azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

Apple is the world's most valuable brand, and the Apple devices are the easiest and most efficient.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

With reference to computers, Apple is better. Apple computers are the best.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

I think that samsung is better because it is more popular and it has high rated mobiles and laptops with top easy apps and more experienced.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

Samsung is not more popular than Apple .
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

Actually I'm not to sure. If you check this link out here you will see that Samsung is actually leading in sales in comparison to Apple. This makes the argument that Samsung is more popular than Apple valid.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

That is true - but Samsung has only beat Apple now recently. If we only look at late 2013-14 Samsung might be the winner there. But apple has sold 150 million iphones in 5 years, while samsung has only sold about 120 million (wikipedia sources)
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

True. However I was expected that the verse was phrased in presnt tense, as in the current status of things. As of now Samsung is the ruling company. Do they have more success that Apple in the past? Most likely not, but their past moves have set them up to get to where they are now. I do hold my stance that Samsung may still be more popular, and I will hold that notion until present information convinces me otherwise.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

I asked you about who is better not about who is more popular than the other , but also i think Samsung can be more popular in few years .
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

I'm currently in China visiting a friend of mine and we have been to Beijing and Hong Kong Along with many other areas along eastern China and I have yet to see a single apple product. Everyone here has a Samsung or a Huawei phone. I don't know where you live but maybe it's just your local area where apple is more popular.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Apple

I disagree you when you said Samsung more popular because everyone know that Apple is more popular than Samsung ,but I think Samsung can be as popular as Apple few years later .
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

Because it is simpler and easier to use and does not need to complicate
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

It have a wonderful App and Games ,,, also it have a better look
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

I think we think the same thinking .
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

Samsung is better, because it is easy and good for anything .
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

I like Samsung Galaxy s5 .
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

Naah (IDK)Samsung is mach better than apple because it has many features and u can download free apps
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

I like Samsung because there many games and apps that you can download in you Samsung
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

Actually samsung is the one who like makes the chips of apple and samsungs phonea and tablet too. Also on samsung devices, you can open the cover to see whats inside but apple devices cannot, Ex. If my I pad or iphone's speaker was broken (like mine) I went to an apple store. The staff said the only thing we could do is to get a new ipad or get a bluetooth speaker. They said that because they couldn't open the ipad, if they did, it would've broken the ipad. But the samsung you can see whats wrong by opening the cover and fixing it. Samsung also has various sizes and new devices of samsung are constantly coming out. Apple doesnt have various devices. Have you ever gotten confused on which apple device is which? No, but ive gotten confuses on which Samsung device is which. And the samsung devices have a return button and a setting button. Does apple devices have that? No, they only have one botton on the bottom, the home button.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

Apple was fine until the new guy came in. They're changing the headphone jack so you can't use regular headphones anymore. You have to buy Apple so they make more money.
Debate: Is Apple better than Samsung ?
Side: Samsung

Apple has some issues like the usage of original headphones microsim specs of iPad are like shit that's why I bought a Samsung tab S it's awesome n faster when compared to iPad air or retina display.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

We should, and we must, if we're ever going to see electric vehicles become mass-produced, with a network of charging stations. Battery-powered vehicles have been around for a hundred years, and modern batteries have capacities to fulfill most commuter needs.However, the patents to these batteries have been purchased by the oil industry (Chevron et al), and our tax dollars instead being diverted to Hydrogen Fuel Cells and other vaporware.The California Air Resources Board passed legislation to this effect, and it was fought tooth and nail and eventually rescinded.I think if we ever hope to see an electric vehicle, it will have to be done by force, as the interests of industry are too entrenched and moneyed to overcome otherwise.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

Any way to see what patents have been bought by chevron et al
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

The US Patent Office site doesn't seem to have functionality to allow you to search by current patent owners.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

