BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Android based Phones are greater than Iphones

My opponent has no comment on my arguments, so I would like to extend them. My opponenet has also not defended any of his previous arguments, and so they are basically dropped (of course, he may bring them back up, but I request that if he does so, he does it next round and not the 4th round, as last rounds should be left for summarizing, not arguing). I will continue by addressing my opponent's new arguements. "1.Files, Files...Files" All I have to say to this is, "there's an app for that." While it is true that the iPhone cannot download files directly (such as word or excel) by itself. There are many apps, ranging from free to $9.99 that allow you to download directly from your computer, from a web-based cloud, or from an e-mail. Part of the reason for this is because Apple is not Microsoft, and so is not standard compatible, but it is simple to make it so. That means you are left with only the minor inconvience of downloading an app. "2. Themes" Themes are also available for the iPhone 4 [1] "3.Widgets" Widgets are just an alternative name for "apps," as a marketing gimmic to sound different. But even so, with the Incredible's lower battery life to begin with, wasting energy on making things appear "cute" does not seem very wise. Now if the Incredible was brimming with battery life to boot, I could see wasting it on dancing icons and things that actually rain to let you know that it is raining. But until the battery life lasts longer than your average work day, energy-inefficient methods of displaying information are not positive traits. "4.Wi-fi hotspot" The iPhone has actually been able to do tethering since the iOS 3.0 (2009), it was only AT&T that prevented it, as it was allowed to do it in other countries. Since this debate is meant to be between devices, and not the service plans that they are on, this point is moot [2]. I look forward to the next round of the debate. [1] http://www.mbtheme.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Android based Phones are greater than Iphones

Thanks you for your argument. My opponent seems to be well fitted for this argument. I have no comment on the argument that my opponent has made, and I wish to disregard the App store because I feel as if it is to big of a topic to be disused. Although there is one more topic I would like to throw in is Things you can do with the phone. And I'm going to veer away from stats for a short while. 1.Files, Files...Files. As you see this topic you many think what am I talking about, well I am talking about the ability to download actual files off of webpages to use on your device (not apps)(1). This is useful when going into a no wi-fi zone or not able to get internet connectivity at all, you can still work on your work files. 2. Themes I'm not talking about backgrounds i'm talking about things that actually change the way the input view of the phone may look. Themes are great for a person who looking to customize there phone and make it more attractive to use and they can come in handy with utilities.(3) 3.Widgets These are some of the most helpful things that can be used. Not only that but they are live. I mean this because the widgets actually move like if it was snowing outside the weather widget will display falling snow flakes(3). Also large calendars that are open and can be easily accessed. These are one of the key factors when you think about the features of the two phones. 4.Wi-fi hotspot The IPhone does not have this capability unless it is tethered with so that it can distribute wi-fi to to other tech. items. This is also a very nice feature when using the phone because you can use the wi-fi from your phone to give to your laptop and other things. I know that my points are not to long but they are sweet and get to the point I would know like to have my opponent to the rest of the second round. (1) http://www.pcworld.com... (2)http://android-themes.net... (3)http://www.androidtapp.com...
God is real.

Thanks Con for that response. I maintain that the god of heliolatry is real. Con has a question for me: "Do you believe that the sun has a mind and is consciously controlling the universe?" My response: I doubt that a mind could exist in such hot temperatures, I mean, even metals on god are gases. Besides, my deity doesn't have to control the universe. My deity needs to be the focus of our worship in heliolatry in order to qualify as a god in this debate. As far as I can tell, Con concedes that god is real. Con mentions: "We don't have any differing views here, we simply refer to the sun differently, you call it a God and I do not." My response: We don't have any differing views? Ok, so then god is real, and we don't have any differing views here. To me, this is a concession that a god, the sun, is real. Therefore I affirm.
God is real.

