT CLICK)
Is the IPad Pros size appropriate. (12.9 Display)

"Great for movies and projects." I agree. Of course having a larger workspace is usefull for making a movie. I don't think Con would dissagre with me if I said that this is the audience that Apple wants to sell this iPad Pro too. Not to people who want to play games, but to people who want to use it as a kind of competition to the Surface (a tablet-computer made by Microsoft). Thus, the size isn't unnessesary, as it is marketed for a different purpose than the other iPads: it's for profesional use (the tablet is called the iPad Pro). In conclusion, the size is not "totally unnecessary" as Con would have you believe. The size make this tablet marketable to the professional field. It's a lightweight, moble competetor to the Microsoft Surface.Con?David_DebatesI understand this can be interpreted as an advertisement for Apple, but this topic requires it. I recomend you read the advertisement for the iPad Pro to understand thier selling points.http://www.apple.com...
It's time to bring back invalid carriages

I will show why my points still stand then refute what my opponent has said."the fact is that most of us who live in traffic-clogged cities have seen perfectly able-bodied people get in and out of cars parked in spastics' spaces.Furthermore, invalid carriages are the perfect solution tom the problem because they instantly identify the driver as a legitimate user of disabled parking bays." My point about them not being a viable solution to the problem still stands, and is actually re-inforced because these cars will not be able to function in "traffic-clogged" cities. They go well under the speed limit, and don't have traction control. These cars wouldn't last a minute on the streets of London, which means that the handicapped parking spaces will always be empty, and they won't be used by any one. The owners of these cars will be dead in a ditch buried in a grave of a crumpled plastic car. Furthermore a car without a proper parking badge is almost as identifiable to a law officer as a invalid carriage, so if the former still is not enforced I don't see why the latter would be. This means that perfectely normal cars will be able to go in handicapped spots without much fear of having the penalties. Plus, people are jerks. They will always park their car in handicapped spaces out of slothfulness. This goes to show that invalid carriages still won't solve the problem of cripples having their parking spots stolen. Refutation:"What all this means is that if some malingering motorist masquerades as a mutant in order to exploit the cost and parking benefits driving an invalid carriage bestows upon its owner, he will soon be crippled, even if he wasn't before." The moral issue that this leaves, and I think all reading this will agree with me, is that cripples are unwelcome, unwanted and unsightly, so we must never encourage of facilitate the disease known as disabilitiitis. Pro's arguments really support and encourage promoting people to become crippled (out of desire for a car) and to continue being crippled (because the invalid carriage leads them into accident), yet being cripples are not desired members of society. A last point about it being societies burden to help cripples get around is false. Most people own cars before they are crippled so they should be allowed to continue using those cars, society should not have to provide them with a dangerous car that sustains their crippled state, leeching further money from the economy. Societies duty is to help make these cripples normal again, not sustain or glorify their unsightly disability.
It's time to bring back invalid carriages

Although the problem of normal people using handicapped parking bays may be not widespread in all parts of the world: parking spaces in general are clearly at much more of a premium in the congested streets of London, England or Riga, Latvia than they are in Deer Lodge, Montana or Karakorum, Mongolia; the fact is that most of us who live in traffic-clogged cities have seen perfectly able-bodied people get in and out of cars parked in spastics' spaces. Furthermore, invalid carriages are the perfect solution tom the problem because they instantly identify the driver as a legitimate user of disabled parking bays. "Most card misusers at one point had a legitimate claim to the card because of a temporary ailment. " To address the points my opponent raised let's first examine invalid carriages' safety features: * Automatic Stability Control * Traction Control * Anti-Lock Brakes * Airbags * Front and Rear Impact Crumple Zones * Side Impact Protection Bars None of the items above are available on invalid carriages, despite them being standard equipment on most modern cars. Furthermore, invalid carriages are made out plastic rather than metal which means the car's body provides all the protection of an ice-cream carton in the event of a crash. And that event will happen soon rather than later because invalid cars are deficient in wheels to the tune of one in comparison to conventional cars and three-wheelers, such as invalid carriages and Reliant Robins, are inherently unstable: as the embedded Top Gear video clip clearly demonstrates. What all this means is that if some malingering motorist masquerades as a mutant in order to exploit the cost and parking benefits driving an invalid carriage bestows upon its owner, he will soon be crippled, even if he wasn't before. Finally, invalid carriages are very heavily subsidised by the government, this is true, but isn't it society's moral duty to support the most vulnerable members of the community by providing them with cripple cars to enable them to get about? I think most fair-minded people would say so. Thank you. . http://www.youtube.com...
It's time to bring back invalid carriages

