BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Apple Mac is better than Microsoft Windows

I will start off this round by first addressing my opponent's arguments, then moving onto making some of my own. My opponent starts off by saying that Macs cant get any popup attacks, viruses or any sort of threats. However, this is not true. In fact, there are viruses out there for the Mac, for example one called OSX. RSPlug. A (. http://www.macosxhints.com...). The only difference is that Macs get far less viruses because most of the world uses PCs. Therefore, most virus creators spend most of their time creating viruses for the PC/Windows. However, if the amount of users using Macs increased, the amount of viruses would as well. Next, my opponent has said that Macs are easier to use, freezes less, and has way more features. All this is unwarranted, and he provides no proof for this. So disregard this point for now. Finally, my opponent says "Trust me. Mac's are better. " However, this is false and I will show through my case that this is not true. Just before I start my case I would like to mention that when I refer to a PC, I am referring to a computer that runs Microsoft Windows. My case: CONTENTION ONE: COMPATIBILITY AND GAMES Currently, the largest selection of games can be found on Windows. The most of the new games that are being released are for the PC. This is true because of the graphics that are available on the PC and the compatibility of Windows. This may change with Mac trying to incorporate new graphics cards and gaming systems, but currently the PC has much more games. As well, with the large amount of users using Windows the software out there is mostly compatible with Windows. CONTENTION TWO: HARDWARE AND CUSTOMABLENESS Another major point that you can make for windows is that you can choose your own hardware. By this I mean that you have anywhere from a $200 computer to a $2000 computer. However, with Mac you are tied into a limited product range with one manufacture. As well, with a Windows operating system you can change the desktop theme, wallpaper, task bar, windows style and font. With a Mac you cannot do this. CONTENTION THREE: SECURITY My opponent briefly mentioned that Macs get less viruses. This is true. However, a recent research report by Symantec's revealed that Windows had the fewest security holes and turnaround time for patches. This means that all the security claims of Mac being the safer OS is not true. Even though Windows may have had more high risk holes, the faster patch turn around time means they are quicker to fix such problems. Link to the article discussing the study . http://news.cnet.com... All this shows why Windows is clearly better than a Mac.
Apple Mac is better than Microsoft Windows

Ok, I've been a Mac family for years and i can tell you they are a MILLION times better than Windows. Now it also depends on your career. If your a designer or graphic head manager. Mac is for you. If your a businessman then Windows is for you. But if you are a 12-year old kid looking for a virus-free good time, Mac is for you. Mac's can't get pop-up attacks, viruses, or any sort of threat. Mac's are safer and easier to use. Less freezes and WAY more features. Trust me. Mac's are better.
Are Christians Against Women's Rights

My Opening arguments: - The ten commandments are widely accepted as the founding stone for Christianity's moral code but, has parts of it that depict women as possessions [1]. - Statistically men are less religious than women [2] yet in the church system there is no hierarchical gain for women at all . They cannot become priests cardinals, patriarchs, bishops [3] etc. and are more often than not left to doing things like funding, teaching the children and tidying the church. Yet females are more likely to be faithful to God than males [4]. [1]Exodus 20:17 (I belive - it starts with "You shalt not covert thy neighbours....") [2] http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org... [3] http://www.catholic.com... [4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Are Christians Against Women's Rights

Some things to keep in mind- Old Testament/Book of Law -Used to tell history and how everything was created. This book was used to tell us about things were at the very start of life. Please know that, christians, no longer have to follow anything in this book as it was fulfilled by Christ.Christians follow the bible. The bible tells the story of humanity, from the beginning of creation to the end times. It also follows the teachings of christ and shows us how he lived a sinless life. Jesus teaches us to do right and pray for the evil. Jesus teaches us to love our neighbor as ourselves meaning we should treat everyone as we wanted to be treated.
The Constitution should be upheld above the teachings of the Holy Bible.