Ok, thanks Con for this debate.There were no definitions provided for the terms of the resolution in this debate, so I shall supply my own.god - a deity.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...real - actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact.http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...I affirm that god is real, but I also feel like I should explain the particular god in which I believe, antithetical to what you may read in my profile, because my definition of god was not very expansive.You see, I'm what people call a heliolater, because I practice heliolatry by worshiping the sun; the sun is in fact the deity in my religion.heliolotry - worship of the sun.http://dictionary.reference.com...Con clearly has some issues with this:"I believe that the concept of God is false, mainly because of a lack of evidence."My response:You may be able to look outside, up into the sky, and see god right now...if not, wait 12 hours or so; he'll come back.But Con demanded evidence within this debate, so here's what I got. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov... I have felt god's presence and influence, every time I've gone outside on a godly day.God is observable by anyone/anything on earth that can detect god's radiation; we orbit god, it provides us with light/radiation, and god's radiation allows plants to produce food so that we may eat plants and enjoy their oxygen.So I affirm that god is real.
Private vs public. Which is better? Pro-private, Con-public

Are you willing to pay for everywhere you go? Govenment wouldn't stop collecting taxes and you will have to pay even more for companies to use what is now public places. Govenment will lose autonomy because capital would stay in companies not countries. Again, poor countries will broke because the money will be taken by rich country companies and spend there. Just see China, they grow their economy 7% per year, that's a lot, but they use labor work and their public system is very bad. Because companies take the money and don't invest there. And taxes for govenment also doesn't help population. Another argument is corruption. Imagine how much money they will get only with corruption. Get Russia for an example: when they opened they capital for companies they sold it by a very low price. Who bought it? Mafia. That what moves the capital in Russia. If you thing World Cup in Brazil had corruption you'll see in Russia 2018. And companies don't care about the employee. If he/she is demanding too much or isn't working they just fire him/her and contract another person. There are few laws that combact this kind of action. I'll never forget the day that my father was completing 25 years in Nokia, they didn't make any celebration, none congratulations. He just asked for more money in the sallary (because he didn't got any in that year) and they didn't give him. He quit and the company don't care. He was just a number from many many more, and 25 years is not little, it's a lot. Saying this the companies can refuse service in determinated areas that won't have profit for them. Imagine how periphery would get without public systems like health and shools. The criminality rate would grow insanely high. Another point are crises. How do companies and government don't break in crises? Because of the State. It takes out from the monetary reserve that every country has and put this capital on the market.
Private vs public. Which is better? Pro-private, Con-public

Of course you need government for some things, military and deploy act for starters. But a private business would have to lower prices to compete with others. And they would have to provide service to justify those prices. If a business owner is mean to customers, they won't go to that store. So in order to stay open he has to treat customers kindly. The same with prices. This also includes prices. If you are charging what the customers think is an unfair price, then they will scout for lower prices at a rival business. So you have to keep your prices within a reasonable range. This also includes employment. If you treat your workers badly and/or pay them a low salary, they might leave and work elsewhere. Then your business won't grow and you can't open new stores. The only way companies would grow is if they worked hard. Look at Wal-Mart and McDonalds. They didn't get worldwide overnight, it took them several years. If McDonalds sold bad burgers and Wal-Mart was rude to customers, they wouldn't be here. Any business that the government monopolizes the private sector can do better. In a government industry (like the TSA), workers are rude and intrusive, the lines are long and move slowly and they waste money. Remember the "puffers" that the TSA spent billions on? They shot puffs of air at you and were supposed to detect bombs. Now they are gone (turns out air can't detect bombs). The TSA spent millions more getting them removed and destroyed. A industry like that would never survive on the market. But still the TSA is here, being funded by tax dollars and putting hiring ads on pizza boxes. (Turns out not too many people enjoy working there). And the worst part is, they can't fail because government won't let them. If they go broke government bails them out. A safety net like that would never exist in the private industry, because the decision of "will this business succeed" is determined by the people.
Private vs public. Which is better? Pro-private, Con-public

The country shoud not be only all public but it musn't be all private also. Imagine that you will have to pay everywhere you go, to the park, walk on the street. Public bathrooms would still be unclean even paying for companys to use. Another thing is that if you put a country in a private way the counpanies will control the money of that country, meaning that government would loose control, because they will not have the power to control things inside something private. Saying this the poor countries would brake because the money will be controled by private companies. But in this kind of country the companies are foreign usually from USA meaning that USA would control the money and that country.
Private vs public. Which is better? Pro-private, Con-public

When it comes to public vs private, public looses badly. Think about the public places you visit. Parks, for instance. In public parks, there is often graffiti, vandalism and litter. Think of the restrooms at public parks. Unclean, smelly and heavily vandalized. In the publicly owned park, everybody in a sense owns it. It's easy to not take care of it. Not in a privately owned park though. It's more pleasant and clean. Almost the exact oppisite of a public park. That's because a person owns it and has to pay for it with his or her own money. It turns out that when you have to pay for it, you take better care of it. The bathrooms are clean and graffiti free. There's nicer benches and other sceneries too. Parks are just one example of private vs public. So why not privatize more? Well more people would, if not for public's biggest champion, government. But is the public government better than the private individual?
Abortion