The widespread abuse of disabled parking schemes by able-bodied motorists means that legitimate holders of handicapped badges and placards often can't find vacant designated disabled parking spaces and are thus forced to hobble, limp or stagger further than they otherwise would to get to the shops. This didn't happen in the olden days though - until the 1980's spastics were only allowed to drive special turquoise invalid carriages, or "cripple cars" as they were known, and because they weren't fast or desirable normal people didn't want to be seen in them so, in practice, only genuine mongs used handicapped parking bays. Bringing back invalid carriages would solve the problem of unscrupulous motorists using fake or borrowed handicapped badges and placards to deprive people with restricted mobility of their specially allocated parking spaces, and I therefore urge you to support this proposal by voting Pro. Thank you. For infrormation on the invavalid carriage, please click the link below. http://www.virtualgaz.com... http://www.youtube.com...
More Guns Creates a Safer Society

This argument has bases in several points, however, the most prevalent is the fact that criminals will never comply with the government's laws. A criminal is defined as someone who breaks the laws set forward by their resident country, such as a bank robber or a hitman. If further regulations were to be placed upon guns, the common law-abiding citizen will be harmed by the laws, while criminals will simply disregard the laws, as they had previously with other laws. This point is nothing more than simple common sense. My next point is that guns, whilst in the hands of the law-abiding citizen provides safety, as the citizen can protect himself from both criminals and tyrannical governments. This can be seen in a comparison with the countries of Honduras and Switzerland. In the case of Honduras and Switzerland, both countries have, according to Google, a population of about eight million (8.081 million in Switzerland, 8.098 million in Honduras). In the Central American country of Honduras, gun laws are incredibly strict, whilst the people of Switzerland, after their mandatory military service, have their fully-automatic weapon converted to semi-automatic and given to them. As a result, Switzerland has a murder rate of 0.5 (rate is calculated of 100,000), while Honduras has a murder rate of 84.6 (the highest in the entirety of the world).
all belief systems are just false hope, and stories used to convey a good moral (more in argument)

"contention 1 they are being 'forced' by being scared into what to belive! " That's still not being "forced. " "mindlessly following others is wrong" Who said anything about anybody doing anything mindlessly? "but ther flaws of any belief system is enough to make it unmoral! " My opponent assumes that all things flawed are immoral. He does not support this statement at all. And at this point, my opponent snaps, and concedes.
all belief systems are just false hope, and stories used to convey a good moral (more in argument)

haha i sitll dont know why you we wasted the time here contention 1 they are being "forced" by being scared into what to belive! subpoint- i meant to also introduce the idea that mindlessly following others is wrong also (even though technically pretty much thinking anyhting should be wrong acording to me and, that everything is wrong) but ther flaws of any belief system is enough to make it unmoral! because i truly dont care, and have posted an un-winable case, that makes little sense and tastes like beef, i concide! haha? just remember to worship satan! hahahaha so how 'bout you vote in affirmation! or maybe not haha i can always make a new account. myspace.com/nicenightforanevening myspace.com/beastlyjizz myspace.com/thedutchmanstreasure
all belief systems are just false hope, and stories used to convey a good moral (more in argument)

Contention 1: My opponent claims that people can control another's free will, which is impossible. Subpoint A: 1. Where is the force? 2. "Without explanation of not beliving in anything"? Could you please explain this? Contention 2: My opponent is now shifting the burden of proof onto me. He has to prove that they are all false. I don't have to prove any of them to be true. Anyways, one belief system, Agnosticism, cannot be false. It is the belief that there may be a higher being. So, the resolution is impossible to affirm, and therefore, negated. "if any one belief system is right why do we all not follow it. " Because we don't know which one is right, apparently. Contention 3: Again, where is this "force" that you speak of? My opponent again makes an attempt at shifting the burden, and says: "and even at that if it is true, that it does not promote good through evil ways! " Since when does capitalism promote good through evil ways? Or Agnosticism? Or Christianity? Or Beardism? In conclusion, my opponent has failed to meet his impossible burden of proof.
all belief systems are just false hope, and stories used to convey a good moral (more in argument)