You see more and more electric cars everyday. The government isn't forcing use, it's just that technology has advanced enough to where batteries are becoming more powerful and cheap.As an example, Toyota and Honda recently cut their battery prices in half.Furthermore the incentive to go electric is already there. According to electric producer Tesla Motors, running their new electric car will cost about one cent per mile driven. Compare this to well over 20 cents to run a gas car.As battery prices drop, electric cars will become an accepted form of transportation. No government incentives needed.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

Every day? I haven't seen one yet. Tesla and those are nice, but far out of price range. What happened to GMs EV1, or Toyota's RAV4EV ? They're certainly not being sold or mass-produced in America. Most Americans don't even know they exist(ed).
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

Simply type in the word 'Electric car' and you'll see many in development.In other words, you see development plans more and more every day. Some of these cars are coming in for under $20,000. One group out of Europe Think, expects to sell over 80,000 electric vehicles in the next two years.From Cnet.com...Project Better Place, Agassi's organization, will try to build 500,000 electric charging stations in the country, according to the organization. At some these stations, attendants will swap out depleted batteries and put in fully charged ones. This saves the several hours typically required to charge a lithium-ion battery pack made for cars. (You can also charge the batteries at home.) Renault-Nissan, meanwhile, will ship electric cars to the country in three years or so. Ultimately, the company hopes to ship 10,000 to 20,000 a year.Just because you don't see electric cars by you doesnt mean that there are huge development plans for them. Nissan even plans on selling an electric car in the US by 2010. You can be sure that because of higher gas prices, this car will be advertised and talked about.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

That's all well and good, but you failed to address what I actually said.you're talking about things that are still in development. We HAD all of that already. Have you looked up info about the EV1 or anything of the sort?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1 It's nothing that needs to be developed. The technology and implementation already exists. It's just buffeted at every turn (at least in the US) by groups who have financial interests in other technologies (petroleum).Watch 'Who Killed The Electric Car', then get back to me.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

What battery technology was the EV1 using? Lead-acid batteries.What does that mean? They got 55 miles per charge. Why would the masses convert to a car that can't go further then that?You're right, we did have inferior technology that led to an impractical electric car which couldn't be driven during the winter time in cold places. But it wasn't practical until the new generation of batteries hit the market.My point is that the EV1 didn't advance because of two big reasons:1. They were not practical at the time. These cars first got 55 miles per charge and, once improved, 150 miles per charge. 2. Gas prices were low. There was no big incentive for people to get away from gas.Today we have a very different picture. Being 'green' is a massive trend, oil prices are ridiculous, and new battery technology is leading to safer batteries, with more capacity, and that weigh less.Electric cars are garnering far more attention today than in the late 90's. And all it took was higher oil prices. That's the free (yet manipulated) market for you.P.S. As far as what GM did to the EV1, it was the BIGGEST mistake they ever made. But I don't think they killed the car because of 'groups wiht financial interests'. I believe they killed the car because they were making huge margins on gas guzzling SUVs and trucks at the time. Now that this isn't possible, they are trying to cover their ass by putting out the Chevy Volt (four passenger series Hybrid which goes first 40 miles on battery).
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

Battery cars are plugged in and get power from coal and nuclear powered electric plants. The choice becomes, do you want pollution by gas or coal and nuclear?
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

The concept of an electric vehicle has been around for ages(around the 1830's[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#History  ]), but has not progressed on to be overly available like gas cars today. For this reason the government should most defiantly intervene on some level to provide a foot hold for new cars that use all electric instead of gas. It's about time that we have some radical change to help change the way we use the planets energy on a daily basis, were just digging deeper and deeper in this anti-environmentalist hole.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