I'm sorry but your point doesn't make any sense to me. Isn't the point of laws in America to keep the majority happy? But I don't think that laws should be made for the majority. Like I said above, I believe laws should be based on logic and reason. In the end this would probably make the majority happy. And there is no true morality, there's the bibles version of morality, my version, your version, and many other peoples versions. No two people have the exact same morality. Which is why laws should be based on logic, not the whims of sheep herders that lived a few thousand years ago. People should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. And actually, the Old Testament and the laws of Moses are to be upheld. Matthew 5:17 Don"t suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning. 18 Heaven and earth may disappear. But I promise you that not even a period or comma will ever disappear from the Law. Everything written in it must happen. The atheist and rapist argument doesn't make any sense either. The rapist could very well be religious. But you're not going to find a religious atheist. That's contradicting. Let me put it this way, if you were living in a country dominated by Muslims that you could not leave from. Wouldn't you be angered if you had to follow the laws of the Quran even though you don't believe in the laws or Allah? That's how the atheists would feel if they had to follow everything in the bible. According to the bible atheists should be shunned. On top of it all, this country was founded on separation of church and state. If we based everything on the bible the United States would pretty much be a Christian nation. And the founding fathers do not want that. And you say everything in the bible is ethical and it wouldn't affect anyone if we went by the bible. But what about homosexuals? They would never get the right to marriage. I don't see anything unethical about gay people getting married. It's not affecting anyone at all. And how would you like it if it was illegal for heterosexual people to get married just because the country was run by homosexuals and they didn't like it?
The Constitution should be upheld above the teachings of the Holy Bible.

Although it may be true that our laws didn't all originate from the Bible, our laws all originally coincided with the Bible. If law, by your idea of purpose, is designed to simply represent what the majority's interest is, then why have a law put into place? You cannot appeal to morality, a standard that is true and virtuous in any circumstance, while only putting law into place that reflect what the masses interests are when disregarding a true and ultimate moral standard. That exemplary law of children being executed is in the Old Testament, a law that was lifted after the Resurrection and the world was brought into the New Testament. The only new laws that remain are the ten commandments and other things are insinuated to be evil. The only thing that your example of the slavery passages proves is that the Bible acknowledges slavery, not condones it. In no place does it encourage it, but rather offers a good way of living for a slave, as it might offer a good way of living to a child under a parent's home or an employee to an employer. To ask whether an Atheist in America should be made to abide by Biblical values is like asking whether a rapist should be made to abide by Biblical values.. both are contradictive but neither are harmed by abiding in Biblical values. If the law was Biblical law, the only laws put into place that would be wrong in themselves would be universally applied to today. There is no need to update the Bible, even though you say it is outdated. The mere advance in technology does not change destroying or stealing property or sleeping with somebody's wife. All of it is either unethical or illegal.
The Constitution should be upheld above the teachings of the Holy Bible.

Not all things in the constitution originate from the bible. I'll admit it was the basis for most of the original constitution, but it wasn't all derived from the bible. And the reason laws need to be updated is because of changing times. Values are changing constantly and so is technology. As these things change the laws will also need to change. For example the bible doesn't say anything about computer ethics. Honestly if we were to use the bible as a constitution many things would need to be changed. There are some very good rules to follow in the bible. But there are also very horrible things. For instance, I don't think anyone feels that children should be killed for cursing at their parents, or that slavery should be legal. And what of all the atheists or people of other religions living in the United States? Why should an atheist have to follow laws that are pointless to have just because all the Christian people think that's the way it should be? I feel that laws should be well thought out and based on logic. Instead of just following very old scriptures and not even questioning why you follow them or if the laws are even important.
The Constitution should be upheld above the teachings of the Holy Bible.

The basis of the idea of having a Constitution is simply having a set of doctrines that are universally true and uphold all principles that the Constitution advocates. All ideals upheld in the Constitution originate from the Bible and if we want t a society true to ethic and principle it should maintain truancy to the Bible. You say that the Bible would not apply to today's circumstance, well I put it to you that "Thou shalt not murder" and "Thou shalt not steal" and every other law in the New Testament still applies to today, even if it takes a little denotation. There is no need to update the Bible, and the Constitution is outdated in its necessity to always be updated with amendments.
The Constitution should be upheld above the teachings of the Holy Bible.

While I understand why you hold your opinion, I must disagree. In many areas things that last longer are better. But I do not believe that this logic applies to the major laws of the United States. My main reason is that the constitution is just and subject to change. The bible is not flexible and still holds the out dated beliefs of people that lived three thousand years ago. If we feel that something in the bible is wrong we can't just remove that part of the bible. But with the constitution if something becomes out dated we can make an amendment.
The Constitution should be upheld above the teachings of the Holy Bible.