I do not mind if anyone votes Pro because of that. However I did not start this debate so I could add a win to my stat column. I started this debate so that hopefully I could change some minds. So despite the confusion in the first to rounds I hope to place forth my case as well as possible in this 3rd and final round. I will argue purely against my opponents four premises. P1&P2. "Human life gains moral value when when Human life gains moral value when consciousness is obtained, and/ or pain can be felt" Three years ago I was in a high school football game. I went out on a fly passing route and was clipped on the side of my helmet by the free safety of the opposing team. I was out cold. I was unconscious for 3 minutes and I was put on an ambulance to go to the hospital. When I was knocked out consciousness was not present, neither could I feel pain, but we would all acknowledge it would be immoral to have killed me on the spot. And while, yes, everyone knew I was going to regain consciousness, everyone knows that if you give a fetus time to develop in the womb and en birth it, it will gain consciousness and feel pain. P3. If my rebuttal to P1&P2 stands then it doesn't matter that the fetus is in the first or second trimester. During your argument you first stated that a human life loses value when it loses consciousness and feeling of pain. Then throughout your argument you mainly quoted pain. "Also, first and second trimester embryos can feel absolutely no pain once so ever because pain receptors are required for this. " This is because fetuses are conscious through week 10. [1]Now you are arguing purely for killing living humans just because they can't feel pain, since the fetus is conscious. My friend Bethany has no feeling in her left arm. She was born that way. It would still be immoral for me to cut off her right arm because it doesn't feel pain. Just because something doesn't feel does not mean it loses its worth. (P4) Even according to your own argument, a portion of abortions are immoral, so I am wondering if you would support making it illegal to commit an abortion in the third trimester. If so, what if a woman wants to have an abortion one day before or after the 3rd trimester starts? What about minutes or seconds after the 3rd trimester starts? Woman's Right to ChooseI completely agree that a woman, as well as a man has every right to do whatever they want to with their own body. I even agree that humans have the right to drink, eat, and smoke whatever they want to and the government has no role to play in humans personal lives. I believe all humans have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fetus also has the same rights. The fetus is a separate being to the mother. It is dependant on its mother just like an asthmatic is dependant on an inhaler as well as an infant is dependant on its mother. The mother has no right to infringe on the right of the fetus. [1]. http://www.eheart.com...
Abortion

Law does not define terms. By what you are saying if the government made murder legal then there would be no murder. There would still be murder, it just wouldn't be prosecuted. I would like it if you actually argued the issue that is at hand instead of trying to jump on a technicality, in my first sentence. For you I will restate my opening argument. I am arguing that abortion is the immoral killing of another human innocent life. It is not the choice of the mother to decide whether or not the fetus is aborted. I am sorry for my confusing opening statement but I hope that you will continue a serious debate on my restated argument.
Abortion

This debate was suicide for my opponent from the get go. Con wants to argue that abortion is an unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another (murder), and that a decision making abortion more lawful than it already is, should be overturned. mur·der/ˈmərdər/ Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation. [1]My opponent's position is incoherent. This is because, if Roe v. Wade exists, then abortion cannot be unlawful (Roe v. Wade enhances the lawfulness of abortion), and therefore it is not murder. On the other hand, if abortion is murder, then Roe v. Wade wouldn't exist, and therefore, it being overturned would be impossible. Vote Pro. Sources[1] . http://oxforddictionaries.com...
E v. C

The proposition under consideration is: "Resolved: It is more likely, based on the evidence we have, that the currently accepted cosmological paradigm (including evolution) is close to correct than that the YEC position is correct. " "Equally likely" is agreed on by both debaters as an incorrect answer, thus, BoP is shared, and Con is expected to establish the greater likelihood of his case, and Pro is expected to do the same. "More likely" in this case is, essentially "has more rational basis". Neither side will be expected to give an actual probability here; we're discussing which one has more rational basis to be called "closer to the truth" (with the understanding that the scientific paradigm has room for change and correction, while the YEC paradigm does not). This debate will focus primarily on Evolution vs. Creationism, but since we're talking about Young Earth Creationism, Con has more to establish than simply a greater likelihood of Creationism; for the purposes of this debate, the only major other proposition that Con is expected to defend at the outset is the Young Earth one; due to the nature of Young Earth Creationism's conflicts with what is considered to be the scientific establishment, however, other issues may come up in the course of the debate. It is understood that Con holds the bible to be inerrant, in keeping with the philosophy posted in this link: . http://creation.com... However, no truth value is assumed in the debate without further evidence, though Con may be held accountable for any inconsistencies with that premise. Both sides are encouraged to be as concise as possible; I've set this debate up with plenty of space, but we all know folks get bored with walls-o-text. Having established these rules, I'll let Con go first to establish the preliminaries of his case; Con will leave the last round blank to equalize.
Legalizing Prostitution