thanks bro for taking this nonsense case My oppenent misterpreted my first contention I meant that because they use "God's" power to gain control of a persons freewill or scaring them to do what anyone wants them to subpoint A it is wrong to force your child belief system to be your belief system, without explanation of not beliving in anything. contention2 i belive my that all belief systems are false i can prove this by asking a simple question, if any one belief system is right why do we all not follow it. and and to say that it is almost impossibly wrong, means nothing (and its not because "god" gave us free will) this means you would have to prove at least ONE BELIEF SYSTEM TO BE RIGHT! contention3 i meant the right context to be if the person is causing true harn to themselves or otheres there needs to be a forced intervention. but what people belive hurts no one, so it is immoral to force people to belive what you want them to. the overall point of this is to prove that this is at least one belief system that could be true, without a doubt. and even at that if it is true, that it does not promote good through evil ways!
all belief systems are just false hope, and stories used to convey a good moral (more in argument)

Thank you for instigating this debate. Contention 1: My opponent claims that because each belief system uses a different set of gods (even though all of the Abrahamic religions use the same God), they all must be false. This is false. If twenty different people tell me twenty different things, one of them might be right. Subpoint A: Does that mean that we should teach children that it might be okay to shoot your neighbor without reason? Didn't think so. Teaching another your morals should not require impartiality. Contention 2: This point relies on every single belief system being false. To actually have this point, my opponent must disprove every single belief system on this Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org... That's right. Every single one of the belief systems listed there have to be disproven. It has some of the obvious ones, like Christianity and Judaism, but it branches out into all sorts of nooks and crannies, such as capitalism, Beardism, environmental racism, atheism, and liberitarianism. With all of these belief systems, it is practically impossible for all of them to be wrong, because they all completely cover any political or moral compass. Contention 3: Just because some types of propaganda would be considered morally wrong, doesn't mean that all attempts to convince anybody must be immoral. My opponent's going to have to come up with a pretty flawless syllogism to prove this point. He then argues that scaring your family and forcing them to do stuff is bad, but he then says that it is okay in any context except this context. Unless he gives a reason for this distinction, this point should be considered invalid. In conclusion, all belief systems can't all be false, because they cover all the bases for every single conflict known to man.
all belief systems are just false hope, and stories used to convey a good moral (more in argument)

Today i hope to rock the foundation of your very lives! I am here to strongly affirm the point the all belief systems are just false hope, and stories used to convey a good moral agenda in an improper unmoral way contention 1 there are many religions that use "gods" overall power in fairy tales to conivnce you to belive anything they tell you. think about it really. if you lived a couple thousand years ago, and wrote some nonsense in a book, about a jealous, hateful, super being that promised and could deny you the greatest thing in the world, that being "heavan". and this was passed down through the ages, many people would completly belive it. and this proves that anyone could write a "bible" to convey his own agenda. this is because the fear within all humans, of not knowing. and even though it promotes healthy stable ideas, it uses fairy tales promote them in a very propaganda-esque way. telling those who dont not follow will not get to "heaven" creates fear in those who don not understand the very uknown of the universe. --subpoint A And doing it to children, the "weakest" most scared of all beings is immoral and wrong to force any ideal you embrace without explantion of any alternative idea, is wrong in a context. --contention 2 it really does bring upon false hope. imagine every day you wake up thinking an all powerful monster (god) was looking out for you. making sure you are okay and such, making people dependent on a myth. wasting hours in church thinking it brings them closer to this goblin (god). and when someone dies you think that you will be reunited with them, or in other cultures they are your cow! and the biggest reason this all happens is because you have been given false hope, and told to belive what your TOLD. and you and your "group" forcing or being forced to belive what you told, in a very aggresive way (without even knowing it) causes false hope example: a group of people and i tell a guy that if he doesnt yell ham every 36 hours, a mighty beast would banish him to the north pole when he died, and that if he did, he would get a to live be in florida and would be peaceful. and he belived me, thats very wrong. i gave him false hope. which is wrong --contention 3 even though they promote goodness, blinding people mentally, they could have found other ways to get people to belive these good morals. propaganda is moraly wrong. people could have just raised there familys, in a very moral way with elborate and intricate ways of forcing fake stories and crazy propaganda down there thoats. if you must scare your family, and force them to do stuff you are not in a healthy relationship with them (unless there doing meth and stuff do dont try to amke a point that sometimes it is very benifcial to force people to do stuff, unless in the context of this topic)