This is an easy one. Most logically minded people would understand that what lasts longer is better. The Constitution has only been around a few hundred years, while teachings of the Holy Book has been here since the beginning of time, 10,000 years ago. Now don't get me wrong. The founding fathers were very wise people. But they wouldn't have done what they did without the saving powers of the Holy Spirit and the Resurrection. E Pluerbus Union.
Free Trade should be Valued above protectionism

In our world theres no fairness in the free market. Removing taxes will open the barriers for goods from all the world to travel freely, you propose that the countries should focus in the good they can take more advantage of(alaska and its oil for example) but is not as easy as that;there are no equal countries with equal conditions: the facts of resources available, internal political issues, and even and location can affect them. Lets see the resources; not all countries have the machinery to produce in mass what they could, alaska can focus on its oil; it would be a great provider to the USA, it is close so it means less cost on transportation, alaska could replace other oil sources that has more cost due to transportation(venezuela for example), now they lost a major buyer. The renewable capacity is other factor, the nonrenewable(diamonds,gold) are easy to sell thanks to their rareness, but hard to obtain, and countries that focus on then(most of african countries) have to face that soon or later those goods are going to dissapear, and the money they invest in machinery would be wasted as there no machines able to create diamonds or oil. The actual political situation is a determinant factor on free trade, most countries in the world, including first world ones, have to deal with inflation and depreciation isn't a determinant issue for strong countries, but in the third world countries it actually generates a barrier, the high inflation of some African countries makes for them impossible to compete in a global market, with high cost and low earnings who can? the concept of free market is based on a non-existent equality.
Resolved: God is loving

First off, to answer the question the con posed, Resolved is the adjective of the noun resolution. And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. Romans 8:28 God is loving. In this first round I will present the logical reasoning behind this conclusion in a two point format. I will call these points, contentions. Contention 1: God cannot be un-loving. We are mortal, no one can deny that. We do not think on the level of a God. I need no proof for this, because if there is a God, we are not that God. Now, if we are not an all-powerful God, than our standards are irrelevant. If a piece of plastic tells its maker that he is in sin, what proof does it have. Did the creator not create you? Is the creator not god? By very definition God MUST be loving. God is love, and the second he becomes unloving, he becomes un-God. Why is this so? Because if God is unloving, that means it is not his standard that proceeds. It means someone else out there has a standard that is more powerful than God's. If someone has more power than God, he is not God. God, by very definition MUST be loving; nay, must be love itself. Contention 2: There is good. Human kind is evil. Murder, rape, theft. If man was good, why do babies immediately sin, and hate their mother. They cry, and look out only for themselves. Now, if humankind is evil, why do they do good. What reason is there for sacrificial love, and good deeds. It is because of God's goodness. God's goodness, can stem only from love. Now inevitably, my opponent will claim that God created hell and is therefore full of hatred and evil, but I must contest this. If God did not love us, why would he care. Why would he provide a moral compass? Why would he reveal himself in the Bible? Most importantly, why would he send his only son over two thousand years ago to save a wretch like me. God loves each of us, and it is my prayer that everyone looking at this will come to realize it.
This House Would Impose Democracy!

This democratic stuff is boring. >.< Anyhow, let's start off with the classic argument: 1. Equality and justice for all With democracy, everyone will have equal rights. Equal voting rights, equal participation. They'll elect the best politicians in their mind, and the population will obtain the most effective politician. If the politician doesn't do very good, then next term, bam, a new and better politician! It's a flawless system; the best of them all. In fact, democracy is "the only form of government which upholds the value of political self-determination". [1] This self-determination is a right that should be given and not taken away. These people should be able to elect the leader they want, and be a check on abusive governments. 2. A more peaceful government There has not been war in a democratic government for 200 years as studies have found. This can be contributed to the people's "restraining opinion of war", and the checks and balances within the democratic structure. Not only so, democratic government have similar cultures and values. They all encourage diversity and individual rights. It would not make a lot of sense to attack a culture similar to one's own. Obviously imposing democracy on a non-democratic government would make democratic governments more friendly and welcome to them. That is not to say that the democracy is not friendly to the non-democratic governments. No--democratic governments are friendly to everyone. They have lots to lose--their people's support, their structure, their wealth--democratic governments most likely wouldn't take the risk. In fact, a study actually finds that democratic governments can create areas of peace. "Relations between democracies lead to the creation of zones of peace and security communities where the expectations of violent conflict between the units are virtually nil" [2]. Onto you 18Karl. [1] http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com... [2] Evans and Newhman, p.120 http://www.debate.org...
This House Would Impose Democracy!