Well you may think that government should defiantly intervene to subsidize electric cars but I might wonder why the government would be defying anyone or why. Electric cars are in essence little cleaner than oil powered vehicles. In the end the increased demand for electricity will lead to only a slight lessening of environmental impact. Government should subsidize other alternatives to oil. Hydrogen and solar power both come to mind as excellent power sources. In the end both alternatives use electricity to power the vehicle, but when one refers to "electric vehicles" generally the image invoked is a rechargeable battery. With the advent of improved solar panels, thanks to new techniques (Link 1), solar power is likely to become a major source of electric power for vehicles and home use. However hydrogen fuel cells (Link 2), are just as promising and may in fact be a better alternative. What is just as likely is a combination of the two, using solar power to assist in the production of hydrogen; perhaps even from the water given off by the fuel cell itself creating an enclosed system increasing mileage significantly by reducing waste. Additionally hydrogen is a readily available resource and is easily renewable through many, many different methods as hydrogen is a byproduct of countless processes. In short I do think that the government should provide funding for alternative fuel sources, but the projects funded should be more radical and far reaching than simple electric power.Link 1Link 2
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

Correcting your opponents spelling don't make your argument stronger.That said, Electric cars are far cleaner than petroleum fueled vehicles. Electric motors are much more efficient. Even if the power to charge them comes from coal plants (which have gotten much cleaner in the past couple decades). Hydrogen fuel cells have been tried many times, they're at least 40 years away.We've already got very good battery technology and commercially viable cars. We've got the ability to do it right now, but they refuse, and, like you, want to distract us with other things we can throw our money away on, rather than the solution at hand.Deduction? A solution isn't wanted.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

I agree that electric vehicles should be subsidized, but I must draw issue to your claim that "electric cars are much more efficient."Any time energy is transformed to a different type of energy, some efficiency will be lost. In a gas-powered car, the burning of gas directly powers the engine. One coversion of energy = only one place where efficiency is lost.Electric cars, on the other hand, go through a ton of steps. Coal or some other method is used to create mechanical energy, and efficiency is lost. Then, mechancial energy is transformed into electric energy, and efficiency is lost again. Then the electricity is transported often thousands of miles away, and the resistance in the wires causes a loss of efficiency. Also, there is efficiency lost as this electricity is transformed several times into high voltage and back to low voltage. Then, the electricity must be coverted into a battery, and the chemical energy of the battery converted back into electricity; two more steps where efficiency is lost. Finally, the electricity must be converted into mechanical energy - a process which, by itself, may be more efficient than a gas powered engine. But not when you consider the twenty or so steps the electricity has to go through.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

I submit that when you consider all the steps from natural resource to locomotion, more energy is required for petrol cars. For instance, only 1% of the energy used by a car is to transport a single occupant. Watch this simply brilliant talk by Amory Lovins http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/ id/51 .
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

OK, I am man enough to admit that you and the other guy totally dogged me. Thanks for the info.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

To add to what Geoff said, how do you think the fuel gets to all those little combustion engines in the first place? Big trucks. Big trucks getting ~5mpg driving from refineries to all of America's gas stations, which the consumer must then drive to in order to get use. With a single source, you've got all the pollutants controlled without relying on the efficiency of millions of participants. See the link for better info than I can give you :P
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

Electric cars haven't progressed because the power capacity of older batteries simply wasn't there. In fact, until the Lithium-ion battery, capacity to drive long distances on electric cars was simply unrealistic.Furthermore, battery technology hadn't moved forward in years. It was just until recently that battery manufacturers began realizing the demand high-capacity and fast-discharge would have due to hybrid electric vehicles.Because of this, you will see major advancements in battery technology and mass adoption should follow suite.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

Incentives are generally better than penalties and alternatively-fuelled vehicles need a considerably greater allure to increase uptake. Subsidy should take the form of a reduced tax burden on manufacturing and maintaining greener vehicles.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

Yes! I want one of those kick ass new elec carz. How can I wit no money? Gov wantsa biuy me one Good!
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

If you don't have money, why should I (through tax dollars) help you buy an electric car? Why don't you get a good job, save money, and buy one yourself like every other responsible individual? Heck, that's what I have to do.If the government begins susidizing electric cars, why not subsidize homes too. Why not subsidize flatscreen TV's and bottled water while you're at it? Government subsidies just distort true supply and demand. They try and fix one problem but only cause others. Look at corn-based ethanol. They subsidized ethanol and now corn is 200% more expensive. Mexicans rioted last year because they couldn't afford the tortilla's which are a staple of their diet.American subsidies distorted the true supply and demand fundamentals of that market. They tried to fix a problem (dependance on oil) and caused another one instead (more expensive food)
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