Having other resources other than prostitution to earn money would be ideal. It should not be the fallback option for young girls when every person has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In brothels, there is abuse and threats that prevent the girls from leaving the brothel if they choose something else. If they choose prostitution, they will most likely not get out of it until the men decide that the women are not physically appealing anymore. Again, damage to self-esteem and overall usefulness throughout society goes down. If anyone really wants to help these people, they should open poor houses rather than legalize prostitution.
Legalizing Prostitution

The mentality of prostitution generally comes from a dead end situation. It is quite unlikely that the prospect of prostitution will become luxurious. For example, despite the fact that it is not illegal to become a stripper, it is still considered an extremely unappealing work place, and what governmental law does not address, cultural and parental law tends to make restrictions upon career that are only broken if someone is at the end of the rope and have no other options to turn to. The idea that more and more people will turn to prostitution after it's legalization is very similar to the idea that more and more people will become working class because of farming being legal. Of course, it is likely that more people will turn to prostitution due to its legalization, but these people turning to prostitution would be otherwise homeless without anything else to do in order to support themselves.
Legalizing Prostitution

We should also address the morality of it. If prostitution is legalized, more and more young girls will have access to, for example, brothels, and use their bodies to get money from older men. The idea that they are the ones who give to men and get paid for it may appeal to younger audiences and cause an increase of prostitutes. What goes along with this is self-esteem issues. These young girls will begin to believe that their only potential is through sex and the better it is, the more they will get paid. This mentality is damaging.
Guns DO kill people, as do knives, bombs and hands

The problem that you are having is the not understanding the argument. Weapons do kill people, they are indeed an extension of the person, whether with intent or on accident, but a tool the DOES kill none-the-less. Is this it's intended purpose to kill people, i would say that is another conversation altogether, as many guns in the past have been created for the absolute purpose to mow down as many people as possible (ie. Gatling Gun). Let us close up this argument from the Pro end stating the following. When a Medical Examiner gives the cause of death, the answer is very seldom death by person, more likely it is loss of blood from GSW, loss of blood due to deep lacerations caused by a blade, etc. I understand your thought on if there was not a person controlling said weapon, it could not strike on its own, but the comment was guns do kill people, not Guns on their own with no assistance from people controlling them kill people. Simply stated, Guns cause deaths, therefore they kill
Guns DO kill people, as do knives, bombs and hands

Intent is the largest factor when it comes to killing, and here is why. Can a gun kill something on its own? Without being held by, or its trigger pulled by, a human? We would agree that guns are useless unless used by someone. Whether it is the tool used is irrelevant. This is seen because the same intent can be accomplished by the use of any other tool, such as a baseball bat. Would we then claim that the baseball bat killed the person? No, the person holding the baseball bat killed the person, as the baseball bat was not required in order for that intent to kill to be demonstrated. Pro's argument is semantics. Whether or not guns are the tool used does not invalidate the argument above. As a matter of fact, it confirms it. Guns are not necessary in the killing of another, thereby meaning they cannot be held responsible for that killing. When answering the question of what kills people, it is far more accurate to state that people kill people, as guns cannot communicate intent.
Guns DO kill people, as do knives, bombs and hands

Intent is indeed a matter to address, but the logistics of this statement is guns kill people, as a weapon that a person with intent uses. Guns kill. Should we pull out statistics on all wars, let alone mass or school shootings? I think that would be an unneeded smattering of articles on the present life we live. The majority of gun deaths (as well as knives, bombs, etc) all have intent as precursor, that is not being argued, but intent does not change the fact that the "tool" used is the what killed you. In your example you stated, that it was you who gave me food poisoning, which would be true since you were the wielder of the "tool", but it would also be a true statement to say that hamburger I ate gave me food poisoning. Was it the hamburger's intent - of course not, it is non-sentient, but at the end of the say it is what made me ill. Much like the weapon of choice was what ultimately killed me, because intent alone cannot cause someone's death, thank the maker.