Let's see now....the score's 1:1 (well, technically 1:0, but only because Krit agreed to a tie before I conceded). Krit defeated me in a greatly passionate topic, yet he played devil's and still lost to me in a communism debate. Today, we stand to defeat each other, in a topic that's exactly the middle--I'm not passionate about it, and he's not devil's advocate! Who will win? Will I finally beat the unbeatable 18Karl? Will Krit/karl finally set the score right and prove that he is a better political debater than me? We'll see!Democracy: "government by the people; a form of government in which thesupreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by themor by their elected agents under a free electoral system." source: http://dictionary.reference.com...If you begin round one, then leave last round empty. If you don't start round one and choose to merely accept instead, then you can have last round for arguments.
Morality is Not Universal

First I would like to restate what it is that we are debating about. In the first round I said: "Throughout this debate I hope to prove that morality is a matter of opinion and view rather than a distinct idea that all human beings have to abide by or else they are forever labeled immoral and wrong." And in round three: "Which is what we are debating, whether morality is a term that can be used universally and accepted with the same ideas in mind." With that said I will once again respond to my opponents arguments and then enforce my own. 1. My opponent is trying to make the argument that no human being is superior to another and if they think that they are then it is their responsibility to prove that they are and why they believe it is so. But, that is not what we are debating. It is if the idea of morality is universal or not which he fails to address and with his statement "If another human believes that he is superior to another human, the onus is on him to prove that to be the case. You can look to science to see that every human is basically the same. They may have different ways of interpreting morality, but that doesn't make anyone superior to another." He admits that people have different ways of interpreting morality which is agreeing not all people have the same views; which declares that it is not a universal idea or concept. 2. Once again, his argument is based upon the authority of a person and whether or not they can prove it. With my point of ethnocentrism I was making the argument that people can believe that their ideas are better than another persons whether it is conscious or not and in the 3rd round my opponent even proved my point by saying that it is wrong to kill people when I brought up evidence that says that other people think otherwise, which proves the argument not everyone has the same idea of morality as well. Therefore the key concepts of morality such as killing cannot be defined as universal if others think differently. 3. My argument stands strong that morality is not a universal idea or concept because 1) Different people have different ideas and definitions of morality depending on what group, religion or society you are apart of. 2) It is ethnocentric to believe that morality is universal since you believe your idea of morality is superior.
Morality is Not Universal

1-"I believe that my opponent is attempting to make the point that humans may not think they are superior to other humans and that they have no right to hurt others or to believe killing them is not immoral. Which is his personal belief and view as to what morality is."If another human believes that he is superior to another human, the onus is on him to prove that to be the case. You can look to science to see that every human is basically the same. They may have different ways of interpreting morality, but that doesn't make anyone superior to another. That being said, it seems to follow that if every human is equal, no human has the right to harm or kill another human. It is wrong, because you are harming another human's life which you have no right to do. If you believe you have the right to harm another human, it is up to you to show why that is so. Otherwise, it is safe to say that because everyone is equal, then killing another human is wrong, because it is not your right to decide who lives and who dies.2-"Saying that it is only logical to believe that you should not and cannot kill a person and eat their flesh is saying that that idea is superior to any other."I did not say that it is only logical to believe that you should not and cannot kill another human and eat their flesh, rather, that unless you (when I use you, I am using it hypothetically, by the way) can prove that you are superior to every other human being, then it logically follows that you cannot decide who lives and who dies, and you cannot decide that it is perfectly ok to kill another human and eat their flesh. You are their equal, you have no power over them. Again, unless you can prove you are superior over other humans, you are logically their equal. 3-Reaffirmation of my pointsTo reaffirm my points, I will again state that it is demonstrably true that all humans {1} are equal, through use of science. No human has any claim to power or dominion over any other human. If one believes otherwise, it is up to them to prove so. Because every human is equal, no human has the right to decide which humans can live or die, and therefore, cannot kill another human, for whatever reason, cannibalism included. Because of this, the moral statement that killing is wrong is true, whether or not one believes it to be true or not. This isn't my belief, rather, a logical conclusion. I respectfully urge a con vote.{1} Human-"a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)"-http://www.merriam-webster.com......