God forbid tax dollars are used on something that will actually benefit the citizens. Alternative energy is extremely important for all generations and social classes.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

Not worth my tax dollars? what, like subsidies for auto makers and oil companies? or maybe we shouldn't spend tax money on clean air and water.of course, it's a pointless venture, because electric cars run on electricity that comes from.......oil, coal, gas, and nuclear power anyway.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

Nuclear aint that bad. France gets over 70% of their electricty from nuclear and are doin just fine.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

I think this technology is superb but looks like old aged cars and Electric cars have been around since the mid-nineteenth century and they continue to be unable to occupy more than a tiny niche. http://www.carsadvisor.net/usedcarsforsale/used_cars.php
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

I think the U.S. Government should subsidize so the momentum can swing in full force to get the consumer to invest in an electric car.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

The increasing global focus on sustainability and reducing carbon emissions has led to a growing interest in electric vehicles (EVs) as a viable alternative to traditional gasoline-powered cars. To incentivize the adoption of EVs and accelerate the transition to cleaner transportation, governments have implemented subsidies and financial incentives. In this debate, we will examine the arguments for and against government subsidies for electric vehicles, considering their potential benefits and drawbacks. - drywall hanging
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

I think the taxes should be spent more wisely on public transportation than on privately owned electric vehicles. Or, if they are to cheapen vehicles via tax revenue to stimulate the market, they should do it with something more worth while to everyone involved, the bicycle.They are cheap to manufacture, cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, and have been proven time and time again to be one of the most efficient modes of transportation ever created. Calorie per mile spent is less than that of any other mainstream means of transportation. It is also healthy for you, but not physically demanding on joints. America would have a win win situation if they did this... too bad people are too stubborn to try something old.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

Instead of subsidies I favor mandatory emission standards. If the only way to reach them are electric cars, the industry will have to build them.Also, make gas really expensive and invest the money into research.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

That is exactly what the California Air Resources Board mandated. An increasing percentage of vehicles sold in California were to be zero-emissions vehicles. Lobbyists from the oil industry and automakers fought it until it got killed.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

So why exactly are you opposed to it?
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

Alternative fuels and car technology is advancing fine on its own. Costs are also always getting lower. In other words, it doesn't need to be subsidized.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

The first electric car came out almost 2 decades ago, and you're trying to say that it's advancing fine?
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

Alternative fuel doesn't specifically mean ELECTRIC. I don't think we're doing all that well though. If you look at the problem, and I mean really look at it... how dependent we are on fossil fuels and how complicated all of this is, I don't know how we could ever walk away from this mess without having a train wreck.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

Yes I do think we are doing fine. The "first" isn't a good judge of progress, because often the "first" of things is just a prototype and is created when there is little demand for it. There are primitive batteries dating back over 2000 years for example. 20 years ago buying an expensive inefficient electric car would be stupid with the gas prices at that time. Only in the last 7-8 years has there been a really strong incentive to get quality electric or hybrid cars on the market at a cheap price. In that we've been awesome. So awesome that hybrids are as affordable as most regular midsized cars. Other technologies are growing too. GM is producing a great and affordable hydrogen car for 2013, mostly in response to recent concerns over gas prices and pollution. That is stunning response time.
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

What if electric vehicles turn out to be worse than gasoline ones?
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Yes, or it will never be done

what, like electric pollution?
Debate: Should government subsidize electric vehicles?
Side: Not with my tax dollars!

Not "electric pollution". Lithium (the primary type of battery used in electric cars) is extremely hazardous to the environment, its not recyclable, it just ends up in landfills.The only way to "recycle" it is to make it into meth... and I don't think we need any more of that in the world